Can We Finally Admit It Was Stocks Over RE?

Yawn

Double Yawn

LIC Yawn

Sure, but if you invested only in stocks, you missed the 15% bump from Eataly: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34911-flatiron-inventory

SE, why?

Sell Manhattan RE: (one-bedroom East Midtown Condo unit,890 sq.ft., bought for all-cash (and make a half-million-dollar profit on resale.)

Have existing assets: stocks, bonds, gold and cash, exceeding 4 million dollars.
No debt: no mortgage, no credit card debt, no loans.

Buy a nice house in Maui, all cash and reno it to your specs.
Buy a nice car, all cash, and drive it.

Be able to work, whenever/wherever in the world you want for at least 5k per month.

and, I don't pay for my travel/hotel expenses.
I get comped full airfare, hotel:
in the USA, Canada, South/Central America, US/British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, all Carribe Islands, Europe, Italy, Med., Spain and Portugal, U.K., and Australia/ New Zealand.

Good for you Truth! Thanks for sharing :)

swe: DOW closed at 14,973.96 today.
You had a very good day.

but...where are the tickets?

where's the limo?

Ottawanyc: It has always been Good, and it gets better each day and year for me.

I have no ill-will towards you and I hope you are doing well.
(When did you all of a sudden start to wish me well, Ottawanyc?)
These discussion threads are for "sharing" RE info, although those who have nothing good to "share"
are a-hootin' and a-hollarin', in order to divert attention and go on the se attack.

C0C0, why do you need a limo? Thought you had a really big car that even your friends criticize for being too showy.

SE, why?

C0C0, try harder ... stay focused.

SE, why?

columbiacounty wants limo service?!
To go from where, to where?! For what?

focus ... somewhereelse needs your support C0C0.

its all Good, Truth. Its all Good.

It's all Good?

Who are you trying to be?

SE, why?

C0C0, what did you mean by "its all Good"?

SE, why?

already running away from your statements?

SE, why?

I don't care if /what c.c. posts comments about me.
It is, indeed "all good" for me.
SWE also did well today.

typical C0lumbia C0unty.

SE, why?

typical C0lumbia C0unty

SE, why?

Goodnight, greensdale.
It's late here and I have to be up early to drive.

Somewhere else is still living in his delusion that NYC real estate crashed.

"It's almost biblical. There is a time to reap and there's a time to sow," Leon Black, chairman and chief executive of Apollo Global Management (ticker: APO) declared to the Milken Institute's global conference in Los Angeles, alluding to that same Scriptural passage. "We are harvesting," he added pointedly.

That is, the private-equity giant is a net seller because things simply can't get much better. "We think it's a fabulous environment to be selling," he says, noting Apollo has sold about $13 billion in assets in the past 15 months. "We're selling everything that's not nailed down. And if we're not selling, we're refinancing."

Black's perspective is rooted in his long experience, which has encompassed the credit booms and busts of the past three decades of financial history. It started with Drexel Burnham (whose junk-bond unit was headed by Michael Milken, at whose eponymously named conference Black spoke) which helped the nascent junk-bond market come of age in the 1980s -- before the market's bust with Drexel's demise and Milken's conviction on securities violations. Black co-founded Apollo shortly thereafter, in 1990. Then came the dot-com bubble and bust at the turn of the 21st century, which was followed by the housing bubble and bust.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748703591404578453000846155088.html?mod=BOL_da_udwsd#articleTabs_article%3D1

SWE, I think the answer is "no", they cannot admit it. Willful ignorance led them to the position originally, willful ignorance will see them through.

inoitall, upon doing further research, I'm not sure that somewhereelse is as positive on stocks as you have been.

Two years ago he took money out of stocks:
somewhereelse
about 2 years ago
Posts: 7298
Member since: Oct 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
>I've been taking some profits.

And then of course we've seen him recently pumping real estate in the Flatiron district simply because Eataly moved in.

"Double Yawn"

I guess everyone already knows that RE crashed...

"Somewhere else is still living in his delusion that NYC real estate crashed."

No, wait, still got someone in denial!

(LIC, make sure you don't look and see that medians are still down 19%... in NOMINAL dollars!)

whoooops!

"inoitall, upon doing further research, I'm not sure that somewhereelse is as positive on stocks as you have been."

greenie, I did take some profits... but well after that noted I was still pretty heavily in stocks. I had just been over 100% invested...

And, have you gotten a chance to visit NYC yet? You really should.

"SWE, I think the answer is "no", they cannot admit it. Willful ignorance led them to the position originally, willful ignorance will see them through."

inonada, once again... nail... head.

Willful ignorance is exactly it.

Sorry to hear you sold some stocks 2 years ago.

Just took some profits on my leveraged stuff.

Had to get my allocation under 100%.

Nothing to be sorry about, I crushed RE returns (and the S&P for that matter)

Sorry to hear you got squeamish 2 years ago.

Why is it "or"? How about "and"? Healthy stock gains AND my home is up over 40% (based on recent comp sale). That pays for a lot of rent!

swe, do you like apples?

Juicy, do you like fantasies?

do show your numbers, or a comp, or go just go easy on the nitrous for a day or two.

Juice, SWE sold some of his stocks 2 years ago, maybe he bought a place near Eataly in Flatiron with the proceeds, as we've heard him endlessly pumping and shilling the magic that Eataly created.

Juice, looks like the bottoms troll has latched on to you now. Good luck with that - like many unfortunate things, hard to get rid of. Yucks.

Agree with you it's not strictly an either/or proposition (I've done quite well with S and AAPL - hat tip to w67th on those - and a bunch of others). However, I do think there's merit to those who placed their entire down payment capital (or whatever you'd call it) in equities instead, but if we weren't on an anonymous internet message board, I think you'd find that population to be smaller than actually advertised on here.

bjw... how many people are leveraged 10x on their home and pay 50% of their take home on a mortgage/CC and have the exact leverage and nut in Equities?

yet they think buying apple at $390/share with $150/share on its balance sheet and $40/yr cash earnings is "RISKY" but the above is a "HOME," "Beats paying rent", 'You can never lose over long periods of time," "It's a great inflation hedge".... yada yada yada....

w67 is up $3MM since I've been SE.... the condo I almost bought hasn't budged a dollar in the same period even with rates at 3%.... thatz a financial azz kicking and it'll only compound yearly for the next 20 years.... USA TURNING JAPANESA.... race to shit currency... BTW S would have cost masa son 30% more today than last year... I WONDER HOW MANY JAPANESE ARE GONNA BUY IN NYC?

hahahahhahaaaaaaa... .NYCRE SUCKS!

>hahahahhahaaaaaaa... .NYCRE SUCKS!

FLMAOZ. Aren't you a commercial landlord in NYC?

>w67 is up $3MM since I've been SE
>Member since: Dec 2008

w67th, I don't know - how many? But you're right, those people are poor decision-makers. I do almost feel bad for those who truly feel AAPL at $390 is riskier than RE. Almost.

Why is the argument stocks OR real estate? Most people here are buying real estate to LIVE IN. I bought in early 2010 and if I'd listened to SWE I would have thought RE was headed down another 40%. Instead comps to my condo are going for almost 50% more and I have the enjoyment of living in a beautiful large apt with low monthlies.

Yada yada yada 'low monthlies!' Hilarious.

1. when will you stock cherry pickers stop boasting based on manipulated
and self-serving data and false arguments

2. if you had bought Nasdaq 13 Marches ago you would still be out of pocket
on a nominal dollar basis including akkl dividends

3. why dont you address that fact

If you bought Nevada condos in 2007 you'd be eating cat food.

Wtf? If you don't think 3% 30 yr mortgages is symptomatic of the bullshit re market here in nyc... Then take the long on my short apple jan $500 puts. Flmaozzz.

Here is a simple bet. However you bought nycre. Take same leverage and same Monies and tabulate how much more you'd be up by buying apple when it hit $390. Forward perspective. You didn't? Well that's your problem. Let go backwards. Say you bought sprint last year when w67 said go all in $2.4. Compare your nycre to it.

We can keep going...... Until ALL the re bullz capitulate. That's my reason for being on se. Capitulate you mofos.

I have my cake and I eat it

bjw2103>> However, I do think there's merit to those who placed their entire down payment capital (or whatever you'd call it) in equities instead, but if we weren't on an anonymous internet message board, I think you'd find that population to be smaller than actually advertised on here.

Those who think in terms of "down payment capital" probably didn't make use of the opportunities in the equity markets the past few years. The term "down payment capital" implies a desire to buy, which means the attention was in the wrong place. That group is running scared & looking to pull the trigger on RE any time, as so many here famously have in the past few years with proclamations of imminent increases that have not yet materialized. Some are still waiting to pull the trigger. So if you are talking about those people -- the "down payment capital" people -- I doubt they've been taking large positions in equities.

Then there are those of us who consider don't silo our capital -- we are the "capital is capital" people. Our capital is for investment, and if one market is dumb in one way (stupidly high Manhattan RE prices) and another is dumb in another way (stupidly low stock prices), we make the obvious choice.

If you're arguing there are fewer "capital is capital" people than "down payment capital" people, you're probably right. That's why Manhattan RE was overpriced while equities were underpriced. But if you think "capital is capital" people have been running scared, you are mistaken. What else would we have been doing with our capital in the face of such opportunities?

Arby, no one here said buy NASDAQ in 2000. I know I was calling it an idiotic bubble back then, I'm pretty sure w67th was as well. I'd guess the current Manhattan RE bulls are the ones that were long stocks back then, certainly not inonada and I'm guessing not w67th.

In addition to "down payment capital" folks and "capital is capital" folks, I guess we need to add a "unmovable capital" category for you. That's because it seems you think that throughout a person's lifetime, one market provides opportunities that are at all times superior to another market. You seem to think that way. Not sure why you like to attribute it to w67th & me.

It's money, not the Mets vs the Yankees. Don't worry, your buddies won't look down on you if you switch sides every once in a while.

"If you're arguing there are fewer "capital is capital" people than "down payment capital" people, you're probably right."

'nada, that's indeed what I was saying. Much like you've said most people don't properly understand risk, I think there are relatively fewer folks who actually practice the "capital is capital" mindset. I know you're one of them. But you're a rare bird to begin with :)

rb, how is "13 Marches ago" not cherry-picking either?

"Sorry to hear you got squeamish 2 years ago."

Squeamish?

By taking my stock allocation from over 100% to 85% (more than it was before the runup). That's squeamish.

Interesting.

"I'd listened to SWE I would have thought RE was headed down another 40%."

Then you wouldn't have actually listened to me. I said nothing of the sort.

"I have the enjoyment of living in a beautiful large apt with low monthlies."

I have the advantage of even lower monthlies.

"Why is it "or"? How about "and"? Healthy stock gains AND my home is up over 40% (based on recent comp sale). That pays for a lot of rent!"

Uh, it is "or" because of... correct comprehension. Comparisons are one or the other.

I'll take the up over the down 20%...

Not to mention, you can't assume unlimited capital. The vast majority of money that went into RE instead of stocks the last few years was a clear opportunity cost.

"Arby, no one here said buy NASDAQ in 2000. I know I was calling it an idiotic bubble back then, I'm pretty sure w67th was as well. I'd guess the current Manhattan RE bulls are the ones that were long stocks back then, certainly not inonada and I'm guessing not w67th."

I think you hit the nail on the head.

It does feel pretty darn good being right, I tell you. Very happy to see the numbers in the portfolio, and significantly lower RE prices...

I bet somewhereelse wishes he didn't sell some of his stocks 2 years ago.

not really. I didn't want to hold the leveraged stuff anymore.
Not to mention, I've actually bought stocks since... on pretty much every major dip.

I think you're just jealous.

Though you really should come and visit NYC sometimes. It is great here.

>Not to mention, I've actually bought stocks since... on pretty much every major dip.

Exactly at the low point each time, right?

Yep. W67 is cherry picking. Sprint hits new 52 week high today. So boys and girls. That's $2.40 to $7.40 in just over a year. That don't mean squat but w67 started off with 160k shares and kept loading up and selling puts (last $150k worth will expire worthless on the 18th). Bought 2500 shares of apple at $390. $5 off from absolute bottom. I hear the company is not going bankrupt and will be unleashing an iPhone 6 with dildo attachments.

Apparently w67 is cherry picking his stks. Not my fault the RE bullz keep pointing to their aunts, moms and grandfathers as re picker/winners! As nada points out, it's not that difficult to cherry pick when you are looking at the right barrel of fruits. You RE bullz keep sticking your arms shoulder deep in fermenting kaka and going 'I've got a cherry!' Dude that ain't a cherry and that barrel is turning rancid. Try this barrel.

Nah man. Fk you. This barrel is always ripe. My grandad got his cherries, my mama got cherries. I make my living selling this here delicious fruit. Honey hold my legs. I'm going in deep to get my cherry.

Inonada:

1. as I said once before, stocks are very time intensive
2. both at the due diligence and monitoring the market level
3. I dont have time for either

4. most real estate takes a lot less time to analyze
5. and there are more public resources available to help with due diligence
6. which collectively are also more reliable as data sources

7. so I stay out of stocks and stay within what I can adequately understand and monitor
8. it is true that in some cycles stocks will outperform RE at the nominal price level
9. although not as much as you might think once you count rent for what it is: a dividend

10. but I dont care
11. I dont have the time or energy to watch stock quotes every 10 minutes
12. plus I dont need any possible capital appreciation

13. I bought a number of well-located NYC coops in the early 1990's for under $10,000 each
14. and despite what you might think, they are worth more today even in early 1990's dollars
15. and generate net rental incomes today from 100%+ of cost, to over 500% of cost

Blah blah. 'Can't understand stocks'. Blah blah. 'Made money on coops from 1990 bc interest rate went from 15% to 3%.....' But I don't understand math. Balah blah blah. 'Don't need anymore capital appreciajton'. Blah blah. 'Cash returns are great' - ya moron. You don't calculate cash return on initial investment. Ya calculate based on current asset price. I guess based on your financial acumen when interest rate goes to 10% and you assets price goes to 1/3 of bubble, you'll be ok by you are still calculating based on $10k coops. Hahhahahhahahhjjahaaaaaaaaaa.

Well located? Huh? If you haven't noticed even Brooklyn went up. It's called a bubble.

Hey arby I got some commercial condos that I bought in mid 1995 I'm trying to unload. Based on my sale price you can get 4% yield. But if you can get 0% financing for 50 yrs it'll net you 15%. You in?

I got it. RE bullz don't understand cost of capital or they assign cost of capital for re based on pets.com going to zero. Ahhhhhhh. SE has enlightened w67

Moron re bullz. Hahhaahaaa. Hey apple. Goodddddammmmitt. I can't buy more bc it keeps going up.

"1. as I said once before, stocks are very time intensive
2. both at the due diligence and monitoring the market level
3. I dont have time for either

4. most real estate takes a lot less time to analyze
5. and there are more public resources available to help with due diligence
6. which collectively are also more reliable as data sources"

rb, I actually disagree with ALL of the above. I find equities to be infinitely less time-consuming to manage than RE. I have certainly gone weeks without checking my portfolio, and even when I do check in, it's fairly quick and painless. Unless you're something of a day trader (generally a terrible idea), there's no reason to be too hands-on. In most cases, it's probably detrimental. RE investment on the other hand, takes a lot of effort.

bjw2103, have you seen Aboutready in the neighborhood?

bjw:

1. well run rental real estate takes very little time on an annual basis
2. the only way that I generally know that my tenants are still alive is when they pay their rent
3. or their bedbugs sit on their sidewalks holding "will work for blood" signs
4. rentals can take time but I offer unusual lease packages and usually rent quickly and at good prices

5. I can often perform the preliminary due diligence needed to make a buy/dont buy decision in under an hour
6. cant do that with stocks: even simple proper due diligence can and should take days
7. also reliable data about stocks is much harder to get because of all the touts and frauds
8. real estate is also less volatile and less vulnerable to nad news price run-offs

w67thStreet:

1. thsnks for your offer of your "commercial condos"
2. I'm gonna have to pass because I dont buy lemonade stands

I'm with BJW. It isn't even close. Wackily off...

Not to mention, the way individual investors really should be investing is index funds... which take no effort to manage.

This is the funniest one...
"and there are more public resources available to help with due diligence"

Hmmmm... more resources on a specific apartment than a specific stock? Really? Or the S&P?

Ah, I think we found it.
"7. so I stay out of stocks and stay within what I can adequately understand and monitor "

You could have just said this to begin with. You don't understand stocks, that's fine...

but that is also why your assessment is off.

" it is true that in some cycles stocks will outperform RE at the nominal price level "

And let's not leave out... the long term. Vastly overperforms historically.

"9. although not as much as you might think once you count rent for what it is: a dividend"

Only if you ignore stock dividends....

"12. plus I dont need any possible capital appreciation"

ok, now we're getting somewhere weird...

"1. well run rental real estate takes very little time on an annual basis
2. the only way that I generally know that my tenants are still alive is when they pay their rent
3. or their bedbugs sit on their sidewalks holding "will work for blood" signs
4. rentals can take time but I offer unusual lease packages and usually rent quickly and at good prices"

rb,

1. No. Just no. Unless you hire a property manager, which, you know, is a not-insignificant expense.
2. Ok, you talk about people cherry-picking stocks. You seem to be cherry-picking your tenants. A ton of landlords have different experiences. I know; I've been a tenant.
4. Again, cherry-picking. If your lease "packages" (whatever that means) are unusual, why are you making such bold, universal statements? You're apparently a rarity amongst landlords.

Cherry picking his tenants. As opposed to what, operating a homeless shelter?

Nope - the point is don't make general statements using your experience if you're clearly an outlier.

Because most landlords don't care about their who the tenants are and so rb346, asshole that he is, is a unique landlord who seeks good tenants?

Only in swe's bizarro world are NYC real estate prices down 19 percent. Hey, if his delusions make him feel better . . .

How far down from the peak / up from the bottom do you think it is, and why?

bjw2103:

1. you are partially correct about rentals: in weak markets they are more time consuming

2. however, because stocks now trade 24/7 and move by large %% on no meaningful notice,
stock portfolios have to be constantly monitored, including many times intra-day, unless
their owner is willing to accept the risk of large losses caused by inattention

3. just look at the recent one to several day losses in Microsoft, Apple. and Intel

4. with real estate, I dont have to monitor equity prices or rental markets, unless I am
planning to sell or rent

5. plus the dividend yields on real estate are generally far higher than those in stock markets

6. there is also the personality issue
7. I have the personality, mind-set and quick wittedness of a day trader
8. for me, owning stocks would be mistake, because it would evolve into a career

9. in addition I have what I consider good sales and people management skills
10. those skills are of absolutely no value in stocks
11. but they offer a comparative advantage in real estate

12. as to my lease packages, I try to offer prospective tenants things they highly value

13. such as no fee rentals, right to have dogs of up to 200 lbs, lower cost renewal options,
the right to have their wives sleep with me while they are away on business so that they
know their wives are safe

14. doing so gives me a comparative advantage, but is really just good competitive marketing

On a psf basis- we are now down from the 2008 peak around 10% on coops and 5-7% on condos, BUT, that is from a very brief and very steep peak. Prices jumped probably 20% in 6 months back in late 2008.

LIC:

1. Forest Hills and its sibling Rego Park seem to be cheaper than years earlier
2. but that is not true in Manhattan south of 23rd Street
3. or many parts of Brooklyn
4. in those areas prices sre at an all-time high

Your collective memories are great, but perhaps you might want to consider the condo index SE so painstakingly put together. It includes every same-condo sales pair that occurred in Manhattan since 1995. The last time prices went up 20% was between 2004/2005. We are currently 10% below the peak and 10% above the 2009 trough.

rb345
about 11 hours ago
Posts: 943
Member since: Jun 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
7. I have the personality, mind-set and quick wittedness of a day trader

Tell us more about your personality.

Inonada:

1. as you well know Mamhattan coops are now almost all selling well above prior peaks
2. and condo resales and new sales routninely occur now at all time highs, e.g., $7000/ft
3. all Manhaatan coops are now selling for far more than they on January 1, 1995
4. some for 10x as much or more

5. as for stocks, NASDAQ is still well below its March 2000 Clinton Bubble peak
6. while the DJIA is barely above its pre-Lehman high
7. and dependent on the continuation of two factors to prevent its colkapse
8. Bernanke bubble-money and foreign fear capital

"Only in swe's bizarro world are NYC real estate prices down 19 percent."

Manhattan, oh master of observation.

"Hey, if his delusions make him feel better . . ."

Wow, that's precious... LICC calling anyone else on the planet delusional.

Thanks for the chuckle...

and, oh yeah, it's not just my world... it is Miller Samuel's world... which is, what, every transaction in Manhattan, and the data even the brokerages use (parts of...)

Delusion is funny.

Make that stocks 7% over peak...

bet you wish you didn't sell some 2 years ago.

1. today's WSJ reports that cunmlative 2013 returns on bonds are below zero as of May 14th
2. I will admit I might have been wrong
3. I expected their cumulatiuve return to be a lot more than just a lttle below zero

> bet you wish you didn't sell some 2 years ago.

Not really. My allocation was still higher than I actually wanted, so i just got a bonus of even more return when I was finally able to.

From 1999 to 2013, 100k invested in Manhattan housing with the available leverage would had easily netted you close to 1 million today. In the same time frame, that 100K with any leverage would had probably netted you a small gain.

Again, it's the combination of timeframe + performance that's important. The title of the page should be changed to:

"Can We Finally Admit It Was Stocks Over RE since the 2009 bottoms?"

IRS depreciation schedule says your building loses half its value in that time period. Fail.

And it costs money to deal with it after time has taken such a toll on your crappy little condo box. Either the added investment needed for renovation, or (if it's in Long Island City) the costs of demolition.

Alanh, are you talking?
Sorry, i don't read comments from poster that are grayed out.

There's a reason StreetEasy have you on their $hitlist.

Rico, who the hell cares about 1999? Were you & I here in 1999 claiming buy vs. rent-and-invest? No.

Wait, you weren't part of the 1999 internet bubble buying frenzy?
I'm just pointing out the obvious. Any investment comparison needs a time frame.

I agree with SomewhereElse, if the comparison was about stocks vs housing since 2009, it's been stocks hands down.

Inonada:

1. you should become a fruit farmer
2. because you seem to derive untold joy from cherry picking

3. regardless of whether stocks were a better investment than real estate during
the period 2009-2012, they wont be in 2013, which is what we are living in and
when we have to invest

4. also and unlike well located NYC real estate, the stock market could correct by
10% or more at any time, for potentially scores of different reasons

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/34956-why-is-arby-now-gray

Lol everyone pretends they were in stocks since March 2009. I told y'all to listen to Buffett and buy. I doubt you listened. I did.

Rico, congrats on admitting it's been stocks over Manhattan RE since we've all been banging it out here.

Arby, let me get this straight. Using calls made here, as I or w67th or swe or BSex have made, constitutes cherry-picking? You are delusional. stocks have been up every year we've all been here.

You have made a call here for 2013. As you did in 2012. And 2011. And 2010. And 2009. Things have gone nowhere in the period. Maybe they will in the remainder of 2013. If they do and you claimed a win after 4 years of being wrong, wouldn't that constitute cherry-picking?

BTW, Manhattan RE may beat stocks in 2013, who knows. But it's not looking good so far given stocks are up 16.3% so far for the year.

The short answer is yes, stocks over real estate. However stocks are far more volatile historically than real estate, so looking at index returns only without looking at volatility tells only part of the story. I would also argue that most investors under perform stock indexes (due to fees, emotional market timing, or letting you personal views get in the way), and out perform real estate indexes due to leverage, tax deduct ability and tax exempt sales.

inonada:

1. you oontinue to disregard objective facts
2. well located NYC real estate is up a boatload this year: probably over 20%

3. real estate also pays much larger dividends than stocks do
4. even measured by current market rather than cost, most of my NYC real estate yields 6^ or better
5. while stock at best yield 2.2.% as a class, and many individual stocks pay no dividends

6. as I've said before real estate 2009-2012 was held back by non-structural non-recurring constraints
7. they are gone now

8. also, real estate values are much more firmly rooted in current economic conditions
9. stocks on the other hand could sell off with massive losses as any time

10. your entire argument about relative value is based on Bernanke's zero money policy,
which is also a non-recurring one-time event that cannot be maintained indefinitely

"Rico, congrats on admitting it's been stocks over Manhattan RE since we've all been banging it out here."

I never argued against this.
If you dig up my 2009 threads and comments, i was pounding on the table to buy during that period.

I have always believed that in a 0 interest environment that sitting on cash was dumb. Any assets beside cash would had been a 'good' play since the 09 bottom. With 1.4 trillion dollars from the central banks of Japan and 60 billion a month here in the US (with no hard stop date), everything should continue to MELT UP.

I have stocks..
I have a nice Gold position..
I have a home...

One thing i don't have very much is cash...