A DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES WITH CONDOMINIUMS, HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS, AND THE HOUSING INDUSTRY
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Contractual Community: Why Community Associations are not Governments
Saturday, October 25, 2008
When Condominiums Become Obsolete
What Determines the Lifespan of a Common Interest Development?
"Obsolescence” is the process by which something loses its value and relevancy usually due to being supplanted by a better product or changes in its environment. Several times we have written about our concerns for the impact of that process on common interest developments.
First, let's realize that the obsolescence of common interest developments, as with most man-made structures, is inevitable. It can't be stopped; it’s simply a matter of time. If you doubt that, ask yourself how many residential buildings that you know have lasted, say 100 hundred years or more. Look around and you’ll see only a few types of buildings that have survived the century mark--public monuments, and buildings that have historic or intrinsic value due to their unique location or architectural style. Most others have been replaced with newer structures...
Click on the title link above to read the rest of this article
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Who’s Responsible for the Crash?
Today we got our answer... “Alan Greenspan: Bad data hurt Wall Street computer models”
On March 2, 2008, we wrote:
“...We send our best and brightest young people to Wall Street to learn investment banking and figure out new ways to attract investment funds and enrich their firms and themselves. Usually, many are successful and the economy and the country benefit from this economic stimulus that creates capital for investment in new industry, thus creating jobs and purchasing power. So what happened here? Who were the “brains” behind this housing crisis? Which genius or geniuses decided that it was prudent or even smart to lend to people who could not afford to repay their loans and then use those loans as security for other investments? Wasn’t a crash inevitable under those circumstances?
The lenders and the investment bankers knew in advance that certain borrowers were not credit-worthy; would not have sufficient incentive to repay their loans; did not have the income necessary to meet the projected payments, and yet, in what can only be considered a mass delusion, made these loans anyway. Was it greed? That’s a tempting thought, but even the greediest money managers can sense a disaster in the making and find ways to avoid it--perhaps like not making the loans in the first place? No, that would be too simple. I think it’s more a case of a lot of professional people who were too used to believing in the infallibility of their decisions coupled with the pressure to churn out enormous profits to keep their positions intact. A form of “greed” to be sure, but way more sophisticated, at least on the surface. Here we have a large number of very smart people who perhaps were too insulated from the real world...”
“...(Alan) Greenspan has long praised computer technology as a tool that can be used to limit risks in financial markets. For instance, in 2005, he credited improved computing power and risk-scoring models with making it possible for lenders to extend credit to subprime mortgage borrowers.
But at a hearing held today by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Greenspan acknowledged that the data fed into financial systems was often a case of garbage-in, garbage-out.
Business decisions by financial services firms were based on "the best insights of mathematicians and finance experts, supported by major advances in computer and communications technology," Greenspan told the committee. "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades a period of euphoria."
A quote from Warren Buffet in his annual letter to investors:
Sunday, October 5, 2008
California Used Car Lemon Law Tips
Sergei Lemberg, an attorney specializing in lemon law [link: http://www.lemonjustice.com/ftc_used_car_rule.php], is sitting in the guest blogger’s chair today. He’s outlining some of the ways that consumers with used car lemons can get justice.
Although California’s lemon law doesn’t apply to used vehicles, portions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (which incorporates the lemon law) do apply to used vehicles. California also has a Car Buyer’s Bill of Rights, which includes the opportunity for used car buyers to purchase a two-day cancellation option for vehicles under $40,000.
The Car Buyer’s Bill of Rights also prohibits car dealers from advertising a used vehicle as “certified” if the odometer does not indicate the actual mileage of the vehicle; the vehicle was a voluntary lemon buyback; the title was branded as a lemon buyback, manufacturer repurchase, salvage, junk, non-repairable, flood, or similar designation; the vehicle was damaged by accident, fire, or flood, unless it has been repaired to safe operational condition; the vehicle has frame damage or was sold “as is”; or the seller failed to provide the buyer with a complete inspection report of all components inspected.