hmm thanks for that, you've given me an idea
What (if anything) does a person's finances say about them?
- Thread starter Peter Parker
- Start date
hmm thanks for that, you've given me an idea
Without consequence? How about not being able to borrow money for 7 years? The stigma from people like yourself who have no understanding of their situation?
Seriously kathryn you need to do some research. You, and many others here, have a very PAYG-worker mentality about this issue. I guess that's not surprising because most people here are wage workers. But bankruptcy is not the same as theft. Just because a few barristers here and there go bankrupt every 5 years to avoid paying taxes doesn't make even the majority of bankrupts a bunch of dirty crooks.
And there's a huge difference between personality and character
Not quite sure that makes sense ?
So someone's personality isa that of a thief, but their character can be that of a respectable person who would never hurt a fly ?
For then 2nd time I think I agree with kathryn's response.
It's theft, when we cannot collect $15K because our tenants declared bankruptcy, and no, there isn't insurance that covers us for that.
There is no stigma. I know of lots of people who have declared it, and think nothing of it, except it is a mild inconvenience for a little while.
When so many default on their credit cards,..we all pay for that in higher interest rates.
We all pay for it when bankruptcy is declared, one way or another.
Personality is external, Character is internal
Google explains beter than I...
On the subject of going Bust and keeping in topic..Air Australia has called in the Administrator's, what does that then say about those involved and at what level down do you become merely a partcipant, rather than involved?
How about Ansett being bought out and then folded and many many others? Each case based on its merits? The bigger the company the more people to blame and the less focus on the individual
I don't know the answers....just posing the questions
I'm not convinced that insider trading is a victimless crime. There are two sides to every trade, and the loss (either real or of potential earnings) suffered by the those without the privileged information, and diffused across a large number of investors.
Then there's the view that the practice reduces trust in the financial services industry. (Not that there's much left in those outside of that sector these days! )
Bankruptcy is vital for an entrepreneurial system.
I did a quick look and this thread gives a member's holdings as about $2.4 million (split across IPs and PPOR) against $1.8 million of loans, and is pretty much neutrally geared. This seems to be fairly typical of regulars here.
Suppose there was a worst case economic scenario (fiscal crisis in the US, defaults in the PIIGS, China has a hard landing), and Australia ends up a steep Steve Keen style property market crash. The aforementioned portfolio might now be worth $400K to $600K less than the mortgage.
Throw in a job loss, and difficulties in finding tenants, and such an investor would be wiped out. In which case a bankruptcy system that allows for debts to be written off, and leaving the investor to try again seems attractive. If only because they would have hopefully learnt from their mistakes, and might be more successful in round two.
OK, someone who's blown half a million dollars of equity on large plasma TVs, boats and flash cars probably deserves everything they get.
Then there's the view that the practice reduces trust in the financial services industry. (Not that there's much left in those outside of that sector these days!
)Bankruptcy is vital for an entrepreneurial system.
I did a quick look and this thread gives a member's holdings as about $2.4 million (split across IPs and PPOR) against $1.8 million of loans, and is pretty much neutrally geared. This seems to be fairly typical of regulars here.
Suppose there was a worst case economic scenario (fiscal crisis in the US, defaults in the PIIGS, China has a hard landing), and Australia ends up a steep Steve Keen style property market crash. The aforementioned portfolio might now be worth $400K to $600K less than the mortgage.
Throw in a job loss, and difficulties in finding tenants, and such an investor would be wiped out. In which case a bankruptcy system that allows for debts to be written off, and leaving the investor to try again seems attractive. If only because they would have hopefully learnt from their mistakes, and might be more successful in round two.
OK, someone who's blown half a million dollars of equity on large plasma TVs, boats and flash cars probably deserves everything they get.
May be..
Let's for the sake of argument assume you happen to be the lucky one and not the bank who loaned this person $1.8million. Since we are at it shall we also assume it was your retirement savings earned over your entire life making countless sacrifices. And he/she promised to pay you back your money.
This person loses your money because obviously he/she assumed housing markets can only go up and recessions and job losses would not have any impact on his/her investments, and therefore it's OK to have high LVRs.
So according to you it's acceptable behaviour for this person to declare bankruptcy by losing your money and forcing you to go back to work?
It's easy to feel generous when it's not your money on the line IMHO.
Cheers,
Oracle.
I'm willing to bet that a guy like this owned nothing on paper in his own name, racked up huge debts personally and had all his assets safely locked away in trusts in his wife's name. When playing in the big leagues, this is how they do it and why they make swift comebacks.
It is always such an inconvenience for the ones declaring bankruptcy. They can't afford to live, because their payments are so high.
They still have money for cigs, liquor,'organic' foods,brand name this and that.
What they need is to have someone treat them like the child, they are, and put them on an allowance.Give them a prepaid fuel card, grocery card,and $20 cash a week.
I'd do that job for free.
They still have money for cigs, liquor,'organic' foods,brand name this and that.
What they need is to have someone treat them like the child, they are, and put them on an allowance.Give them a prepaid fuel card, grocery card,and $20 cash a week.
I'd do that job for free.
Oracle, I agree that somebody, somewhere will have to bear losses for failed ventures, be they property investment or something else. But a bank, venture capitalist or other body putting up money will be working on the principle that a percentage will fail, but the costs of these will be covered by the successes. So whilst my money might be on the line, it should be well hedged.
It doesn't always work that way, unfortunately, as the GFC illustrated.
The thing is that most business ventures are beneficial. Speculating on property prices probably isn't, but providing rental accommodation is. Similarly a new business is likely to generate jobs and help grow the economy.
If the cost of failure is too high then there will be fewer entrepreneurs, and society will be poorer overall. Of course the ideal thing is to fail early and cheaply, rather than after blowing $100 million, as some companies did during the Dot.com era.
Mattnz, I suspect that a lot of the rich aren't as wealthy as their PR claims.
Besides, if Deltaberry's friend-of-a-friend is a fund manager then he'll be pulling his income in from what he's managing. A small hedge fund is likely to have several hundred million to a billion dollars is assets, and could be sufficient to generate the sorts of sums mentioned.
It doesn't always work that way, unfortunately, as the GFC illustrated.
The thing is that most business ventures are beneficial. Speculating on property prices probably isn't, but providing rental accommodation is. Similarly a new business is likely to generate jobs and help grow the economy.
If the cost of failure is too high then there will be fewer entrepreneurs, and society will be poorer overall. Of course the ideal thing is to fail early and cheaply, rather than after blowing $100 million, as some companies did during the Dot.com era.
Mattnz, I suspect that a lot of the rich aren't as wealthy as their PR claims.
Besides, if Deltaberry's friend-of-a-friend is a fund manager then he'll be pulling his income in from what he's managing. A small hedge fund is likely to have several hundred million to a billion dollars is assets, and could be sufficient to generate the sorts of sums mentioned.
Yeah poor banks, they never knew aobut the bankruptcy laaws in the industry they operate in
Isn't that market manipulation in the sharemarket, given the intention was to create a false market?
That's the base income.
Also clips a % of winnings (30% on one fund, 45% on another fund)
The bank / lender is not forced to lend anyone money, they decide to when they think, despite all the risks, including bankruptcy, they should be able to make money.
I don't believe they are being unfairly burdened with the responsibility of lending money to us irresponsible masses who can just thumb their noses at them.
That's a very high performance fee. It'll result in a fat income for the owner.
Yea - he's mainly backed by some bigger names.
I think minimum unit of $2m in a new fund he set up (his second).
I think minimum unit of $2m in a new fund he set up (his second).
I think bankruptcy needs to be treated the same as financial success. Is it because of luck, or because of hard work and smart choices? If we're going to assert that success is the result of smart choices, should we not also assert that bankruptcy is the opposite?
The problem, I guess, is that to start from nothing and create serious wealth generally requires some significant risk taking, which by definition means doing things with some large potential downsides.
For me, big risk is not what it's about. I'm happy to accept that this position limits my ability to create wealth. But it also limits the real risk of bankruptcy. I am not the sort of person who thinks 'going broke' is desirable, or even acceptable. If I ever have to declare bankruptcy, I believe it will be because I failed. And it will be my fault.
The problem, I guess, is that to start from nothing and create serious wealth generally requires some significant risk taking, which by definition means doing things with some large potential downsides.
For me, big risk is not what it's about. I'm happy to accept that this position limits my ability to create wealth. But it also limits the real risk of bankruptcy. I am not the sort of person who thinks 'going broke' is desirable, or even acceptable. If I ever have to declare bankruptcy, I believe it will be because I failed. And it will be my fault.
It would be great if they had the same attitude as yourself.
I think bunkrupts are weak and useless people who take the easy way out.
A bankruptcy in the USA is very easy;
First, be a normal middle class person on an average wage.
On this wage you simply cannot afford decent private health care and if you are lucky enough to be able to afford the astronomical premiums, you will need to make up approx a 30% gap for any health/medical bills should they arise.
Then, have a serious accident; say, fall off a ladder at home and break both legs and maybe an arm. Two of these breaks are compound fractures.
From here, you will run out of your 2 weeks holiday pay (sick leave comes out of holidays), and then you are on leave without pay, or no job. being fired there is easy - unlike here.
And then your hospital and other medical bills start coming in.
Medical bill bankruptcy is the largest type in the USA.
I don't think bankruptcy has much to do with a person's character/morals etc.
From a business/investing standpoint, I totally agree; you only get ahead in life financially by taking on some risk.
You try to mitigate all the risk as much as possible, but things can still go wrong, and go wrong quickly.
Liquidating your position to escape a situation is not always easy either.
My sister-in-law who lives in the States has had some sort of skin and hair irritation. She went to see the doctor, who thought that it was lice, despite my brother not seeing any or their eggs, and given a prescription for a shampoo to treat it.
Overall the bill for this would have been $1,000. She got it for free because of Medicare, but I can see where BayView is coming from.
One of my brother's friends was paying something like $10,000 a year for comprehensive medical insurance. As far as I know he' a forty-something property developer (with a lot of tattoos), and not exactly living a high-risk lifestyle.
Ironically, the US pays as much in government health spending as a percentage of GDP as European countries (see here), but doesn't have the same universal coverage as the UK does. It's total spending is higher than any other country, and yet health outcomes are no better than elsewhere.
Overall the bill for this would have been $1,000. She got it for free because of Medicare, but I can see where BayView is coming from.
One of my brother's friends was paying something like $10,000 a year for comprehensive medical insurance. As far as I know he' a forty-something property developer (with a lot of tattoos), and not exactly living a high-risk lifestyle.
Ironically, the US pays as much in government health spending as a percentage of GDP as European countries (see here), but doesn't have the same universal coverage as the UK does. It's total spending is higher than any other country, and yet health outcomes are no better than elsewhere.
