wrong! the asking price can be 20%, 50%, or even double the market value at that time.. the buyer may have put an asking price for 1.95M when the (sellers) market value was really 1.4M and agreed to 1.65M.. I have a piece of land I bought for $2.50 a sq ft 3 years ago that I have listed for $8.00 a square foot.. its been two months and if someone offers me $5 a square foot I'll take it..
You probably have never brought a house before, it's obvious you have NO clue how this works. I said "The "asking price" is one of the big indicators of the market value at THAT TIME." which is entirely true. There maybe a few exceptions, but overall the asking price will reflect the market value, especially during a housing boom. The realtors that that set the asking prices are the professionals, they make money by selling houses, not by letting house sit on the market for a long time because the asking price is too high. It's generally bad reputation for the listing agent to sell at significant below asking, and during the boom time, hardly anyone was selling for less than asking.
It's not, while the scale of money is different (I seems to remember the profit Cheney get from halliburton goes to charity). Both have the appearance of impropriety without "hard evidence". Just because the money is different, doesn't make one right.
fyi, buying a house doesn't give an insight on how asking price works as much as selling a house.. its obvious that you haven't sold real estate before the owners have the last say in the asking price.. not the brokers/realtors.. ask any commercial or residental realtor, broker, or investor that.. I have currently have a listing for 1 commerical property and 1 business in loopnet.com and har.com.. they are both 25% more than the price my realtor suggested me to sell it.. but does that stop me from listing it with the price I want? no..
That would not be a correct recollection on your part. He pledged to donate the proceeds from his as yet unexercised options grants to charity - who knows whether he will actually do it. As for the millions and millions in prior compensation for a company that, inter alia, did busienss with Saddam, Iran, etc while on his watch....that's not going to charity, it went to his pocket.
less than 2 months.. and I already got a signed offer on one.. just waiting for buyer to get financing.. and thats the whole point I'm saying.. someone can have a house which is really just worth 1.4M based on the current market or comparisons.. but nothing even a listing agent can stop the owner from listing it for 1.95M.. then after x amount of months he does not get an offer or everything else is below 1.65M.. then someone comes with an offer 1.65M, he sells..
Of course the owner has the last say, but guess who knows more about the current market trends? The realtors. The ultimate goal of selling houses is *gasp* to actually SELL the houses. By listing it at 25% above market value will mean either it gets no action or you will receive offers that are 25% or more below asking. So the house sits on the market for a long time, which costs the owner money. Either you are lying your a$$ off or you are a terrible businessman. I don't care either way, so good luck on selling your properties, real or imagined.
Yup, I was referring to the options he still has. (assuming Halliburton's profits can keep them options above water)
what you don't believe me? you don't want to admit that asking price can be 20%, 50% or even double of the market value so you try to discredit me? there's a reason why the article said asking price and not market price or market value.. so if you sell your house, you simply add a fixed percent to the market value? or do you simply go with what your realtor advised you.. there are different reasons for people to sell.. sometimes they really need to sell because the need cash or can't afford it.. sometimes, they are happy about their house but want to see how much money he can make if he tries to sell it.. there is no cost for a seller to have a property listed by an agent.. my point is, the true market value of the house in the article, based on the information in the article has 50-50 chance of either being below 1.65M or above 1.65M..
Your continued inability to grasp the real issue here is mind-boggling. Before you use your standard defense, yes, I've bought and sold properties, and businesses, and cars, and blah blah blah. The issue at hand here isn't the discount. It's how he got it, from whom, how it was shared, etc. Stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There have now been multiple people tell you they've bought and sold real estate, in and out of hot markets, of varying types. This is shady because of how Obama shared the discount, who he was partnering with, what the partner was doing, etc.
Dude, that's exactly what I have been trying to explain, Obama got the discount that was out of the norm (probably because he was partnering with his shady real estate guy). The others are arguing that the asking price isn't really an indication of the market value, so his 300k discount really was the fair market value, hence his dealing with the shady partner had no effect on the purchase. Its pretty simple, do you think the 300k discount was normal market movement or was it the result of some shady deal.
I'm no fan of Ms. Clinton, but except for using this in her race against Obama (something any politician would do, btw), what does this have to do with her? She didn't force Obama to do a deal with this guy. He clearly made a huge mistake for someone considering higher office. I'm sure he wouldn't do the same thing now, given a "re-do," but he doesn't get those, does he? It sucks that Obama wasn't more circumspect. He needs to get out in front of this story, apologize for a poor personal and business decision, and move on. If he doesn't, it'll just be worse for him in the long run, in my opinion. Obama, if he can, needs to put this to bed. Impeach Bush.
Gee - I don't know deckard, why is Hillary at all relevant when somebody makes a comment about how Obama in the general election? I don't know why anybody would ever bring up Hillary? That is what happened when the story first broke months ago, noted in this thread, nice dewey defeats truman headline there jorge: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=128515&highlight=rezko
If you put similar comment against an African-American poster, you will be called a racist. If you put similar comment against a Jewish poster, you will be called anti-semitic. But it's fine you threw that at a Chinese-American, you are still the proud support of "hope and change". If you don't have anything substantive to debate, play the race card. Not convenient to play the card as a Caucasian? No problem, you can act to do it on behalf of others. Just like you ganged up with NewYorker in those threads of Rape of Nanking, acted being offended when Chinese posters referenced to Holocaust. The interesting thing is, while Jewish posters never said anything, Jewish people openly admitted that could resonate with the pain of Chinese people, YOU and NewYorker, 2 interesting characters to act up and downplay the war crime of Imperial Japan. While other Obama supporters trying to seek for more information and explain the deal in question, you are the one who first threw racially offensive attack at the OP, and then accused the OP of "doesn't like black people". Sam, you are like the index in a deep bear market, getting to new low everyday.
This is what was brought up in that thread and pretty much ignored... • • Referring to Monday's Sun-Times story, Williams asked Obama about his "questionable ties" to slumlord Tony Rezko. Obama replied that while a state senator, "The first bill I ever passed was campaign finance reform legislation.'' He's wrong. It was not his first bill. Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief Dave McKinney reports that as a chief co-sponsor, Obama played an important role in passing that legislation May 22, 1998. Obama's first bill passed on his own in the state Senate required the state's community colleges to publish a directory of students with vocational and technical skills. That bill passed the Senate unanimously on March 13, 1997, and was signed by former Gov. Jim Edgar on Aug. 22, 1997. That's all he said, according to the post you linked for us. Hardly clearing the air and addressing the issue. No one thought there was anything to it. Obama must have known far more than he said in the quote above, however, so his answer was misleading. That it wasn't technically his "first bill" is of no consequence. That this came up and he ignored it is. Impeach Bush.
Give us all a break. What BS is this? Sam made a joke. Golly, the world will end as we know it. (insert "roll-eyes" here) Impeach Bush.
What BS is this? How many times do I have to repeat, the race or ethnic group at the receiving end get to decide whether they perceive a "joke" is a joke, not a third party? You may find "Chinaman" as a joke, Chinese might not think so. You may find "going to your hometown to inciting rebellions and sleeping with strange women there" is a joke to Chinese, Chinese might not think so. Just wondering, do you think it's a joke, if Sam said that to African-American or Jewish people? Or you are OFFENDED by my question? Speaking of Obama, who doesn't see skin color at all, is safe to crack "jokes" at Edwards getting votes from white men, and investigating Bill's dance ability to decide whether he's a brother.
