Dow Down 666 Points

[buyinghouse]

@marcus335

@buyinghouse

I keep reading a person who copies and pastes what it’s convenient to his stupid knowledge of math. Such person keeps consistently trying to defeat an algorithmic illustration and the words of knowledge of people in the investment world. Like hiding the fact of paying taxes on stocks. An idiot would do a better job.

MORAL

It pays to be careful. If you lose 1% of your investment, it only takes a 1.01% increase to recover. <-----

If you lose 10%, it only takes an 11.11% gain to recover. However, as you can see, this is not a linear relationship. The larger the loss, the larger the difference between the percentage loss and the percentage gain required to recover. And, the closer your loss gets to 100%, the closer the required offsetting gain gets to infinity! As a result, it is especially important to avoid large losses. Just so there is no confusion, this is not specific to the stock market; all investments behave the same way.

So, what percent increase will we ultimately need to recover from the crash? A little over 116%. And, a 45% loss would wipe out our 80% gain-to-date.

Lol. I just corrected your math where you said it takes a 2% gain to recover a 1% loss.

Semantics, blah, blah, blah.

People on this forum got it. Grow up!

Note: In general, a decrease of 1/n requires an increase of 1/(n-1) to get you even. So, e.g., a decrease of 1/2 (50%) requires an increase of 1/(2-1) = 1/1 = 100%. A decrease of 1/4 (25%) requires an increase of 1/3 (33 1/3%). A decrease of 1/10 (10%) requires an increase of 1/9 (about 11%). Alternatively, a loss of x% requires a gain of 1/((1/x%)-1). So, a loss of 95% requires a gain of 1/((1/.95)-1)=19=1900%.
Note: The Observations Inflation Calculator/Spreadsheet will do these calculations for you. Just as it takes a 100% gain to recover from a 50% loss, 100% inflation translates into a 50% loss in purchasing power.

Of course, never talk about spread sheets. You are pathetically dumb to get one for me.

[buyinghouse]

@Elt1

I hate bankers. Especially Goldman, Morgan, Skank of America. ShittyBank and Wells fuckoff

Don’t say that, Marcus gets offended. He is a supporter of anything this administration does, including the Goldman Sachs pirates embedded in that administration, one of them participant of the housing market debacle years ago. That turd with a face of hypocrite Mnuchin. or whatever his name is.

[marcus335]

@buyinghouse

@marcus335

@buyinghouse

I keep reading a person who copies and pastes what it’s convenient to his stupid knowledge of math. Such person keeps consistently trying to defeat an algorithmic illustration and the words of knowledge of people in the investment world. Like hiding the fact of paying taxes on stocks. An idiot would do a better job.

MORAL

It pays to be careful. If you lose 1% of your investment, it only takes a 1.01% increase to recover. <-----

If you lose 10%, it only takes an 11.11% gain to recover. However, as you can see, this is not a linear relationship. The larger the loss, the larger the difference between the percentage loss and the percentage gain required to recover. And, the closer your loss gets to 100%, the closer the required offsetting gain gets to infinity! As a result, it is especially important to avoid large losses. Just so there is no confusion, this is not specific to the stock market; all investments behave the same way.

So, what percent increase will we ultimately need to recover from the crash? A little over 116%. And, a 45% loss would wipe out our 80% gain-to-date.

Lol. I just corrected your math where you said it takes a 2% gain to recover a 1% loss.

Semantics, blah, blah, blah.

People on this forum got it. Grow up!

Note: In general, a decrease of 1/n requires an increase of 1/(n-1) to get you even. So, e.g., a decrease of 1/2 (50%) requires an increase of 1/(2-1) = 1/1 = 100%. A decrease of 1/4 (25%) requires an increase of 1/3 (33 1/3%). A decrease of 1/10 (10%) requires an increase of 1/9 (about 11%). Alternatively, a loss of x% requires a gain of 1/((1/x%)-1). So, a loss of 95% requires a gain of 1/((1/.95)-1)=19=1900%.
Note: The Observations Inflation Calculator/Spreadsheet will do these calculations for you. Just as it takes a 100% gain to recover from a 50% loss, 100% inflation translates into a 50% loss in purchasing power.

Of course, never talk about spread sheets. You are pathetically dumb to get one for me.

Yup, you can’t argue the math, so you launch the personal attacks.

[Jil]

@buyinghouse

@Elt1

I hate bankers. Especially Goldman, Morgan, Skank of America. ShittyBank and Wells fuckoff

Don’t say that, Marcus gets offended. He is a supporter of anything this administration does, including the Goldman Sachs pirates embedded in that administration, one of them participant of the housing market debacle years ago. That turd with a face of hypocrite Mnuchin. or whatever his name is.

Elt1 hates the competitors ! Banks are competitor to his lending business ! !

[marcus335]

Banks aren’t the ones making mortgage loans any way. They are just paperwork processors for Freddie and Fannie.

[wuqijun]

If it’s a portfolio loan then it’s their own money they are lending.

[BAGB]

Non-banks make more mortgage loans now

https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/the-mortgage-market-is-now-dominated-by-nonbank-lenders/2017/02/22/9c6bf5fc-d1f5-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.d6ab5e378115

[marcus335]

@wuqijun

If it’s a portfolio loan then it’s their own money they are lending.

True, but 99% of the mortgage market is Freddie, Fannie, and FHA. They set the standards and control the market.

[wuqijun]

I think all my mortgages are portfolio, none of them are owned by Fannie Freddie.

[hanera]

@wuqijun

I think all my mortgages are portfolio, none of them are owned by Fannie Freddie.

How to tell? My lender is not Fannie and Freddie, does it mean not?

[wuqijun]

Well, I pay the mortgage directly to the bank every month. That’s a pretty good indication that it has not packaged up my loan and sold it to another bank.

[Jil]

@wuqijun

I think all my mortgages are portfolio, none of them are owned by Fannie Freddie.

No not at all. From 2008 onwards, FED started printing money, and it is coming through Fannie Mae…etc and they bought MBS. They own multi-trillion MBS

Fannie Mae: Who Owns The U.S. Mortgage Markets?

[wuqijun]

Really? So you know more about my own mortgages than I do? Ok…

[Jil]

@wuqijun

Well, I pay the mortgage directly to the bank every month. That’s a pretty good indication that it has not packaged up my loan and sold it to another bank.

All banks are service providers, and they are making money delta 1% or 1.25% service fee and upfront commission for service fee.

Your loan is owned by some company or group called secondary MBS holder. Banks are allowed to sell your mortgage then and there.

It is pretty hard to know who funded your mortgage and it is changing hands.

It is exactly like you buy shares from broker and who sold you will not be known as it is hard in multiple hops and many to many relationships.

[Jil]

@wuqijun

Really? So you know more about my own mortgages than I do? Ok…

Just see, Big Shorts movie, what banks do and how they do…what went wrong in 2008.

[Elt1]

I water ski with the Wells Fargo bankmanager. Even she hates Wells.

[wuqijun]

No. All my mortgages are specifically portfolio because Fannie and Freddie would not lend to me due to my individual credit situation.

[BAGB]

Even your first few properties can’t qualify for conventional loan? Most Fannie and Freddie mortgage payments still goes to the bank, the bank Sevices the loan but don’t own own the loan.

A more reliable way to tell portfolio loan is its high interest rate. If you pay a very high rate, it could be that.

[marcus335]

No one directly pays Freddie and Fannie. As @Jil said, banks handle the servicing. Fannie and Freddie own the mortgage.

If you have portfolio loans, then you’re probably paying higher rates.

[wuqijun]

All my properties were re-fied to portfolio. Interest rates are not too bad.