Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Tex @ May 5, 2016 -> 06:15 AM) I'm trying to type this without sounding like a dick. If someone could get a short sale with their credit in the 800s, who wouldn't get a short sale? Seriously, you want the bank to absorb a $50,000 loss on your investment. I tend to believe the lawyer. If you loaned the money would you take the loss? The bank has no rights to anything but the house. The loan agreement says you either make payments or they can take the house as collateral. The bank has no right to anything else. Either they agree to a short sale, renegotiate the debt, or you walk away and let them foreclose. End of the day, the ball is in there court and the onus is on them. The homeowner has the advantage and the loans were designed that way. Right wrong or indifferent, banks underwrite deals knowing they will lose money and some homes will be foreclosed on. On an FHA deal, it is even higher risk and thus they are compensated more because of that. After a short sale you can't buy a house right away (unless you pay an absurd interest rate) so it isn't like the person who walks away from the house is making out like a bandit (they lost the equity they put in) but at the same time, when they entered into the agreement, they always have had the option to walk away and lose the house. It isn't like they entered into the deal with the intention to welch. Note: Please note, my opinion differs if you lied when the loan was underwritten (i.e., fake income, etc).

QUOTE (shipps @ May 5, 2016 -> 06:11 AM) So the short sale lawyer is telling her that the short sale was denied because her credit score was to high (in the 800's) and it was an FHA loan (she was first time home buyer) so those are harder to get approved for short sales. He suggested that she wait a few months and try for short sale again. I cant tell whether or not this lawyer is offering her sound advice or is aggressive enough with the bank. From what I read you cant take no for answer when trying to negotiate a short sale with the bank and these guys seem very passive by what she is telling me. Second opinion. Find someone else. The banks will do everything they can to try and milk money out of a person. It is what they do. You have to have someone who is going to be aggressive. When push comes to shove, they have no right at any of your other assets, etc. All they see is a person with a solid score and other assets and they say, we can get more money from them...but from a legal perspective, they aren't entitled to any of it. I realize people struggle with this fact and want to pay back their debts, but look at the real estate industry and you'll see tons and tons of companies who structure themselves purely so they are isolated and can walk away from bad investments. You have to do what is in the best interest of you when working with a bank. These loans have risks and the banks underwrite them accordingly with risk margins, etc...they know some people will walk away and as long as you are honest with them in the underwriting process, my opinion is, you need to look out for your interests, not the banks. And from an FHA perspective, people pay even more in fees on an FHA loan which are supposed to cover the higher default risk anyway. I would get advice from another party (worse thing they do is come back to you with the same answer and none of them should be getting compensated unless action happens).

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ May 5, 2016 -> 07:38 AM) Over the past two weeks, Abreu is hitting .308/.373/.462. As I said in this post, his problem has not been swinging at the offspeed low and away, it was always not swinging enough at pitches in the zone. Over the last two weeks he's still swinging at balls, but now he's swinging a lot more at strikes. After swinging at just 63% of strikes after the first few weeks, he's swung at nearly 80% of strikes over the past two weeks (numbers similar to his 2014 season), with great success. Abreu is successful when he swings the bat more often. You can live with him not laying off the pitches low and away as long as he's swinging at the good pitches to hit, which is what has happened during his current hot stretch. He currently has a career-high walk rate and a career-low strikeout rate, so he'll be fine. Keep swinging, Jose. You are an excellent poster. Always learn something new from your posts.

QUOTE (ron883 @ May 4, 2016 -> 07:34 PM) You'll see, I'm going to be right. Abreu can't lay off the breaking ball outside. I'm going to bump this up when he is in a slump, and I'll bump it at the end of the year when he puts up his worst year yet statistically. In his first two seasons, Abreu put up numbers in line with only Albert Pujols. Yes, I think you will be wrong. He certainly could end up being worse than last year, but if Abreu has a bad season, I'll be beyond shocked.

QUOTE (gosoxgo2005 @ May 5, 2016 -> 05:39 AM) Rodon is slowly starting to drive me insane watching him pitch. Anyone who'd rather have Rodon over Nola right now is taking c razy pills Rodon is much rawer than Nola. He is going to have his issues and still has to work on repeating his delivery, etc. His raw stuff is outstanding, but he's still absolutely a work in process from a pitchers perspective. That said, he's got a great pitchers frame and clearly plus stuff which is good enough to develop at the big league level. Despite some struggles, including one awful game, his overall ERA is still I'll also point out Matt Latos will end up with an ERA > 4. I hope I'm wrong but he'll revert back. His stuff isn't good enough to pitch as close as he has, that said, his command and moxy is certainly good enough to give us quality starts (which is something I had my doubts about before the season started). The key to this club, outside of health (which is a key to most any club) will be whether we can find a sustainable 5th starter, imo. I think Johnson can be that guy and I hope he can show that. That doesn't mean dominant pitcher, but can give us innings and keep us in games.

Is first episode today?

Reports that if Lakers get top pick they have decided they will trade it for a more proven player.

QUOTE (The Critic @ May 4, 2016 -> 11:35 AM) I don't listen to his show, but unless there's more to it than this transcript I'm not sure he should be gone. It reads like he was being baited into something by someone who appears to have a longer-standing agenda against him. Again, I don't know anything about either of them beyond the transcript. Maybe something was said prior to this that upset her. http://www.robertfeder.com/2014/11/18/talk...-at-it-on-race/ Yeah...I know nothing about any of them but the transcript doesn't tell me he should get fired.

There are enough attendance threads already. I'm closing htis one. We have a team in first place for pete sake. lets enjoy it.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 4, 2016 -> 05:46 AM) My son works for USAA. They hired Huey Lewis & The News to play their Christmas party at the Alamodome. He made the comment, I have no idea who this band is, you probably have heard of them . . . What does he do for USAA?

Love it. Don't stop now boys!

Blackout game was money...was money early in his career. Unfortunate injury that he battled through. Thanks Danks for always battling (and for being really really good pre-injury).

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 3, 2016 -> 01:37 PM) Part of that agreement would have been a review of her financial state to see if she qualified, essentially checking all the boxes before going to market and wasting both parties' time, just a good idea for anyone looking to go down that road. Agree with everything you have stated. Definitely helps to get the short-sale preapproved. That said, given current state, makes sense to get second opinion.

Feel bad for Danks and hope somehow he can figure something out. I would have thought we'd have seen if he could be effective as a reliever. I hope Johnson can step up and take advantage of this opportunity.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2016 -> 07:42 AM) Sports Authority is going under Sports Chalet also recently announced they were closing all stores. As an FYI, last week Sports Authority announced they were closing all stores (blamed minimum wage laws, amongst other things...such as online retailers and "showrooming" or whatever you want to call it when people go to the store to look at product but than buy online). That said, Dicks and other's might purchase some of the stores.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2016 -> 06:05 PM) Noted commie rag the USA Today... They are paying their ceo enormous sums of money to be the latest in a string of people riding the company into the ground. She hasn't been very good at this job, so luring her away with dump trucks of money wasn't actually a good idea. CEO pay in this country is ridiculous and this is just another example of how it gets to this point. We don't agree on much, but we absolutely agree on this point. My exception is I view CEO pay of people who founded a company much different vs. those who become stewards of a long-time, solid company.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 3, 2016 -> 07:09 AM) You guys have been getting comfortable around here without me. A great addition. They probably got sick of seeing how many times you tried logging in to see if you were through and figured you'd be more productive if they just let you in.

Have them talk to someone who specializes in short sales. Bottom line, banks don't have much option. Also, the credit hit between a short sale and a foreclosure are both punitive in general so at the end of the day, the opportunity cost to have the house foreclosed on might be worth it. It isn't like after a short sale you can immediately buy a house (the rules have tightened on this and I believe now it is 4 years removed..not sure what foreclosure is but if you have your friend talk to someone they might point you in the right direction and at least lay out the potential choices and the pro's / con's of each and thus put you in a place where your friend is comfortable making that decision).

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 3, 2016 -> 10:05 AM) The last time the Freys got f***ed out of an heir to the North, the Red Wedding happened. Ramsay's treachery is logical, but he doesn't think these things through. He really has no idea what he's doing, and he's basically Joffrey at this point, without a Small Council. Best episode of the entire show, imo. I still cringe at the thought of it, but this episode was damn good too.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 2, 2016 -> 09:07 AM) absolutely. The filming of that scene was awesome, because it definitely could have gone either way. Roose could have been done with Ramsay, since he has they Frey heir. Poor Ramsay, just removed the brains of the operation. He is gonna do something really stupid and get caught out for it Yeah...at first I was like, oh my god, he killed ramsay and than I was like, wait, its Roose. I hate them all...long live Lord stark!!!

QUOTE (Kalapse @ May 1, 2016 -> 07:13 PM) All time great episode, advanced every plot line substantially and threw in some real quality kills. Yep...this was one of the best and next week's looks even better.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 3, 2016 -> 09:18 AM) This is probably a dead horse to you guys, but I can't think of a single person involved with the Bulls I appreciated this year. Even (or especially) Butler, whose glaring lack of leadership chops was exposed. Taj. I appreciate everything about Taj.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 2, 2016 -> 02:47 PM) End of the day though Yahoo! isn't paying her 52 million for those shares. They gave her some paper that has value to others. I guess you could say they gave away more of the company in stock to her and thus lost some value by having to issue more stock, but it's still not the equivalent of cash to her for the value of the stock. They will have a $52M charge go through their income statement. $52M will go through their income statement as compensation expense (the value of what they are paying here). It is REAL EQUITY that they are paying out. In what world is equity not a value. Yes, the actual worth of that "equity" could differ, but it is real value. If it weren't. She can choose what she wants to do with it and I've pointed out a few times I don't know what value Yahoo is quoting and I'm not going to take the time to run a black scholes on the calculation but this isn't fake money to Yahoo's financial statements. Yes, it is not actual cash, but instead it is real equity of a company you are giving away. Just like you could give away real equity of a house if you gave up an ownership stake to others and thus diluted your stake. This is not a freebye granted by Yahoo that has no bearing on their financial success, it absolutely has a bearing on its actual financials, P&L, etc. This is equity that they could have used to generate capital vs. give to an employee. And every stock company will have various option programs for various levels of employees, it isn't like yahoo is a start-up (usually it is the start-ups that have far more lucrative options and to the extent, in these cases, companies leverage future worth and potential reward to attrack talent when their are very much unknowns...boom / bust potential and an inability to compensate accordingly for any other way). In the case of yahoo, they are a more than established company and she could easily turn around and immediately divest if that is what she wanted to do (and I don't know her intentions). There was a real economic opportunity cost to this decision. This is not just accounting mumbojumbo.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 2, 2016 -> 02:40 PM) To who though? Is there are a requirement that Yahoo has to buy them back? Or is she selling them on the open market? She'd sell them on the open market. In this case, if the company had a change of ownership, all of the options would be expensed at her books and she can do what she'd like with them. I don't know how the $50+M figure was calculated and clearly if the stock was in the tubes at the time and that value is based upon a current valuation, than the real world equation vs. actual cost could differ. What goes into the calcs and models to get to the value and expense figure is more complex but there is a real cost to that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) It sounds like such a big number. The reality is that the real cost to the company is $3 million +. The stock options don't actually cost them anything. Those are all real financial statement expenses which ultimately impact the company and thus the shareholders. Those are accelerated options that she is granted, real money. She could choose to exit at that point and sell everything and get paid (depending on what the estimated $52M valuation was). That isn't some funny number. It is just as much the equivalent of cash and is something that absolutely will impact the financial statements of yahoo, reduce equity, etc.