The glory days of the HDH are over.

Well folks, let me just say that it has been several years since I posted much of anything on these boards, and this thread -- which I read from beginning to end -- has been so interesting to read throughout. I think that's due in part because of the issue I have been weighing of late. I've noticed that over the last year I have started seeing the same providers with some regularity, a change from before.

Some other recent posts have got me thinking about the SB model and potentially trying it out. Reading this thread has helped me with my own analysis, which notably is solely my own for my own circumstance. So thanks.

Now, I just need to find a compatible SB, but until then, I'll just keep hobbying UTR with HDHs and others wherever my travels take me.

---z.

Who exactly were the "AIG types" we bailed out? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well let's take a look at just who these ''AIG types'' are. How about A-I-G. A-tothe-I- tothefreaking-G.
Follow that freaking money trail. Goldman got 12.9 Billion they probably would not have gotten. You free market guys and your FIRE economy seem to forget quickly.

Surely no respectable TeaSipper would defend this CaCa!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...92&ft=1&f=1001

The aid to AIG ultimately mounted to $182 billion. Much of the rescue money went to meet the company's obligations to its Wall Street trading partners on credit default swaps.
The bailout "distorted the marketplace by transforming highly risky ... bets into fully guaranteed payment obligations," the report says.
Some of the biggest beneficiaries of the AIG rescue money also received federal bailout infusions themselves: Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which got $12.9 billion in AIG money; Bank of America Corp., $5.2 billion; Merrill Lynch, $6.8 billion; and Citigroup Inc., $2.3 billion. Other big beneficiaries included French banks Societe Generale, $11.9 billion, and BNP Paribas, $4.9 billion; Germany's Deutsche Bank, $11.8 billion; and Britain's Barclays, $7.9 billion, and HSBC, $3.5 billion.
"U.S. taxpayers were called on to bear the full cost of the rescue, including repayment of some of the most sophisticated companies in the world," Warren said

Maybe all you HDHs can get together, accept the new reality, adapt to it, put together a new product like Jobs did, and make more than ever before. I am not sure how, but I think it would be worthwhile to at least think about it. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

My question to you is: Why do you care?

You've put so much effort into this argument, and I just don't understand why?

You hear that folks....all those home loans that were made on folks rising housing prices that you can not sell for half of what you borrowed on it, well its not a loss....it is a "potential loss''!

And here all along I thought there was a housing bubble, turns out it was just a potential bubble Originally Posted by WTF

Again, this does not equate to loss of wealth.

You described the housing bubble as exactly what it was: a bubble. That is, the price of homes was bid up well beyond their intrinsic worth.

Some people jumped on the bandwagon, seeing a home as an investment rather than as a place to live; and expected the price would only go up, up, up -- even in the short-term.

Because they dealt with it as an investment (where all of your money may be at risk), they see the decline in values as a loss.

But I look at it quite differently.

I bought a fixer-upper that was even missing foundation during the "bubble." Right now, it is valued at about $10k less than I paid for it; in spite of the improvements.

HOWEVER, in that time I turned it into a working organic farm. I supply about 10k annually of my own food from that property, plus I sell stuff that I grow on it.

The fact that it is valued less today than it was when I bought it doesn't change the fact that I have had the use of that property not only as a place to sleep, but as the center of a number of businesses that have made me far more than the value differential. I have also used it to save me money in myriad ways; ranging from cutting my own firewood to having a space where I could do some of my own auto-repairs.

When you add it all up, I have come out WAY ahead.

I DO realize that not everyone looks at even a simple residential property the way I do. Most people look at it as a hotel and place to sleep, plus an automatic retirement investment that can only go up in value.

On the other hand, I look at anywhere I live and ask myself: how can I use this to make income or save income? How can I make this place self-liquidating?

Of course, if you look at home prices over the past 30 years and adjust them for Walter Williams' calculation of REAL inflation (8% annually), you'll discover that it isn't homes that have increased in value so much as the dollar having lost purchasing power. Unlike TVs, mp3 players and horseshoes that can be outsourced overseas for cheaper labor in order to offset the price increases that would otherwise reflect true inflation; you can't outsource land to India or China.

You will find the same phenomenon in the pricing of any good or service that cannot be outsourced overseas or have its labor supplied by illegal aliens. Examples include medical care, college tuition, housing, etc. These are not generally increasing in price at multiple the rate of inflation, but actually represent TRUE inflation or something that can't be outsourced overseas.

The housing bubble represented prices that had increased even beyond what true inflation would predict; and they did not represent the real value of the properties.

BUT -- let me give you another angle on this housing bubble.

In the beginning, there was essentially no such thing as buying property with a mortgage in this country. If you bought property, you worked hard, saved your money, and paid cash.

If a house is valued at $30,000; a certain number of people can work and save up that much money. That represents your demand.

Now, let's let mortgages enter the picture where you can buy a property for 20% down. NOW, if you have $30k in your pocket, that's enough to buy a house for $150k! But, also, that means that the demand for the house at $30,000 expands too because now anyone with only $6k in his pocket can buy that house.

The very EXISTENCE of mortgages serves to artificially increase both demand and price of housing above what it would be sans mortgages.

Okay, I used the example of 20% down. But the same thing happens, only worse, when you go to 10% down, 5% down, 0% down.

Of course, the existence of mortgages serves to move the price and demand for houses up such that what was once quite widely practical -- saving up to buy a house in cash -- is almost unimaginable for most. And as down payment requirements went from 20% down to 0%, prices increased even more.

Certainly, it could be argued, that to a certain extent this was the bankers' "fault." Hey -- I'm no friend of bankers. I'd love to utterly abolish the fed; bust up our commercial banks, etc. But let's be realistic here.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced him to take a mortgage on piece of over-valued property. The fact that he acted like a herd animal instead of thinking independently is sad, but ultimately nobody's responsibility but his own.

But -- also, the same applies to the banks. Nobody forced them to give those mortgages either; except in cases where federal guidelines for being an equal housing lender might have forced it. Either way, those loans were their responsibility. Just like the home buyer; they were taking a calculated risk. That should be entirely their own responsibility.

Yes, I agree with you -- Finance, Insurance and Real Estate sectors have tremendous influence over our Congress. Just look at campaign contributions. And I'm quite certain this played a substantial role in their being extended ungodly amounts of taxpayer money to liquidate their losses.

Were it me, I would have let them all fail.

But then again, I would never have been elected because unless you are firmly in the pockets of various special interests, you'll never have the funding to be elected.

Either way, I am quite certain that AIG, with their nearly $200B in bailout money could easily afford lots of High Dollar Hotties.

I would not be at all shocked to discover huge gobs of money originating with taxpayers finds its way into the hobby.

After all, the federal government is the ONLY growth "industry" in this country right now outside of providing. LOL

Word!

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/636127/Star-bedded-Janine-Jungers-as-father-lay-dying-in-hospital.html[/URL]
Originally Posted by woodyboyd;597028And he is not alone. Apparently, Tiger Woods was cheap as well. See the link: [URL

No you didn't just do that to yourself
Quoting from the NOTW is akin to quoting from the National Enquirer.

Well folks, let me just say that it has been several years since I posted much of anything on these boards, and this thread -- which I read from beginning to end -- has been so interesting to read throughout. I think that's due in part because of the issue I have been weighing of late. I've noticed that over the last year I have started seeing the same providers with some regularity, a change from before.

Some other recent posts have got me thinking about the SB model and potentially trying it out. Reading this thread has helped me with my own analysis, which notably is solely my own for my own circumstance. So thanks.

Now, I just need to find a compatible SB, but until then, I'll just keep hobbying UTR with HDHs and others wherever my travels take me.

---z. Originally Posted by zumer'd

Welcome back and good luck

I can think of 5 women that have (one still does) posted on here who no longer have active websites because they are in exclusive arrangements with clients. Not one of them is worse of financially..far from it...so how can the HDH be dead? The situations may have changed..but the money hasn't. Just a thought. Also as mentioned earlier there are many men out that that do not post anywhere. However, that doesn't mean they are not sending out emails :-)
Peoples needs change too. As soon as I graduated I couldn't wait to travel a little. I knew my destinations would have to be "day job friendly" and I also knew where I wanted to go. The only way for me to do that (in the time period I had set) was to lower my rate/change my availability and be more flexible. Fine with me. I've loved the travel especially after being tied pretty much to one city (ok two..NYC also) all throughout grad school and the first year in corporate. Many of the multi hour/higher rate ladies have also moved on in another direction..with no loss in money..because their goals and needs have changed too.
C x

My question to you is: Why do you care? Originally Posted by Sydneyb

About the potential new HDH model? I would like to see what someone comes up with. I might be a customer once again if the model were right.

As of right now, there is no way I would. I can't justify spending the money when my phone is being blown up by extremely attractive women of the highest quality who want to see me for a fraction of the price of a HDH.

That said, if the women in the HDH world aren't hurting, then there is no reason to adopt a new model.

You've put so much effort into this argument, and I just don't understand why? Originally Posted by Sydneyb

I typed up my original post a month or two before I posted here, rediscovered it, said what the hell, and posted it. In short, I typed up the OP for me; it was just a mechanism to record my thoughts.

I wanted to see if my observations were being seen by others and how my opinions were received. Lately, there has been a trace of vanity because I have wanted this thread to be the most popular the forum has seen.

As for your implying that I was trying to talk down women, that was not my intention. I don't share your opinion that the women here are so gullible that they are going to change their rates on the basis of anything I post. And if they do charge less, that is their responsibility and not mine nor yours.

Besides, who is to say that if a woman drops her rates, that her gross income goes down. She may make more money by getting a higher volume.

I am not one of those Houston "pricks" that shamed you into charging less Sydney. Men have to deal with women upselling, and women may have to deal with men who shame or "downsell". It is part of the game.

This country did NOT lose WEALTH. The assets still exist. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Of course, it did. That statement when applied to the real estate market is utterly insane, and 60% of the $10 trillion that was lost was in real estate.

If you really believe that, maybe you can tell President Obama not to worry about falling home prices because the homes and land still exist.

For you to argue that rich guys (however rich is defined) *won't* book them flies in the face of reality; because guys falling below this country's median income of $46k sure as hell aren't booking them. Originally Posted by Laurentius

This is a straw man. I said fewer men were booking HDHs not no men. My exact words were the glory days of the HDH are over and that the HDH may be an endangered species. You are claiming that I said the HDH is extinct.

There are rich guys who do NOT hang out in your locker room, do NOT participate on message boards and do NOT write reviews who will book these ladies overnight, for a full weekend, for a week of vacation or even pay them a regular retainer.

And they don't tell you that they are doing it. Originally Posted by Laurentius

But they tell you??? How do you know that these mysterious cabal of men don't hang out in the locker room or participate or read the message boards??? Are they given sodium pentothal before seeing a HDH??

The rich men I know are not fools. They are going to want to know that they aren't going to be arrested number one and get value for their money number two. Maybe some don't read message boards, but I would bet that they do go off others experiences and recommendations. They would be simpletons not to.

And I am puzzled as to how these mysterious men find said women and get approved to see them.

For the record, I am comparing the HDH market from 2000 to 2007 to the one today. There is nothing in your post to suggest that my original premise, that the glory days of the HDH are over, was wrong.

Been thinking back to earlier in the thread when SugarBaby's were mentioned. I've never done the SB thing and therefore have no firsthand knowledge of it but I have a friend who, a few years ago, pretty much broke himself hobbying. He saw mostly 200 - 300 dollar girls multiple times a week. Became a well known reviewer on several national boards.
After the money was depleted to the point where a $200 trick was no longer possible, he started to sell reviews. When that collapsed due to mod pressure, he went the SB route. Now he spends hours and hours on the SB sites trying to get a date. Apparently it is very hard for an older guy to negotiate that venue. He's lucky if he gets a date twice a month and the quality...let's just say that SW's might be an improvement in some cases.
If that's the new model which is to take over for HDH's, Long Live the HDH.

Were it me, I would have let them all fail. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Conceptually I agree with you. But bank bank runs are very ugly, particularly on the scale we were talking in 2008. The problem that most banks had was not one of too little capital to take the hit from bad mortgages (although capital did need to be higher), what they were missing was liquidity. The capital investments that Treasury made under TARP calmed the markets, preventing a run and in the case of most of the banks (particularly the big ones) was never at risk. Treasury also made a nice profit on most of those investments - for example, the made $1.5 billion just from selling the warrants they got from BofA plus 5% on the money invested. Not a bad return on a $25B investment for about 6 months.

Overall, the TARP money that was put into the banks will show a profit (although there will be some losses on individual banks.) The money flushed into GM & Chrysler -- not so much. There the money went to buy off the UAW and fuck some lenders -- something that will raise the capital costs for organized businesses forever.

AIG is another fucking mess that shouldn't have been done the way it was. We will do better there than WTF thinks, but will probably lose something. Most of the trading positions are being unwound and the healthy subs are being sold off to pay back the loans. The US will end up owning 80% of whatever is left.

Conceptually I agree with you. But bank bank runs are very ugly, particularly on the scale we were talking in 2008. The problem that most banks had was not one of too little capital to take the hit from bad mortgages (although capital did need to be higher), what they were missing was liquidity. The capital investments that Treasury made under TARP calmed the markets, preventing a run and in the case of most of the banks (particularly the big ones) was never at risk. Treasury also made a nice profit on most of those investments - for example, the made $1.5 billion just from selling the warrants they got from BofA plus 5% on the money invested. Not a bad return on a $25B investment for about 6 months.

Overall, the TARP money that was put into the banks will show a profit (although there will be some losses on individual banks.) The money flushed into GM & Chrysler -- not so much. There the money went to buy off the UAW and fuck some lenders -- something that will raise the capital costs for organized businesses forever.

AIG is another fucking mess that shouldn't have been done the way it was. We will do better there than WTF thinks, but will probably lose something. Most of the trading positions are being unwound and the healthy subs are being sold off to pay back the loans. The US will end up owning 80% of whatever is left. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I thought that's what the FDIC/FSLIC was for. Did the fuckin' insurance companies skate again?

I thought that's what the FDIC/FSLIC was for. Did the fuckin' insurance companies skate again? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It is, but ...... FDIC/SLIC was never going to be able to handle a worst case scenario in which a number of really big banks (Citicorp, BofA, Chase,Wells Fargo) all went belly up at the same time. And this has nothing to do with insurance companies. The banks themselves contribute a very small percentage of deposits to FDIC; insurance companies are not involved as all - at least as I understand it.

It is, but ...... FDIC/SLIC was never going to be able to handle a worst case scenario in which a number of really big banks (Citicorp, BofA, Chase,Wells Fargo) all went belly up at the same time. And this has nothing to do with insurance companies. The banks themselves contribute a very small percentage of deposits to FDIC; insurance companies are not involved as all - at least as I understand it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Probably similar to flood insurance, which also is not really insurance companies (except, as I understand it, some companies are beginning to dabble in very small amounts...which they probably suspended after Katrina).