Posted on December 1, 2007 @ 12:16 am - Written by BawldGuy
I’ve been waitin’ to write this post for too dang long. There was just no way lenders weren’t gonna blink, no way. No matter what though, I’m not gonna say those three little words. It’d be too easy.
Since at least the first of this year, I’ve been saying lenders will not allow hundreds of thousands of adjustable loans to adjust payments to ridiculous levels. You think their borrowers would be up the creek without a paddle?
They’d be in better shape than lenders trying to cope with massive increases in foreclosures on their books — not to mention the practical side of getting them off their books. Lenders are notoriously incompetent when in possession of foreclosed properties. Most of their, (insert laugh track here) REO Departments, and/or Short Sale staffs couldn’t organize a one man picnic. Ask your local short sale specialist. Buy them a beer, ask them for some short sale stories, and stand back.
Lenders lend — they don’t, they’re in fact terrible, at selling property. You’d think my college student daughter, who can’t stand real estate, could sell an REO (lender speak for — foreclosed real estate we now own) without too many hitches. After all,
The experts out there, have been telling me how wrong I was. “BawldGuy, with all due respect, I’m surprised you’re posting before removing the rose colored glasses. The sky is falling, prices are about to fall even more, and the end of the world is nigh.”
Or, and this is one of my all time favs — “What are you going to do when the defaults and foreclosures start hitting the fan, and housing prices fall 60-80%?”
How do ya top that one? You don’t try. It’s one of those stand-alone-forever statements, best left to ferment on their own.
Jeff, what about the sub-prime problem? What about it? For a year this blog has been saying it’ll ultimately prove to be a large ripple in the large pond, not the tsunami the media has been predicting. You wanna see a tsunami? Watch the tears fall from all the journalists as they’re forced to report we’re really not all going to hell in a hand basket. 
Sub-Prime Dominos
The Treasury Department has been, according to the Wall Street Journal, 
(and many others) still talking with the major players about what they’re gonna voluntarily do about the more than 2 million loans about to adjust upward. Kinda like when I used to voluntarily mow the lawns every Saturday. I’m the last guy to promote government intervention. Anyone who knows me, will attest to that. What the treasury is doing here is avoiding regulation — more regulation.
Here’s what the Chicken Littles will say next.
Yeah, but the investor’s won’t go for it. They’re the ones getting the loan payments, and there’s no way they’re gonna take less interest.
Oh yeah? That’s not their choice. Here’s their choice, and they know it. A) Keep getting the interest they are now. OR B) In hundreds of thousands of cases — get no interest at all.
Jeopardy music playing in background. Ding!! Time’s up. What’s yer choice Mr. Investor?
Uh, What’s ‘Freezing the interest at the teaser rate level is fine?’
As said here recently about the Governator’s so called deal with four large lenders, when finally announced, this will be cover for the lenders.
Here’s what they were facing. Put yourself in their collective shoes.
Over 2 million sub-prime borrowers are beginning to lose sleep. Ironically, lenders have been far more anxious about those loans. They’ve been frettin’ about these adjustments for quite awhile. Then, like an answer to prayer, (not doubt literally for some) the Treasury arrives like Grandma with an umbrella, just before lightning strikes and the storm hits.
Cover — ain’t it grand?
Yeah, we’re gonna do what’s best for our borrowers. We’ll take the pain onto our little ol’ selves.
Here’s what our reaction might be. Smile, and go along with this solution. The result will be exactly what should’ve happened ‘voluntarily’ at least six months ago. Hundreds of thousands of families will, if this voluntary agreement is finalized, wake up the next morning secure in the knowledge they’ll wake up Thanksgiving morning next year in the same home.
And for the record, don’t think for a minute, Fed Chairman Bernanke doesn’t have his hand somewhere in this. I told you he didn’t care a wit about Wall Street big shots. He does care about the health of the country’s real estate markets in general. He won’t, under any circumstances allow it to go under if he has anything to say about it.
I think he’s discovered a lot to say about it, and this announcement, if it indeed comes, is just one example.
There’s no reason to believe this won’t be worked out, cuz for lenders the alternative for will read like a Stephen King novel. 
They don’t wanna be known as Cujo, which would likely be the case once all those thousands of loans began adjusting.
By executing this agreement, if they do, you’ll be see lenders blinking in unison.
BawldGuy Axiom: Lenders Lend
Corollary: And they’ll do whatever it takes to continue doing so.
The biggest winner? Could be the family next door.
Posted on November 26, 2007 @ 9:06 am - Written by BawldGuy
So, Jeff, what’s yer take on this whole sub-prime mess? Before I answer, let’s look at not only what I’ve been saying, but what’s actually been happening. Grandma used to say, empirical beats anecdotal every time — and Grandma wouldn’t lie.
All over the country, lenders big and small report sub-prime borrowers are living their lives, paying their payments, and acting like super-prime borrowers. They say, when pressed, the sub-prime problem is real, but not the tsunami portrayed at every turn by the ever reliable media.
Anyone who has followed this site for any time at all, knows I’ve been shouting from the mountain tops, the lenders will figure a way not to foreclose on thousands of homeowners. Many of them would be outa business if they did, which violates one of the top three BawldGuy Axioms. We’ll get back to the applicable axiom later.
The empirical?
How ’bout Wall Street has, for the most part already written off their losses — put them on their books. B of A, a giant among giants, has set aside less than $2 Billion as reserve for anticipated losses. That’s kinda like you and I setting aside a few bucks a week for the office donut fund.
Several of the central players on Wall Street have now publicly taken Billion$ in losses. Their profits are now up. My favorite move though, at least so far, is what happened in my state last week. The Governator announced four lenders — Countrywide, GMAC, Litton and HomeEq — who between them now service more than 25% of bad credit sub-prime loans in the state, have agreed to the following.
They’ll allow these borrowers to keep their initial lower interest rates — as long as they live in the home, have made their payments on time, and can prove their inability to make the new, much higher payments. You can read more on this by going here, or here.
Well, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. Lenders who don’t wanna take back hundreds of homes, proving what failures they are — and saving their own skins. I’m shocked and chagrined — NOT.
In a nutshell, the deal was, according to reports, brokered by the Governor.
Here’s a scenario possibly more believable. In fact, it’s more believable because it’s so plausible. Call me cynical, but I’ve seen the earlier versions of this movie, and think I may know the ending. The story begins somewhat differently than is being reported. Again, this is just my take on things — an opinion. 
The lenders (actually, lenders servicing the loans) called Arnold — not the other way around. They deserve a Best Director Oscar nomination.
Why?
The Governator gives them cover. Also, they gain platinum political points by making Arnold the hero. They make themselves look like very empathetic, reasonable folks, who just wanna do the right thing.
The industry buzz is, it’s gonna be the feel good movie of the year.
See? Everybody wins.
Arnold looks like a hero, a role which,
by now he plays seamlessly. The lenders create an ending reminiscent of It’s A Wonderful Life, and the borrowers, all of whom play the part of Jimmy Stewart, leave the theatre with that familiar warm glow. You know the one — when Hollywood writes the ending we all wanna need to see.
Compare what’s been reported to what I’m suggesting.
Which one makes more sense to you?
Are we to take seriously the scenario, uh script, saying Arnold had to persuade the lenders to volunteer for this happy ending?
Wanna know who’re the only ones panning this movie? The lenders who weren’t included by the casting director. “Hey, we wanna be good guys too!”
Expect to see some pretty sad knock-offs of this classic effort — and probably fairly soon. I’d say before the end of the first quarter of ‘08. You know Hollywood loves to imitate success — no matter how bad it makes them appear. It’s all about the Benjamins. Again, duh.
For Heaven’s sake we’re on Friday The 13th XXXIV aren’t we?
Remember, as so correctly pointed out in the linked posts, foreclosures cost lenders tens of thousands of dollars each. 
Contrary to the belief of most, lenders do not want your property back — period, end of sentence, no argument.
They’d rather eat bugs.
BawldGuy Axiom: Lenders lend.
This is just another example of the lengths to which they will go in order to — here it comes — keep lending sans interruption. Giving borrowers, especially a relatively small minority, a break for a few years, is a huge bargain to them.
They just bought 3-5 years for pennies on the dollar.
They’ve seen this movie before too. Duh. By altering the ending, they’ve enabled themselves to go from a Friday The 13th feel, to well, a Christmas Classic.
Casting the Governator in the starring role? Brilliant in its simplicity and effectiveness.
Even though we’ve all seen this movie a few times before, this version is well done.
The lenders accrue great PR. They secure the best cover possible in the Governator. Arnold gets to save all the borrowers, not exactly a dangerous political move on his part.
And the best part of all? The borrowers can now go about their lives minus the omnipresent mind-numbing anxiety of not knowing if they’ll have a home this time next year.
Two Bawld Thumbs up for this one.
Posted on November 17, 2007 @ 9:18 pm - Written by BawldGuy
A new strategy, based firmly in contrarianism, (a new word I just coined) is being seriously considered by a few pretty savvy Wall Street hedge funds. They are pondering the purchase of sub prime loans, at significant discounts of course. What one might infer from this strategy, is they think sub prime may not be the albatross it’s been made out to be. Not offering up an opinion here, but it looks like a gutsy move that could produce amazing returns — or not. Either way, we can all watch.
Since Bernanke has cut the Fed Funds Rate twice in a row, the movers and shakers are now arguing amongst themselves about December’s action. Will Uncle Ben cut again?
Or will he decide real estate isn’t in danger of collapsing, and therefore hold off awhile? Remember, he’s written books, and man treatises saying outright that it was the 1927 real estate collapse that was the initial falling domino which ultimately resulted in the crash of ‘29. He believes that in his DNA. If, even for a nano second, he thinks the country is in danger of that happening again, he’ll cut the Fed Funds Rate ’till it bleeds.
On the other hand, he has almost no sympathy for
those on Wall Street who conspired to create the current problems. He’s said many times, it isn’t his job as Fed Chairman to bail them out of the consequences of their bad decisions — and so far he’s been good to his word. It’s about time those crybabies had to pay the piper. They’re free market advocates until it’s their bull being gored.
How many times have you driven a few blocks out of your way to save 4¢ a gallon? We’ve all done it, but once you figure out the savings, you stop. At least rational folks do. The average driver probably drives 15,000 miles a year or less, (at least according to insurance & lease rates) gets 20 mpg, and buys around 
750 gallons of gas a year. His/her driving around saves them a grand total of $30 a year — or less than 10 of the dozens of Starbucks Venti cappacinos they drink a year. Yet they’ll bite their nose off to spite their face for another few thousand on their real estate. Never mind how much more they’ll make on the upside of what they’re acquiring. The question I ask them? Tell me about that extra $15,000 grand in 10 years — how much difference did it make in their lives? They not only can’t say, the so called loss, over time, literally became irrelevant when compared to the benefits of the change they made. Not selling for a so called ‘loss’ can cost investors six figures and more in a decade. Food for thought.
It’ll be interesting to hear the impressions of those who attended the NAR convention (Realtors®). From what I’ve read so far, their spin is wandering into the silly range. Do those guys ever learn?
Is it just me, or are owners of very old small unit properties in San Diego beginning to sniff the
possibility of a better location for their equity? Maybe it’s the brutally honest moment they had, when they admitted to themselves they wouldn’t buy their own rentals at 80% of today’s value. Here’s something to ponder: In 10 years will you be better off keeping your old, high equity units, or trading them to a growth region where almost all investment factors are superior to San Diego?
Did you know — if you invested $100,000 today, and averaged 16.66% a year capital (not appreciation) growth rate for 20 years, you’d end up with just under $2.2 Million? It’s true. 
Here’s the first five year period’s numbers. Just put the initial $100,000 down on $666,666 of property. (15% down) You’ll have to average about 5% a year in property appreciation. Net proceeds after selling at the end of the five year period, are just over $216,100. You paid 8% to sell it, and the original loan was interest only. If you received roughly 8% yield on your $2.2 Mil, your retirement income would be enhanced by about $176,000 a year. Show of hands who wanna sign up for that program?
Heard the one about the investor who
banked the annual tax savings derived from his real estate investments? He had enough every 3-5 years to buy yet another piece of income property. Those who pay attention and do things on purpose — win in the end. You don’t have to get rich quickly. Slow works just as well, and it’s a lot safer.
And finally — ever wonder what would
happen if real estate investors stopped trying to make so much money so fast? Grandma used to tell the story of how Einstein learned about the principle of compounding. That principle is what propels the growth of net worth — whether it’s real estate, stocks, or just in a bank CD. Anyway, it didn’t take but a minute or so for the genius to comment. He said (loosely paraphrasing) compounding, “…should be called the eighth wonder of the world.”
Indeed.
Posted on November 8, 2007 @ 10:52 am - Written by BawldGuy
Let’s start of with a one question test.
How much has the median resale home price fallen in the last 12 months? Take your time. We’ll come back to this a little later.
Though I’ve told this story dozens of times, it’s right on point here.
As a kid in junior high, one of my Mom’s friends took me to, what was then a huge deal, a dual track meet between the U.S.A. and the USSR. It was held in the Los Angelus Coliseum, which was populated by over 100,000 very excited Americans.
We won.
Pravda, the centerpiece for Soviet propaganda in the USSR, reported the results the next day.
The Pravda headlines?
Track meet in L.A. — USSR Comes In 2nd — U.S. Next To Last
Be honest and tell me the difference between that ‘reporting’ and what we see in papers across the country. There’s one huge difference you’ll notice right away. Our papers are written in English.
You get the idea, right? Now, let’s talk real estate and what’s been happening the last couple years or so.
Let’s also look into a little history.
1970-1980
My very first real estate agent’s license was dated October 15, 1969. Very shortly thereafter, a national magazine, Business Week,
printed a quote — “The goal of owning a home seems to be getting beyond the reach of more and more Americans. The typical new house today costs about $28,000.”
Today? A loaded 2007 Honda CRV is that much.
I don’t remember the quote, but do remember all the talk about rising prices, and affordability. Folks in the business were nervous. I was too, but only because they were. I believed the implication the magazine intended to convey.
Between then, and around 1977, the year I became a broker, started my company, and switched from homes to investments, some scary things toook place. There was a run on bank deposits in ‘73 which resulted in almost a year of, gulp, lenders not lending. It wasn’t that they didn’t want to lend, they just couldn’t until everyone took a chill pill, and calmed down.
You’d think this would’ve caused a collapse in the real estate market. Funny thing though, history shows prices continued to rise. Go figure.
In 1977 another national magazine wrote,
“The median price of a home today is approaching $50,000. Housing experts predict price rises in the future won’t be that great.” (emphasis mine)
Blah blah blah.
We remember how the prices stopped their march upward, right? The media has, in one form or another, been telling us the sky is falling since Moses came down from the mountain with a couple stone tablets.
I’ll pause here to note January ‘77 was the pivot point in my career, as three lines intersected. In that month I became a broker — opened up Brown and Brown (I was the son back then ) — switched from house agent to investment broker.
Fortunately, I was far too young at the time, 25, to realize how much I was over my head. I knew absolutely everything back then. In fact, thinking back, if I knew now, half as much as I thought I knew back then… There’s nothing like the confidence — read arrogance — of a 25 year old.
By the end of the 80’s we saw inflation exceed 20%, while home loan interest rates went to 18%. I distinctly remember FHA hitting 16.5% — just before I stopped paying attention. This grand meal was of course, followed by dessert — the S & L crisis, and subsequent bailout.
This generated job losses, more foreclosures, and the market from hell ensued.
And prices continued to rise.
It was during the early ’80’s when I began figuring stuff out. I studied, and learned, and compared, and before long — I was officially immune to media claptrap. It was a watershed experience for me. Of course, using 20/20 hindsight, I should’ve figured stuff out much earlier, as I’d been treated to the same damn movie twice in a relatively short time span.
Fast forward to 1985 when Money Magazine said, “The golden-age of risk free run-ups in home prices is gone.”
Man, I was so happy to read that. I don’t remember the first place I saw that thought, probably not in that magazine, but it made me a very happy camper. Why? Cuz I knew most of the real estate world would believe it.
Dad and I marketed our butts off. We did more business in the next 4-5 years than in the previous decade. And it wasn’t even close. That was the first time I ever used the phrase, ‘being under the radar’ with a client. That was 22 years ago — I had hair for Heaven’s sake. BawldGuy was still eight years away.
By the time the real estate world realized the talking heads were dead wrong — again — rising prices had already made the news. Dad said it’d be over shortly after the ‘88 elections. When ‘89 proved to be yet another record year, he was happy, but very surprised. By that time, he’d already headed out to the golf course permanently, as in seven days a week, teeing off at 12:15 with the other real estate dinosaurs.
When the Berlin Wall came down in ‘89 it was heralded as the ultimate catalyst for change in the world. Everything was gonna change. It was the dawn of a new age — again, according to the media.
By 1996 the S & L crisis had done the Devil’s work. It was the perfect storm if ever there was one. Let’s not get ahead of the story though.
Politicians who thought we were now gonna be living in Utopia because the Wall was down, and the USSR was crumbling, gutted defense spending. This turned out to be, shall we say, ill-advised. Between 1990 and 1996 home prices in California dropped almost 13%. Of course, the media made it sound as if folks were selling properties for 50¢ on the dollar. True enough, the now infamous RTC, (you can look it up) were selling properties in bundles at prices truly scandalous, but they were the government, the only entity more able to get things wrong than the media.
A San Francisco newspaper, the Examiner, said, “A home is where the bad investment is.”
You know what’s comin’, right? Yer a smart one you are.
Seriously now, was anybody besides Gomer surprised?
In the next three years the state’s home prices went up nearly 20%, erasing the losses of the early ’90’s. That decade ended with prices up almost 10% net.
Real estate is horrible now. It’s gotta be, cuz the media screams it 24/7/365 at the top of their lungs, from the highest mountain tops. God bless their black little hearts. I’ve been using them to stay under the radar now for the last couple years. Since they never figure stuff out ’till, as Joe Kennedy discovered, even the shoeshine boy does, we’ll probably stay stealthy through this year. (Fingers and toes crossed) Of course, like the media, the shoeshine boy didn’t know squat either.
What about now?
All we read/hear about is how real estate prices are going down, yet in July of this year, nationally, prices were up compared to last July. As a state, California was up, while the Bay Area was up also. So Cal? You guessed it, up.
The media reported almost 54,000 notices of default for the 2nd Quarter - a near record high. They are comparing it to the 1st Q. of ‘96 when about 61,500 notices were filed, but fail to mention that 2 million more home have been built in California since then! Minor detail I guess.
What if instead, the media’s headlines read: XX% of Mortgages are Not in Foreclosure? The media and the financial markets’ over reaction reminds one of an hysterical nine year old girl, surprised by a small spider. The problems they point out are absolutely real, but they’ve been predicting the end of the world now for two years. I’m gettin’ kinda tired waitin’ for it.
Now let’s review all the terrible Wall Street fallout from the dreaded sub-prime market.
Bear Stearns, a key sub-prime player, reported 2nd quarter revenue of over $2.5 Billion — a new record. Yeah, sounds like tough times to me.
2nd quarter profits rose over 30% for Merrill Lynch — Morgan Stanley 
($5.2 billion in subprime
loans) enjoyed a — this is good — 60% jump in earnings. Yep, things are tough all over Wall Street due to the sub-prime mess.
Makes you wanna send ‘em a sympathy card, don’t it?
Goldman Saks and Bank of America also kicked some pretty impressive booty.
I’ll give short shrift here to the media’s reporting (Man, is that giving them credit.) on foreclosures.
They make little or no distinction between delinquencies — notices of default — and foreclosures.
The Mortgage Bankers Association, National Homebuilders Association, and Inside Mortgage Finance all agree the media’s reporting on the topic is inaccurate. Duh. Where’s Captain Obvious when you need him?
The next 10 years?
The next decade will see a 25% increase in those over 50 years old. We, ah, I mean they, for many reasons, have more money than any generation before them. This age group is already spending, gulp, $2 Trillion (1,000 billion) every year. Every year. Every year.
Last year over 2 million Boomers turned 60. Fully 1 out of every 4 of them don’t plan on retiring, because they don’t want to,
not because they don’t have a choice. Think about that. They’ve discovered how cool it is to mix work and play, and have learned how to do it.
In other words, many Boomers, as they head for that gorgeous sunset are literally jumping for joy.
They have lots of money, and are still investing in real estate. They obviously know something most of their predecessors don’t — Purposeful Planning works — and it works big-time.
Oh yeah, almost forgot — the answer to the test question. It was a trick question. You already figured that out though, right?
Posted on September 6, 2007 @ 1:08 am - Written by BawldGuy
That silly question, so often these days the apparent theme hiding between the lines, was more or less outed yesterday by a Wall Street trader.
Here’s what might be my favorite line of the article:
Did it ever occur to even one of them (them = the poor) that they might pay me back by WORKING HARDER? I don’t think so.
Comment in parenthesis is mine, meant only to ensure you knew he was speaking of the poor.
He was complaining bitterly about the bad loans he’d purchased, saying it was his mistake for lending money to poor folks in the first place. I don’t mean this author in particular, but all the tears being shed on Wall Street, combined with their self righteous finger pointing, is getting old fast.
Can it be agreed up front, we all know some pretty dumb rich folks, and some relatively poor folks who can only be described as brilliant? Of course it can.
The poor = stupid concept is ridiculous on its face. We must stop mistaking poor character for low IQ.
I’ve been poor in my life, and trust me, my IQ might have changed since then, but it surely didn’t head north.
People don’t choose to be born poor. Anyone who believes that, surely rode to school on the little bus. We can get hung up on the endless debate of how people hinder their own success through blah 
blah blah, psycho-babble. I’m not talking about that. Moreover, poor people in their early adulthood begin to make conscious decisions about their life, much of it to do with money. Though mistakes will certainly be made, most of those who are still poor in their middle and old age, either are in fact stupid, or they chose a lifestyle with which they are content. And if that’s the case, they’re very successful people, and not poor at all.
Often, that lifestyle doesn’t include making a lot of money — but it also doesn’t mean they’re poor. If they’ve got a roof over their heads, food on the table, are responsible for any debt they may incur, and are happy, more power to them. That just makes them regular folks, just like you and me.
However, if they’re unhappy, over 25, and can’t figure things out enough to at least move up, over time, to the lower range of the middle class - they may indeed be stupid.
Stick with me here.
I don’t mean that pejoratively. Grandma harshly admonished me when I was a know-it-all teenager about looking down on folks I considered stupid. She said that most of those I judged 
stupid, were in fact, not. They were merely living life their way, and not mine. I was being ignorantly arrogant. However, if I was literally correct, and in fact a person was stupid, then how arrogant and compassionless was I to think poorly of them, when they were born that way, and couldn’t change genetic chance? I judge them because they can’t fit 12 ounces into a 10 ounce cup? Now who’s stupid?
Ultimately, she concluded, they were doing their level best. I should help them in any way possible. It was my obligation. She was not happy with me that day.
I think the author of the piece in question, for the most part, wasn’t referring to those who are truly stupid. I think he was talking about the fastest growing class in our country — those who think they’re entitled to everything life has to offer, by virtue of their existence. They have little or no concept of earning their way through life, and are constantly and bitterly surprised by their predictable failures.
They have inferior learning curves by choice. In that sense, they ARE stupid people, (by choice) because they have the minimum innate intelligence required to progress through life successfully, but choose paths leading to consistent failure. Since, by definition they are not stupid, they are where they are economically via all the choices they’ve made freely, and without coercion.
Less than stellar character and a demonstrated lack of intelligence are dangerous to all when one is confused for the other.
In other words, they only have themselves to blame.
The attitude of entitlement has created a new working definition of stupid — and it has very little if anything to do with IQ. And as long as we keep catering to them, instead of allowing them to live the consequences of their freely made choices — we’ll all pay the price.
I say this is the real question: Are we behaving stupidly as a nation by enabling those living their lives founded on the presumption of their right of entitlement? The more we get away from individual responsibility at all levels, the worse it’s gonna get. The sub-prime mess is only the latest illustration.
Much of the sub-prime problem was generated by bad choices, made at every 
point in the loan process, not just the folks on the bottom of the financial totem pole. The attitude of entitlement engenders excuses and finger pointing at every level. And the ones doing most of that these days, at least from where I sit, are the Wall Street geniuses who decided proven and prudent underwriting was getting in the way of them making billions.
‘Let everyone qualify‘ they cooed to the lenders. They got their wish. Now they’re acting like making billions in profits was their birthright, and the consequences of the risk they took by virtually throwing away safe and secure underwriting standards, should not accrue to them.
Take that kind of thinking and put it into print, then convert it into confetti by sliding it into the shredder. Now take it and spread it evenly on your front lawn, watering generously. Before long you’ll have the greenest grass in your neighborhood.
Acting as if they had the power to suspend the laws of economic physics, merely for their enrichment, is a demonstration of what’s really stupid, on what Grandma would have laughingly called, a grand scale.
Now, remind me please, who it was who put it so succinctly when he said, stupid is as stupid does.
Folks, simply put — if you jump off a roof, you ain’t gonna fall up. And the ground? She’s hard and unforgiving.