New DSLR lenses from Nikon

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.

I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.

I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

I am also insured for replacement value, and there have been some
reasonable bumps over the years which seem to be in line with
replacement costs, but no notices of any rate increases for this year.
Phew!

The same policy covers liability at my rented boat slip at our lake
marina. Fortunately with the rain we have had over the last few weeks
those docks are afloat again, after being high and dry since the end of
August.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.

I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.

I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
premium was not unreasonable.
If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
consistent guarantee of that happening.

I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
about 20 miles from us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake
It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.

So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
cost of Earthquake insurance.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
premium was not unreasonable.

$900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.

If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
consistent guarantee of that happening.

I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
about 20 miles from us.

My house (we're about the same distance in the S. Bay) has stood
without damage for 60 years. I've chosen to ensure that it's
structurally sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake

Oh, THAT earthquake. I was referring to the Loma Prieta.

It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.

So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
cost of Earthquake insurance.

Shrug. Everyone makes their own risk assessment.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2010-02-09 23:54:39 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
premium was not unreasonable.

$900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.

Which insurance company gave you that price?

Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home? or are you in one of the
shaky land reclamation areas like The Marina, or a potential slide
area? ...or all of those?

I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want
the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area.

I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company
"red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in
a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for
Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-02-09 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck said:

On 2010-02-09 18:43:05 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-02-09 19:08 , C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-09 15:12:20 -0800, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-02-09 17:36 , C J Campbell wrote:
On 2010-02-09 14:27:44 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:


"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
news:2010020913044675249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon
said:

In article ,
says...
Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is
just
crazy.

Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.

Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are.
America has no VAT.


As of February, 2010.....But just give Obama a little more
time.....He's got a nice VAT on the drawing boards right now.......

It will pass right after medical reform, too.

Both parties are obsessed with populist "blame the bankers for the
economy" rhetoric. Which means they are likely to do nothing. Which is
just the way I like it. Unfortunately, while neither party has said
"Jewish bankers," the message is just as clear. The nation is being run
by fascists who dominate both sides of the aisle.

If nothing is done about banking, the notion that the largest banks
are "too large to fail" will bring down the US economy in a way that
will make the Great Depression look like summer camp.

The basics, which include sane reserve ratios have been ignored by
conveniently using out of gov't purview investment systems (hedge
funds and derivatives), the use of underfunded single co. insurance
schemes by all involved coupled to cross lending in what really
amounts to an "accountable" ponzi scheme.

In order to legitimatize all this, they all used the same 2 (a few
more) large ratings firms and "shopped" their paper at these firms
until getting a favourable rating - this further leveraged the poor
quality paper on the street into a higher value (less perception of
risk) than they were.

You show a much better understanding of the problem than most people.

And that's the sad part. The veneer of the economy looked fine but the
rot underneath was out of view. The few who raised the issue were
rebuffed. Politically inconvenient, you know.

No, not 1 person in 20 seemed to get it before, and I doubt the ratio
has improves to much better than 1 in 15.


To believe that doing nothing is just fine is, I hope, ignorance.

Because knowing the facts and not being willing to do anything about
them is sheer stupidity.

I won't even go into the housing asset bubble issue. That was clear
enough back in 2002. And was roundly ignored by the people who should
never have stepped into that market: Fanny & Freddie who just ended up
being stupidy fuel instead of a natural brake against stupidity.

Heck, the housing asset bubble was a problem that was being talked about
clear back in the '80s when the Savings & Loan industry collapsed. I
knew then that the S&L failures were just round one.

And many people knew that if interest rates were so low and some banks
were handing out $600K jumbo mortgages (aka "junk mortgages") to people
who could not qualify for an ordinary mortgage on $250K home, that
something, somewhere had to give.

The (current era) bubble warnings were loud and clear back in 2002 or
so. (Wash Post, LA Times, NYT amongst other wrote about it a lot).

I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
$400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.

I didn't bite.
I did take advantage of a drop in interest rates in 2001. I refinanced
at a lower rate and shorter term, without taking any additional equity
out of the inflated valuation. As a result I have a small balance and
mortgage payments lower than I could rent for today.
I have since witnessed 5 foreclosures in my immediate neighborhood, and
I continue to get offers from any number of banks to "lower my payment."
I am also aware of foreclosures on properties of individuals I worked
with, who had bought homes they could not in any real World afford.
Among those foreclosed on in our neighborhood, were two families who
had bought their first homes, and who were lead on by the realtors and
the banks to take advantage of phantom equity growth, to put themselves
into debt they could never possibly support. Their economic future has
been effectively destroyed due to their naivety, greed and the
predatory behavior of the realtors and the banks.

I don't know if you remember that photo I was circulating awhile back
of an uninhabitable shack in Arizona that was carrying a loan of
$130,000. The ultimate lender turned out to be a teachers' union in the
midwest. The shack sold at auction for $12,000 and was torn down by the
neighbors. So much for the teachers' pensions.

The borrower was a druggie who had never held a job. She just kept
refinancing the shack and her beat up old truck and living off the
proceeds. At one point she had more than 20 of her druggie friends
living in the shack and in boxes in the yard.

The next door neighbor bought the place and uses the empty lot to park
his RV. Talking to people there, no one seemed to miss the old
residents. By the time she moved out, she and her sons had stripped the
place of everything valuable, including the copper plumbing.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 23:54:39 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (Ray Fischer) said:
Savageduck wrote:

I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
premium was not unreasonable.

$900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.

Which insurance company gave you that price?

That's the standard California insurance terms. State Farm offers it.

Are you in some high ticket Bay Area home?

Is there any other kind of Bay Area home? I live in the South Bay.
The median price is around $550,000 (still).

I wouldn't pay that either. Perhaps the insurance companies don't want
the "Earthquake" business in the Bay Area.

I have a feeling that there must be some sort of insurance company
"red-line" zoning for the Bay Area, or I am benefitting from living in
a rural area. With Allstate I am paying less than $900 a year for
Homeowner's & Earthquake insurance combined.

Hmmph.

--
Ray Fischer

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-02-09 14:36 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In om.au,
says...
Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
crazy.

Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.

Whenever Europeans act stupidly, most everyone thinks so.

(I'd mention, for example, the Lisbon treaty (with serial referendums
until people vote "right"), Italian governance, Greek government budgets
and Spanish economic and labour theory and a plethora of other stupid
European things brought on by European thought, but that would be a bit
overwhelming to most.)

Naturally, this does nothing to obviate Japanese, American, Canadian or
other nationals stupidity. There's more that enough to go around without
import or export barriers.

Our Australia government is certainly not worth a cracker at the moment,
opposition about the same......... :-(

"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:
Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
has no VAT.

1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't
know about other countries in America.
2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over
the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes
that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street.
3: Not to mention that VAT is refundable upon export of the good while
sales tax is not.


Almost right. What you call a sales tax is actually a use tax. If a purchase
is made for resale, or to be shipped outside the taxing jurisdiction, the
purchase is usually exempt.


--
Peter