«
»

best case planning (like HUI’s 1600% rise and a 90% reduction in credit card debt)

Credit Card

Credit Card (Photo credit: 401K)

BEST CASE
Planning

Once you know what is best,

you stop doing any less

BEST CASE INVESTMENT RETURNS:

BEST CASE LEGAL PROTECTIONS:

Could you produce gains of at least 1600% per decade?

Could you protect your assets, reduce taxes and legal fees, & even settle debts for as little as 10% of what you owe?

 After the two graphics below, more details follow:

Below are a few quick details relating to the 1600% gains.


I have been focusing on that top-performing US stock sector (HUI) since March 2003:

 

HUI had already risen 250% in the 18 months from late 2000 to mid 2002, then it faltered and next recovered to be just below the prior highs by early March 2003 when I was preparing that article. Here is another quick highlight from that early 2003 article:

As for the $20,000 reduction in credit card debt, here is the full settlement offer from the credit card company. You can zoom in on this page or click on the image to open it in another window.

 In the next set of images, I highlight the basics of the discounting of the debt, plus at the end I show what the credit card company specified in regard to consequences for the credit record of the debtor. Since the debtor had been quite delinquent with over $22,000 owed, that reduced his credit score, so to have the total debt drop by over $20,000 might have improved his credit-worthiness quite a bit.

 

Acceptance marks displayed on top left of this...

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

Tags: , , , , , ,

This entry was posted on February 12, 2012 at 12:02 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “best case planning (like HUI’s 1600% rise and a 90% reduction in credit card debt)”

  1. Hontz Says:
    March 1, 2012 at 1:39 am | Reply

    In my doomsday-mind, when I run a scenario that includes massive mortgage default, I often wonder how capable the banks will be when it comes to evicting people from their foreclosed homes. My gut tells me that there simply will not be enough authority left in such a situation to drive all these people out into the street without open revolt and violent resistance.

    This post pulls back the thin veil of shame that surrounds people who default on any debts to show that the only thing the debt collectors can really do is take away your credit score, and possibly the stuff you bought with all the credit. Oh, and there is that shame thing.

    My partner settled out of about 17k worth of debt for about 5k and a hit on her credit which has since vaporized. She still had enough credit to get a mortgage even with that settlement. There’s the impression that if you don’t pay your debts, Visa will come and steal your life away from you, but the reality is that they only really get mad if they’re ignored. Settling, even for a fraction of the amount owed, is tactically acceptable. Not to mention its interesting possibilities as a bona-fide investment possibility.

    Your blog has a bunch of gems in it, JR.

    • jrfibonacci Says:
      March 1, 2012 at 2:00 am | Reply

      I’ve said for years (before the defaults started ballooning) that the key to boiling a frog is to do it relatively slowly. As long as only 1% or 2% of the population is being evicted in a particular month, the law enforcement mercenaries can probably handle the job (and they may be paid very well to do so).

      The other thing is that if there is a big political rebellion brewing, then the banks may just “pull the rug” on the legal system as it is. The central powers may just “rescue” the middle class with a seizure of private property (in terms of real estate at least). Then, the banks just lend to a single borrower (the federal government) from whom they collect reliably and the bureaucracy has lots of ways to draw affluence from the underwriters (the citizenry).

      • Hontz Says:
        March 1, 2012 at 2:29 am

        Now there’s a thought-provoking vision: a private-property seizure by the government. You’d wind up with something like the old Soviet approach to housing, and I’m not so sure that the results would be much different in a crisis. I’ve read a few accounts, mostly from Dmitry Orlov (http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/) about how having state ownership of housing protected people from homelessness when the USSR collapsed. It’s an option that would probably be forced on the government just by virtue of its being far easier to implement than mass eviction and imprisonment for defaults.

    • jrfibonacci Says:
      March 1, 2012 at 2:06 am | Reply

      Also, sometimes a shift is sudden and sometimes gradual, like with rescue programs where the federal government “socializes” the auto industry or the mortgage industry. Or, if there are programs to “rescue” homeowners but the homeowners do not have a choice plus there are a bunch of restrictions and mandatory fees, that is another predictable possible proposal. The government promises to fix everything, but charges huge fees to do it, then “has to cut it’s budget” and justifies 40% income tax rates or 15% national sales tax or whatever.

      On the other hand, there may arise some brilliant and beautiful innovation that I have not imagined. That’s always nice.

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Says:
      March 1, 2012 at 2:56 am | Reply

      There are so many presumptions that people do not recognize are just presumptions. When governments can enforce (through organized violence) exclusive private property rights, they do so. When they cannot, then they declare “land reform.” The places of full-out “napoleonic code” are few… in which “squatter’s rights” are recognized simply by a lack of bureaucratic might. First, there are no governments- just a few people here or there with no particular centralization of authority. Then, when governments claim ownership of stuff and can enforce it, that is a big step toward centralized authority, right? Then, when governments issue exclusive and transferable “title” to real estate, that means that the holder of the title is the tenant approved and authorized by the government and has the right to freely sell their real estate title to someone else. So, when governments that enforce private property rights weaken, they revert to the more basic state. Further, when a government can no longer enforce “public ownership,” then they recognize things like squatter’s rights, which basically means that the government is not interested in regulating possession of real estate so tightly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 403 other followers