This past weekend, my wife and I slipped out of town over the mountain to nearby Ashville, NC. We were hoping to play in the planned 4inches of snow, but alas, less than one inch fell, no playing. We did manage to do a lot of talking and planning, which was our major goal.
On Saturday afternoon, our weekend was shattered along with a window on our car. Seems someone saw my wife's pocket book on the floor and decided he wanted it. (Lesson#1 - always hide valuables). We immediately called Buncombe County Sherrif and started calling credit cards (Lesson #2 - you & wife should have different credit card numbers). After four calls from the business man and two hours of waiting, the deputy showed up to take our statement. No evidence was collected. He gave us no hope of recovering any of the stuff and reported that there were several such incidents (then why aren't they trying to stop it?)
Our afternoon/evening shot, we ate dinner at a local restaraunt (using a different card I have) and we went back to the hotel with the window poorly plastic-ed over. The next morning, my son (who was still home) called and said they caught the guy. A nearby township had caught the guy who broke in and they had my wife's purse. He had broken into another car and the people got quicker response. They saw a van on the street that had been parked near them, the man was stopped and arrested in possession of my wife's purse.
The police officer told us that the man had gone to Harrah's Casino and gambled & drank all his money away. He then drove 40+ miles on the interestate before trying to get some cash. He was arrested for DWI, Breaking & Entering & posession of stolen property. It will be up to Buncombe County to determin if he's arrested for B&E of our car.
This brings me to the evils of gambling. I admit, I can find nothing Biblically wrong with gambling. I even wager a small bet from time to time. When I went to Vegas last August, I played slots (around $20 if I recall). But the price of having a Casino in the area is that thugs like this guy will come around.
When you gamble away money you need for something else, you're wrong. The casino's cater to these people and they should share in the blame. When a casino comes to your area, you can expect more trouble like this.
Oddly enough, one of the discussions my wife & I had was around moving, possibly to the area we visited. Our minds are set, that's not where we want to be. Sure the same thing could happen anywhere, but we don't need to improve the odds for the bad guys.
Showing posts with label gambling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gambling. Show all posts
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, September 06, 2007
My take on sub-prime
I've been watching the sub-prime fiasco for some time. The questions are 1) What is sub-prime lending?, 2) Why are lenders in this business? 3) Who loses? 4) Who's to blame? and 5) What can (should) we do about it? The next several paragraphs explore these questions. It's long, but should be easy to read. Please comment.
During my MBA studies, I paid attention to real estate and to legal matters. While I didn't explore either in enough depth to get a real estate license or a law degree, these areas interested me. For my White Collar Crime class, I did a paper on real estate fraud. So I've done some research.
First and foremost, I need to define sub-prime lending. Most lending today is done by a FICO score. If you watch enough TV, you'll see ads about getting your FICO score (don't do it, not worth you money). Basically, you get a score from 0 to 850 that tells your liklihood of repaying a loan. Lenders group everyone into two categories, those with high scores are called "prime" and those with low scores are called "subprime" (sounds like beef). Typically, prime borrowers get good rates and good terms, subprime get higher rates and terms that aren't as good.
Second is why are lenders in this business? Simply put, it's business. Lenders have found that they can make money on these kinds of loans. They may have to increase fees, prevent the borrower from refinancing, increase rates over the life of the loan and anything else. They are taking a higher risk by lending these people money, so they want a higher reward (MBA motto - more risk = more reward).
Another part of the answer to why lender are in this business is that borrowers are in this business. In the past (and somewhat now that the crisis is upon us), subprime borrows simply couldn't get a loan. They weren't able to buy houses at all. Now, thanks to subprime lending, we have the highest home ownership rate in history.
So third is who loses when the subprime industry falters? Well the borrower is the one who is most affected. The borrower who can't pay his mortgage loses his house, trashes his credit and makes the next house even harder for him to buy. His family is rooted up out of his house and his part of the American dream becomes a nightmare.
The lender also loses. Sure they make up for it on other borrowers, but they lose for each borrower who goes under. And in the long run, some subprime lenders will fail. This means the stock-holders lose their investment. Other companies who have supported the lender (including mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents, etc) also lose. Jobs will be lost, mothers will go home to report that they have to look for another job. And because credit tightens up, prospective home buyers everywhere will pay more interest for their mortgages.
One additional loser is the renter. Since mortgages have been so easy, many renters purchased homes. Less apartments have been built and now, the renters are returning. So the supply of rentable space has decreased and the demand has increased. Guess what happens to the average rent payment? (it goes up).
So the next question is who's to blame? The republicans or the democrats? The borrower or the lender? Big business or the little man? Simply put, there's enough blame for everyone. As mentioned earlier, the low rates and easy credit has given us the highest home ownership rate in a long time. More importantly, low income families have benefitted the most from the easy credit situation. They are likely now to lose the most. Everyone who takes credit for the former, also gets credit for the latter. Our capitalist society (in which I gladly participate) means when there is a need, someone will fill it in search of a dollar. So the lender is simply filling a need. Big business is finding a way to help the little man. Could they do it with better terms? Sure, but less people would get loans.
Now, what can we do about it? First and foremost, I believe in personal responsibility. The borrower needs to learn the ins & outs of mortgages (at least HIS mortgage) before he applies. He also needs to practice some discipline, show the lender that he will indeed pay his bills on time and wait for a home until he can actually afford one. Lending terms need to be policed a little better. This burdens me to say this, I typically avoid most legislative changes. But some of the terms in these subprime loans are simply wrong. The purpose is to trap the borrower. Only by cleaning up the laws can lenders be held accountable.
Please post your comments here.
During my MBA studies, I paid attention to real estate and to legal matters. While I didn't explore either in enough depth to get a real estate license or a law degree, these areas interested me. For my White Collar Crime class, I did a paper on real estate fraud. So I've done some research.
First and foremost, I need to define sub-prime lending. Most lending today is done by a FICO score. If you watch enough TV, you'll see ads about getting your FICO score (don't do it, not worth you money). Basically, you get a score from 0 to 850 that tells your liklihood of repaying a loan. Lenders group everyone into two categories, those with high scores are called "prime" and those with low scores are called "subprime" (sounds like beef). Typically, prime borrowers get good rates and good terms, subprime get higher rates and terms that aren't as good.
Second is why are lenders in this business? Simply put, it's business. Lenders have found that they can make money on these kinds of loans. They may have to increase fees, prevent the borrower from refinancing, increase rates over the life of the loan and anything else. They are taking a higher risk by lending these people money, so they want a higher reward (MBA motto - more risk = more reward).
Another part of the answer to why lender are in this business is that borrowers are in this business. In the past (and somewhat now that the crisis is upon us), subprime borrows simply couldn't get a loan. They weren't able to buy houses at all. Now, thanks to subprime lending, we have the highest home ownership rate in history.
So third is who loses when the subprime industry falters? Well the borrower is the one who is most affected. The borrower who can't pay his mortgage loses his house, trashes his credit and makes the next house even harder for him to buy. His family is rooted up out of his house and his part of the American dream becomes a nightmare.
The lender also loses. Sure they make up for it on other borrowers, but they lose for each borrower who goes under. And in the long run, some subprime lenders will fail. This means the stock-holders lose their investment. Other companies who have supported the lender (including mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents, etc) also lose. Jobs will be lost, mothers will go home to report that they have to look for another job. And because credit tightens up, prospective home buyers everywhere will pay more interest for their mortgages.
One additional loser is the renter. Since mortgages have been so easy, many renters purchased homes. Less apartments have been built and now, the renters are returning. So the supply of rentable space has decreased and the demand has increased. Guess what happens to the average rent payment? (it goes up).
So the next question is who's to blame? The republicans or the democrats? The borrower or the lender? Big business or the little man? Simply put, there's enough blame for everyone. As mentioned earlier, the low rates and easy credit has given us the highest home ownership rate in a long time. More importantly, low income families have benefitted the most from the easy credit situation. They are likely now to lose the most. Everyone who takes credit for the former, also gets credit for the latter. Our capitalist society (in which I gladly participate) means when there is a need, someone will fill it in search of a dollar. So the lender is simply filling a need. Big business is finding a way to help the little man. Could they do it with better terms? Sure, but less people would get loans.
Now, what can we do about it? First and foremost, I believe in personal responsibility. The borrower needs to learn the ins & outs of mortgages (at least HIS mortgage) before he applies. He also needs to practice some discipline, show the lender that he will indeed pay his bills on time and wait for a home until he can actually afford one. Lending terms need to be policed a little better. This burdens me to say this, I typically avoid most legislative changes. But some of the terms in these subprime loans are simply wrong. The purpose is to trap the borrower. Only by cleaning up the laws can lenders be held accountable.
Please post your comments here.
Monday, August 27, 2007
To Vegas and back - without losing my shirt
My Vegas trip was a success and I'm back safe. The return trip was interesting as we diverted to Knoxville due to weather, sat on the ground for two hours, then went to Atlanta only to sit on the taxi-way for another hour. Needless to say, I missed my connection. I stayed overnight in a hotel, then drove back (the earliest flight I could have caught would have had me waiting for another 12 hours).
I confess I played slots a little, I lost a total of $14 or $34 depending on how you count. Compared to the dinners I had, that was cheap.
We had some wine one night with dinner, over $300/bottle. I'm glad I wasn't paying. It was good, but so was the $30/bottle stuff.
I also saw two shows, The Blue Man Group (excellent show!) and The Wayne Brady Show (good, but not as good as the Blue Man Group).
Everything in Vegas is over the top. I was going to say extravagant, but that's not descriptive enough. Even for extravagant, it's over the top. The hotel lobby with about 12 dozen fresh roses on display, the elaborate costumes (Caesar's palace), all of the artwork. I got upgraded to a suite and there was even a baby grand piano in my room. I keep wondering about all of the things we could have done instead of spending $300 for a bottle of wine and money on all of the stuff.
I confess I played slots a little, I lost a total of $14 or $34 depending on how you count. Compared to the dinners I had, that was cheap.
We had some wine one night with dinner, over $300/bottle. I'm glad I wasn't paying. It was good, but so was the $30/bottle stuff.
I also saw two shows, The Blue Man Group (excellent show!) and The Wayne Brady Show (good, but not as good as the Blue Man Group).
Everything in Vegas is over the top. I was going to say extravagant, but that's not descriptive enough. Even for extravagant, it's over the top. The hotel lobby with about 12 dozen fresh roses on display, the elaborate costumes (Caesar's palace), all of the artwork. I got upgraded to a suite and there was even a baby grand piano in my room. I keep wondering about all of the things we could have done instead of spending $300 for a bottle of wine and money on all of the stuff.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Viva Las Vegas
I'm heading to "Sin City" for a week long conference and not sure how much time I'll have to post updates here. Most people hear you're going to Vegas for work and they say "sure, I bet it's work".
I'm not attracted to either to the common sins in Vegas. Sure they can have a woman in your room in 30 minutes, but I have a beautiful woman at home, why would I want anything else? And as for gambling, that's a "sin" that's wrongly named. Gambling implies there's some chance of winning, when I do it it's called "losing".
So I get up east coast time, catch up on work, go to conferences all day, entertain customers at night and come back worn out. Lots of fun.
Churches in Vegas....
I've been to Vegas before, but it's been about 7 or 8 years, so I did some research into the town. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are more Catholic churches than casinos in Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly, some worshippers at sunday services will give casino chips rather than cash when the basket is passed. Since they get chips from many different casinos, the churches have devised a method to collect the offerings.
The churches send all their collected chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and then the chips are taken to the casinos of origin and cashed in.
The one going to the casino to retrieve the cash is known as the chip monk....
I'm not attracted to either to the common sins in Vegas. Sure they can have a woman in your room in 30 minutes, but I have a beautiful woman at home, why would I want anything else? And as for gambling, that's a "sin" that's wrongly named. Gambling implies there's some chance of winning, when I do it it's called "losing".
So I get up east coast time, catch up on work, go to conferences all day, entertain customers at night and come back worn out. Lots of fun.
Churches in Vegas....
I've been to Vegas before, but it's been about 7 or 8 years, so I did some research into the town. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are more Catholic churches than casinos in Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly, some worshippers at sunday services will give casino chips rather than cash when the basket is passed. Since they get chips from many different casinos, the churches have devised a method to collect the offerings.
The churches send all their collected chips to a nearby Franciscan monastery for sorting and then the chips are taken to the casinos of origin and cashed in.
The one going to the casino to retrieve the cash is known as the chip monk....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)