patrick.net

I think you're right, it was something else (withholding) specific about CA as this layer tells us why homeownership in CA is encouraged, incl. the federal cap gains exemption:

http://mosquedalaw.com/RealEstate%2017.htm

"These favorable tax rules on sale of principal residence should encourage, not discourage, home ownership in California." ;)

Yes, I agree. People need to be honest about their gains, and successes.

When people come on here and say I bought "1000 shares or 2000 shares of XY company", they should actually be buying into that company. Because then other people read that and say, "Hey, seems like a good pick, this guy just bought 2k of shares!"

They shouldn't then come back and say "Oh wait, I actually didn't buy" when the stock plunges 10%. That's dishonest, and reeks of a snake oil salesman.

Trolls shouldn't be allowed to be dishonest like that, because it can cost people real money on Pat.net.

Goran_K says

Yes, I agree. People need to be honest about their gains, and successes.

Yes, what's the point in lying? So a stranger can be impressed? Myself I've made a fortune and lost a fortune in mining shares. Mostly, because I didn't think the drop was going to be so horrible. I'm grinding that fortune back, albeit, with more caution, and frankly some earned wisdom.

It's always nice to hear other people's experiences too, so that hopefully you won't make the same mistakes they did along the way.

It's expected, anyone who claims they never lost, never actually played

Interesting thread on FB - one year ago, almost to a tee

/?p=1215483

Cast of Characters is somewhat similar, (Goran - Eman), but the difference was, at the time everyone was resoundingly negative, convinced anyone who bought FB @ $20 would regret it, and anyone shorting it will make out like "highway robbery".

Irony of course being, all those negative comments & sentiment about FB came at or near the absolute bottom. Will these comments, and this thread mark the top? Tune in next year to find out!

CDon says

Interesting thread on FB - one year ago, almost to a tee

/?p=1215483

Cast of Characters is somewhat similar, (Goran - Eman), but the difference was, at the time everyone was resoundingly negative, convinced anyone who bought FB @ $20 would regret it, and anyone shorting it will make out like "highway robbery".

Irony of course being, all those negative comments & sentiment about FB came at or near the absolute bottom. Will these comments, and this thread mark the top? Tune in next year to find out!

Great find. I hope you're wrong this time though. :)

When FB broke its downtrend and started moving back up, I was eyeing it in the low to mid $20, but I don't know anything about this company. The potential for FB to make money from ads is there. I bought FB based on technical analysis. I should have bought it on the day of the break out, but I wasn't around a computer.

We only have a couple hundred in our IRA. We stopped contributing to it because we found better way to invest our money since 2008.

E-man says

Great find. I hope you're wrong this time though. :)

We shall see. Honestly, I don't follow it at all, but I do sometimes think there is a kharmic element to this blog.

Out of curiosity, did anyone end up taking you up on that bet?

CDon says

E-man says

Great find. I hope you're wrong this time though. :)

We shall see. Honestly, I don't follow it at all, but I do sometimes think there is a kharmic element to this blog.

Out of curiosity, did anyone end up taking you up on that bet?

Nope.

E-man says

At the end of the day, you just hope you have more winning trades than losing ones.

Yeah that's the spirit of it. As long as you're eating good, and have a roof over your head that you can afford, all the other stuff is just icing.

E-man,

Thank you for sharing your flipping story.

E-man says

At the end of the day, you just hope you have more winning trades than losing ones.

Thanks so much for sharing your story. I appreciate it immensely. I'm going to check into the things you mentioned further. Real estate seems so much harder than buying and selling stocks, and less liquid, which makes me apprehensive. I've always been a renter, mainly because I was in my mid twenties and broke during the bubble, and once I wanted to buy a home for my family, and had enough money, the homes in desirable places in LA barely dropped. I waited and waited, and now it appears I'll be waiting for a long time, and need to save even more for a down payment due to prices rising.

SInce I haven't the foggiest idea about how a housing transaction occurs, or how to do a remodel, what would you recommend for someone just starting out? Meaning, buy a rental first or do a flip first? I'll begin searching for a local mentor for sure. Just want to figure out the best way to get my feet wet in real estate.

E-man says

He introduced me to another forum where I found several flippers who do this for a living.

Also, would you mind sharing the forum you found information on?

nw888 says

E-man says

He introduced me to another forum where I found several flippers who do this for a living.

Also, would you mind sharing the forum you found information on?

Please send me an email. I'll have to share it with you off line.

E-Man, your comments about westerners being willing to share knowledge for free highlights some interesting points. I think that that is a big part of why America rose to where it is (aside from the rest of the developed world being reduced to rubble in the 1940's). The free exchange of ideas and human collaboration is very powerful. My travel experiences in Asia are pretty limited, mainly to industrial China, but it is readily apparent that even there things are different. There is sort of an attitude of, "Why would you give someone anything unless you get something out of it? Are you stupid?" And over there, it probably is stupid to give away anything, particularly knowledge, because the recipient may well turn around and take everything you worked for. From what I have observed in talking to coworkers from there and my own observations, even being blood-related to someone isn't enough to keep you safe from being ruined by a family member for their financial gain.

Perhaps it is a symptom of most people having barely enough to get by (or the memory of living that way only being one generation back), but it is definitely a case of kill-or-be-killed in many parts of Asia as far as I can tell. If you take a moral stand and pass up any opportunity, you may as well go lay down and die in a ditch. Americans have had more than enough to get by and live lives of leisure for the better part of a century, so maybe people don't feel as threatened by sharing knowledge or something. Complacency? I am not sure if I would call it that. It seems like it sort of harkens back to America's roots when people came here and had to work together to survive in the new, unknown land (unknown to the European settlers that slaughtered the natives anyway). Maybe as America matures it will become more like the much more established nations and lose its spirit of innovation and become ruled by social dogma. Hopefully not, but it seems to be the way we are headed.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. I was fortunate enough to be born in the US to educated parents, so I'm well aware that I might be off-base in what I think I know about life elsewhere. Feel free to correct me. In my opinion, understanding life in tougher parts of the world is vital because people from those parts are the main demographic that is coming to the SFBA right now, and if the demographic is going to shift to eat-or-be-eaten then it's probably a good thing to be aware of! It worries me more that it is the wealthy people from those places that are moving here because you don't get rich in tough places by being a nice person. If it was hard working people that wanted to come here and build a better life for their family, I'd not be worried, but it seems like are a lot of people coming here to whom RE is an accessory and they believe America to be culturally inferior. Americans did just that to much of the rest of the world for decades...not so fun when the tables turn though.

The last lines in your story sound like a compelling argument for not raising kids in a place like this.

Gotta keep a finger on the area's pulse. If it goes full-tilt toward dog-eat-dog, I am outta here. When my wife and I have a kid, it stops being about what we want (aside from our kid being a well adjusted adult someday). I bet I could convince my parents to retire somewhere else.....

Seattle and the east side of the lake are a little too pricey for me if I was actually going to leave CA to somewhere cheaper, and I'd lean more towards the area north of Denver and just east of Boulder. Lots of growth there, clean air, people with common sense. I love it when my work sends me out there. A guy that I work with out there got a 2000SF new house on 20 acres with a 5000SF workshop/barn for $300k and a 25 minute drive to work. Nice summers, the winters are cold but nothing like the northeast, and people actually know how to drive. He complains that all the Californians are moving there and turning it into a welfare state lol.

SFace, sorry to thread-jack you. FB popped a bit today amid news that mobile is getting stronger for them. It'll be a very interesting couple of years to come as we see whether or not they can keep executing on their strategy to monetize human interaction.

bmwman91 says

Gotta keep a finger on the area's pulse. If it goes full-tilt toward
dog-eat-dog, I am outta here. When my wife and I have a kid, it stops being
about what we want (aside from our kid being a well adjusted adult someday). I
bet I could convince my parents to retire somewhere else.....

Don't kid yourself, your lovely spouse is not going to Denver. In several years, when your salary is 50% higher and in the prime of your career, you're not going to Denver as well.

See bmwman, I could not say it better than our Amex PLATINUM friend; -that's what the SFBA is become.

It's all about the prestige, and the money, and being "landed" in a place that your relatives "back home" covet. Oh yeah and the money. But not the kids.

Don't "kid yourself".

Silly bmwman.

B.A.C.A.H. says

It's all about the prestige, and the money, and being "landed" in a place that your relatives "back home" covet. Oh yeah and the money. But not the kids.

How we lost Paradise...

Facebook current price earning ratio stands at 179...
there is a reason why we look at PE ratios..
but the meaning has been lost.

thomaswong.1986 says

Facebook current price earning ratio stands at 179...

there is a reason why we look at PE ratios..

but the meaning has been lost.

But you also have to look at the company's growth. Looking at the current PE without evaluating its potential growth and next year's PE is a mistake. Some stocks sell at a single digit PE for a reason. GOOG went public 10 years ago at $85/share and had a PE over 100. It's a 10 baggers 10 years later with a much lower PE. It's all about earning growth potential.

thomaswong.1986 says

Facebook current price earning ratio stands at 179...
there is a reason why we look at PE ratios..
but the meaning has been lost.

It has not been lost, just need to sync up with the rest.

50% yoy growth rate (and amazingly accelerating again)
75% gross margins
31% pre tax operating margins.

operating cash flow less cap -ex for the last 12 months was $2B. The PE will go way down once the next quarter rolls off (approximatelt in the 40's)

based on the latest SEC report.

In any case, FB have the type of business that every extra dollar goes straight to the cash vault. That is why the PE is lofty. And it's about 40X-50X multiple not 180 anyway.

and as eman said, if you discount PE, you would have missed out on BIDU which had a PE of 100+ (trailing PE of approx 125) when it went public and went on for a 23 bagger in 9 years. Google came in as the biggest IPO ever so it's not like it was a small company at IPO.

@SFace,

You will have to sell me on RENN. I'm looking at its balance sheet and not too crazy about it. Yes, it has a ton of cash and no debt. At this burning rate, the cash should last for another 9 years or so. Do you know when it's projecting to be profitable? Is this one of those stocks that's speculative with huge upside potential? :)

bmwman91 says

In my opinion, understanding life in tougher parts of the world is vital because people from those parts are the main demographic that is coming to the SFBA right now, and if the demographic is going to shift to eat-or-be-eaten then it's probably a good thing to be aware of! It worries me more that it is the wealthy people from those places that are moving here because you don't get rich in tough places by being a nice person. If it was hard working people that wanted to come here and build a better life for their family, I'd not be worried, but it seems like are a lot of people coming here to whom RE is an accessory and they believe America to be culturally inferior.

@bmwman,

I don't want to get too much into these issues on-line, but I have a totally different take than you. We can meet and discuss these issues once of these days. Long story short, I have a more optimistic view than you, and I believe I'm 51% right :)

E-man says

But you also have to look at the company's growth. Looking at the current PE without evaluating its potential growth and next year's PE is a mistake. Some stocks sell at a single digit PE for a reason. GOOG went public 10 years ago at $85/share and had a PE over 100. It's a 10 baggers 10 years later with a much lower PE. It's all about earning growth potential.

Sorry, but that kind of thinking is rather more "bubble thinking" and very risky. Perhaps you should compare PE ratios for past growth companies during their hayday.. such as Intel to Cisco, you wouldnt find outrageous valuations back then. It was more of "Show Me" the earnings before any appreciation occurs.. Today, you are paying and not earning any future potential gains., leaving you exposed to losses. We truly have a bubble mentality to stock and housing prices these days.

Cisco price was fueled by more rational thinking than todays Facebook

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/03/08/77601/

WEIGHING GROWTH VS. VALUE THE SMALL-CAP WAY
By Shelley Neumeier
March 8, 1993

DiCarlo also favors Cisco Systems, a producer of software for computer networks. At $88 a share, the stock trades for 35 times his 1993 earnings estimate. Profits will rise 32% next year,

SFace says

In any case, FB have the type of business that every extra dollar goes straight to the cash vault. That is why the PE is lofty. And it's about 40X-50X multiple not 180 anyway.

and as eman said, if you discount PE, you would have missed out on BIDU which had a PE of 100+ (trailing PE of approx 125) when it went public and went on for a 23 bagger in 9 years. Google came in as the biggest IPO ever so it's not like it was a small company at IPO.

How high is too high and too expensive only to find a loss ?

and in hindsight we can see the overvaluations even with the likes of apple and yahoo in late 90s... many suffered 90% decline in prices.

Apple stock hits eight-year all-time high
Trading peaks at best price since 1991 ever
By Tony Smith, 3rd September 1999

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/09/03/apple_stock_hits_eightyear_alltime/

Shares in Apple yesterday hit their highest price point for eight years, peaking at $71.44 before sliding slightly to close at $70.56. An today, the rise continued, leaving the stock at the end of trading at $73.5, up $2.94, the highest price the shares have ever commanded.

Qualcomm PE 356x next years earning...

http://www.forbes.com/2000/04/06/feat.html

Now the San Diego, Calif., company can focus on selling chipsets, which represented half of its $4 billion in 1999 sales, and expanding its royalty mill, which accounts for 25% of its revenue. But in order to grow quickly enough to justify its stratospheric price/earnings ratio (356 at the end of March)

This was actually the easist call I have made. When you beat by that much and in mobile, there was a transformative change. I knew institutions would be buying.

And boy did it ever, they have been buying for 3 months.

I never really thought much of Facebook, they obviously have ingenuity. I still don't have any advertising on my mobile phone yet but I know the first time I click yes to anything I'll start getting bombarded.

I'm not sure if FB will be there few years from now. But why would I pay $52.00 per share to a company only earning $0.22 per share that pays no dividents?

Maybe I'm too old to understand Facebook.

On 10:35pm Tue 13 Aug 2013 mell says

Aside from SRS as mostly a day-trading vehicle for which I don't see much downside in a sideways-to-down market (tapering looming) and rising inters rates, I can offer MSTX: crappy management with questionable history including reverse splits and name changes, therefore trading near all time lows around cash value per share with one particular interesting drug in the pipeline (funded through commercialization on successful phase 3 trial) which is MST-188. Downside: wherever your stop loss is below 42 cents, upside, 2x-3x, but with a first target sell at around 65 cents (where recent investors' warrants are priced) or below. No investment advice here ;)

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSTX+Interactive#symbol=mstx;range=3m;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Who da Oracle now, bitchez? ;)

FortWayne says

Maybe I'm too old to understand Facebook.

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

Facebook is for insecure schoolchildren, both chronological and mental age. Also, nipples are bad but decapitation is A-OK.

http://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-lifting-its-ban-on-decapitation-videos-1449606221

Vicente says

FortWayne says

Maybe I'm too old to understand Facebook.

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

Facebook is for insecure schoolchildren, both chronological and mental age. Also, nipples are bad but decapitation is A-OK.

http://gizmodo.com/facebook-is-lifting-its-ban-on-decapitation-videos-1449606221

What is wrong with our society, sometimes I get to think that we have way too much freedom.

Facebook is so annoying as is Zukerberg I couldn't imagine buying it. I bet unfortunately it's in some of my mutual funds however.

SFace,

Just sold all of my FB shares. Cleared almost $12,500 in profit. Thank you very much.

@EBguy and @mell, I figured you might want an update on this too.

PK loaded all of his personal belongings onto the shipping container on this past Wednesday. He's leaving for Brazil on Tuesday morning. Today is his last day at work.

So far, it looks like PK and I have gained about $700k in equity on our real estate investments. We still have about $300k tied up in these investments.

Total worth of these properties are about $2M. We have just shy of $1M in mortgage debt on them. We net about $3,600/month after expenses. The principal pay down is about $1,500/month. We might start to liquidate and/or 1031 exchange some of these assets into NNN next year.

Cheers.

E-man says

SFace,

Just sold all of my FB shares. Cleared almost $12,500 in profit. Thank you very much.

Wow, you probably timed the top. Only time will tell.

They are wasting money on random phone applications, I did read the news recently about one.

I could be wrong because I don't understand their business model. But to me it seems they are frivolous with their money, and will continue to avoid their stock. Poor management.

Can someone please explain, really, why is WhatsApp better than e-mail? It looks like bottled water to me. Ordinary e-mail is free, so why would I pay $19 billion for WhatsApp?

FortWayne says

I could be wrong because I don't understand their business model... Poor management.

Well, FB did earn more than $1 billion net last year, more than most 10yo companies. FB makes $ from targeted advertising and marketing campaigns, plus their revenue share from other companies that use FB's platform, e.g. Zynga. I think they have a good model and I respect their management, but the valuations seem very high to me.

With WhatsApp, they say they are getting 450 million users. Many of those users are already on FB though, so it isn't a big gain in net users. They say they are going to be leaders in mobile, but did they need WhatsApp for that? I know people who use WhatsApp, and I still don't see why it's better than e-mail.

The FB CEO is focused on anti-trust monopoly, that he learned from his mentors. That is why whatsapp had to be bought.

carrieon says

The FB CEO is focused on anti-trust monopoly, that he learned from his mentors. That is why whatsapp had to be bought.

But they didn't have to pay 19 mil. Although most of it is their potentially worthless stock.

carrieon says

The FB CEO is focused on anti-trust monopoly, that he learned from his mentors. That is why whatsapp had to be bought.

That wouldn't even explain why people use WhatsApp, let alone why FB bought it. Nobody has a monopoly on e-mail or texting with attachments, but big mergers always risk antitrust review.