L/O Extensions for MattB & Alex G and others - Posted by Doug W

Six of one… - Posted by Eric C

Posted by Eric C on June 19, 2001 at 15:07:23:

… or a half-dozen of the other.

I agree with the concept of cycles. What I really meant was two things:

  1. That cycles happen more often and with more volatility than most people realize or expect. This trend to more and more volatility is going to grow over the next few years. A lot.

  2. What happens (or is happening) with the general economy or even your local economy may not be that important. You can be in the midst of a meltdown and be making money hand over fist. Or, you can be surrounded with glowing economic numbers and be drowning.

The underlying reason for both of these is the same (in my opinion) – poor math skills.

We are all caught in widespread trends that are sweeping us along whether we like or not (or whether we realize it or not). Securitization is such trend.

Securitization is basically sold as a risk management technique that is a more sophisticated version of the older participation agreements that S&L’s used years ago. The idea is simple.

Pass the risk off to as many parties as possible. Recover your investment as quickly as possible. Repeat this process as often as possible.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Well, not unless you get it wrong to begin with. Bad risks aren’t really made any less risky because they can be securitized. The process may spread the pain a bit, but it doesn’t change the reality of the offering.

And what if securitization becomes unavailable, even temporarily? That’s happened before as recently as 1998 when Criimi Mae filed for bankruptcy on Oct 5. With no one to lay their risk off to, commercial lenders began to withdraw loan commitments, increase interest rates, and ask for additional collateral (up to 25% more). And, at the same time, commercial property values fell between 15 and 20 percent IN A SIX WEEK PERIOD. Potential buyers could not find loans.

OK, so that’s just one example of a widesprend trend leading to an economic problem (and I could give you plenty more), but what about those of a more personal nature?

How about illness for a start? As Mike Gerber likes to say, are you working on your business? Or in it?

Most investors are pretty much one man shows. That’s just the way they’re wired. And that can lead to problems.

I had a friend who was an independant sales guy. I mean this man was making about 2-3 million a year from home. And this was before personal computers and the Internet. The telephone was his weapon of choice.

He sold his product around the world. He was very successful until he had a stroke at the age of 46. The stroke left him unable to speak. He could think. He could understand. He could not talk. And his business went out the door. He didn’t go broke, but he came very, very close.

Or how about the man in Texas who had sold hundreds of homes on land contracts (CFDs) and who found himself on the front page of the local paper one evening. Despite doing nothing wrong, most (if not all) of his buyers decided (after the article) that they should sue him.

How would like to have NO rental payments coming in on about 100 houses? And a judge telling you that you will have to continue to make those underlying payments anyway? It got worse.

If you deal with private investors, you can be derailed by the smallest things. That’s not a problem if you are prepared to deal with those small speed bumps, but if you’re not…heaven help you.

People often think that they can stay in control when things first go haywire. My experience is that very few can. Too much of the time, bad can go to worse in a heartbeat.

I can’t control the future. And I can’t predict it either. But I can conduct planning sessions that include most of the possible scenarios (and some that aren’t so likely)and see what would happen under those circumstances. Try it sometime, you might be surprised.

I buy wholesale. I sell (when I sell) at retail. The spread is not only my profit, but it’s also a safety factor. It’s there for a reason. I want to make sure I have the funds and skills to play the game whatever rule changes or global trends might unfold.

Oh, and I buy a lot of property at 50 cents on the dollar even now. I guess those folks I buy from weren’t planning on a fifty percent decline either.

Take care,

Eric C

PS - Some of you may not believe this, but I’ve always made more money in slow (down) times than in good ones.

And about scenario planning. Shoot for four concepts. One ain’t worth the trouble. Two is too few. Three just leads you to average out your conclusions - no help there. Four is just about right.

Check out some books on risk or game theory. It’ll help. I promise.

Re: 50% decline? - Posted by JHyre in TexOhio

Posted by JHyre in TexOhio on June 21, 2001 at 08:03:48:

Eric,

Great post, as usual. I will be QUITE interested to hear where deals are to be had at 50%, among other things. Seeya on the 7th!

John Hyre

Re: 50% decline? - Posted by Michael (tejas)

Posted by Michael (tejas) on June 20, 2001 at 20:19:20:

Eric,

Thanks for replying in such depth. I’ve spent the last couple of days reading a couple hundred of your posts from the archives, and they are truly the most valuable on this site as far as the long term health of my (soon to be) wealth.

Beach waves and markets? Are you too a fan of the ideas of Ed Seykota?

About LTC and their mathmatical models. The problem with markets and normal distributions is the occurences in the tails happen more frequently and with more violence than theoretical statistics would predict.
Did you see the Nova special on LTC? Very good and I have it on tape if you’re interested.

No I didn’t think you were being arrogant, and I agree about email’s limitations, but it does make me wonder how people remained civil and communicated effectively before telephones. Maybe that explains the flowery prose of yesteryear or our current lack of writing skill.

Hope to meet your acquaintence some day,

Michael

Re: Six of one… - Posted by Tony (CA)

Posted by Tony (CA) on June 21, 2001 at 14:58:42:

Eric,

I’m just at the tail end or Gerber’s E-Myth and it really has me thinking. His “franchising” or systematizing approach is giving me plenty to chew on. One of the things I like about the CRE biz is that I don’t need a bunch of employees, a warehouse of inventory, or regular hours. It’s freedom. It seems that some successful investors have, whether they knew it or not, applied the franchising concept to RE by creating courses. Look at LeGrand for instance. He has worked on his business, not in his business, after years of successful investments. While I have a different set of goals than creating the next SDI, I believe it will be necessary to work on the business and write my “Operations Manual” so that eventually others can take over working in the business.

What a great concept!

Tony

Re: 50% decline? - Posted by David Alexander

Posted by David Alexander on June 21, 2001 at 17:00:13:

Hit by email or cell (214)724-2783 where…

and I shall see ya’ll there too…

David Alexander

Re: 50% decline? - Posted by Eric C

Posted by Eric C on June 24, 2001 at 15:46:27:

Hi Michael -

Thanks for the kind words. But I can?t say that I?ve heard much (if anything) about Mr. Seykota. My experience with business, science and nature leads me to believe that there are patterns of behavior that follow well defined rules everywhere, even if we aren?t quite bright enough to understand them all. (yet)

I was trained as a scientist ? a physicist to be specific. But I was also a rancher for many years. I carry the experiences of both professions with me to this day.

And I found that these two are not so diametrically opposed as you might think. Math is the language of nature as well as of the universe.

Understanding that has always given me an edge.

But when you enter into the arena of business, you must also learn to consider others. Their thinking, as well as their actions must be taken into account. Psychology comes into play.

Other ?players? may or may not be logical; most often they will be irrational. That?s OK, as long as you realize your own ?irrational? tendencies and biases.

When I posted earlier about psychology and math, advanced degrees (although I have one myself) weren?t exactly what I had in mind. Learning to think is far more important than any certificate. And learning to think for yourself (and take responsibility for your actions) is becoming rare indeed.

Numbers are important. But often, people fail to realize their significance both short-term and long.

In fact, a lot of people wouldn?t know a good deal if it fell on them. They believe, for instance, that the fact that they can choose their lotto numbers somehow affects the odds of winning. (it doesn?t). They often equate volatility with risk. They can?t make out the difference between ?covering your costs? and ?maximizing your profit opportunities?.

?Innumerate? is the term that the mathematician, Paulos, uses. I agree. ?Anchoring?, ?information cascade?, and ?sunk costs? are terms that most people do not find familiar. And there are many more.

That?s too bad.

Just because we don?t recognize them for what they really are, doesn?t mean that they don?t have major impacts on our lives.

Now, do you ?have? to know about all these things to be successful? Nope. But, I repeat my point that they affect you (and me) anyway. Like the law of gravity, these principles affect us all. And just like gravity, ignorance of the facts can lead to disastrous consequences.

Yours,

Eric C

PS ? no, I didn?t get to see that piece on LTC. I?ll put that on my to do list.

And about that 50% decline ? I hope you notice that in CA some areas have already been hit with declines of 50 percent or MORE in the commercial property sector.

Is that much of a decline enough? Who knows? Bottom fishing can be lucrative as well as risky.

But even you will have to admit that the economy is not tanking (so far) everywhere. And that this decline has taken place while other sectors continue to do well. One more thing, it also happened (and is happening) very, very quickly. (and relatively quietly).

Last point ? although the majority of commercial property is currently owned by pension plans, REITs, and other institutional investors, there is still quite of bit of commercial real estate ?on the books? of publicly traded companies. When they are in trouble, these companies rarely talk about their RE; sometimes it takes a very complete reading (including between the lines) of their public documents to pinpoint what they really do own.