Select language:

  » Introduction

  News Archives
  » 2024 [10 latest]
  » 2024 [Remaining]

  » 1998-2023 news

  News Articles
  » View articles
  » Send articles

News Archives

November 15th, 2004

Official news of E-type's next single!
November 15th, 2004 - by NetRoam

Now it is official. From Stockholm Records we've got the word that the next E-type single we'll see from the album Loud Pipes Save Lives will be a double A-side single with The Predator and Far Up In The Air. If this single contains other versions of the songs is still uncertain, but we'll keep you posted when we know more.

The release-date will be before x-mas but no exact date of release has been set yet.

Unfortunately there will be no video for this single.

The cover of the single will be posted here as soon as it's official.

Go Back | Add comments

DUTCH SINGLE!!!
November 17th, 2004 - by Arjen

that is the release for the Netherlands
as far as I know nothing for outside Netherlands ...

????
November 19th, 2004 - by Danny

Hey Arjen,

nothing has been said that this was a holland release, it is a swedish release with Holland
following later. nothing about a holland release now.

Perhaps Grim or Chi
April 25th, 2014 - by Jacob

Perhaps Grim or Chichagofinance could take a look at the following paper, which aruegs against the housing bubble, based on cash flows from rent.[edit]My initial impressions:Given the lax lending in the mortgage market, the required rate of return is likely to be higher than 6% used in the paper. A mere 3% increase in home prices is going to cause many borrowers to be upside down, given the leverage used. I just don't see how a soft landing can work, even given this data.1:10 AMâ€You don't need to dive into the details of the paper to question its findings. Its conclusions are so fundamentally flawed, I think most interested parties can merely dismiss the paper as irrelevant.That said, I reviewed the paper and believe your comment about its core model undercharging for risk is valid.Among other items, they have conveniently sidestepped the issue of the expenses associated with owning. In a sense, their model is a Frankenstein [i.e. bastardization of finance], that uses data and cash streams from the renter's market, prices from a purchaser's market, and pulling risk from a financial instruments market.On page 17, they put forward the assumption that the buyer never sells, and that I would point out that is a convenient way to avoid noting that relative to their cost of capital, future home prices are by definition NPV negative. Read: even at their unrealistically low 6% after-tax rate hurdle rate, long-term real estate appreciation is lower than 6%, so the cost of carry is negative.I am also uncomfortable with the fact that they seem to have spent more time peer reviewing this paper with financial types rather than real estate types. Even then, the financial types are CFPâ€™s, not CFAâ€™s, Economist, Phdâ€™s etc. As someone who has dealt with economists, finance professionals, the academic community as well as the financial planning profession, I would characterize CFPâ€™s on the whole more applied than theoretical, and certainly less analytically rigorous, so I wouldnâ€™t be parading the review of 27 CFPâ€™s as some gold standard. However, do not confuse this comment with the fact that in my profession, a CFP is a valuable and important credential. It is just that in this theoretical discussion, the authorâ€™s are miscasting the utility of experts in applied thinking.My last comment is that GIGO [garbage-in garbage-out] comes to mind. What is the source of their market data? The idea that they remotely make various assessments about different regional markets is laughable at best, or downright reckless at worst. Performing data analysis while needing to put forward assumptions about the functioning of â€œYahoo! Mapsâ€ ughâ€¦..Put this one in the circular file, but market sure to shred it first, so no one is tempted to pull it out.chicago