Nope, and I’m not even saying it’s a good deal. It’s no more gambling than buying a home in the first place.

It’s no more gambling than any investment. And considering it’s a hedge against an existing investment, it actually reduces risk.

This article does an excellent job of explaining what Point is doing along with an excellent example of how bad Hamilton Nolan is at writing about finance.

They will almost certainly lose money on some loans, as basically every lender does. And they will almost certainly make money on the majority of them, as basically ever lender does. That’s how lending works!

This is pretty clearly for people who don’t want or can’t pay the additional money needed on a home equity loan. A 9.4% interest rate would put them a little higher than the high end of home equity loans, which isn’t too surprising given that their target market can’t afford a home equity loan.

No one really knows how good of a deal this is without actually seeing how much they will lend versus how much equity they get within a certain housing market. All those will add up to an effective interest rate, which is the only to determine if it is a good deal or not. Depending on the numbers it could still be…

Whether or not this a good deal likely depends on how good Point is at determining how much certain homes are likely to appreciate.

Look, you can’t expect a writer to read AND understand one page of information explaining the concept.

Yep, places like Deadspin/Gawker will spend plenty of time whining about how the average person can’t understand the financial industry while refusing to hire someone who could explain basic finance to their readers. Also, see Lifehacker’s insistence on using NerdWallet, a site that exists to sell credit cards, to…

He’s embarrassingly bad. Why a publication would allow someone who knows basically nothing about economics or finance to continually write about them is dumbfounding.

The average person doesn’t live in NYC or SanFran. Plenty of Americans own their own homes.

You cannot possibly be this dumb? Were you talking about some other value Gawker provided Univision besides profitability? Because I’m pretty sure that’s why they bought the Gawker blogs.

No, it is not common, but you will find very few outlets who haven’t done so in select instances.

And what’s the point? To prove to them that buying them isn’t going to be profitable?

Oh no, a deleted post. What will we ever do. Every publication has deleted posts at some point. Them deleting posts does not negatively effect the writers in anyway. This is just a temper tantrum because they actually have bosses now.

Stick it to your bosses who only transgression is buying your company out of bankruptcy and thereby allowing you to continue to be employed.

Hopefully your post Deadspin career works out better than Daulerio’s.

No, it’s not that hard, just pay someone to tailor you something in your size. But if you’re talking about mass-market retailers, yes, it’s virtually impossible to make something for every person’s size.

No, they absolutely get that. That’s one of the primary reasons many designers don’t design for plus-size women. You would need dozens of sizes to fit all the different body shapes. And each size you have to carry comes with a sizable cost in terms of inventory and manufacturing. So instead they make a bunch of loose…

Many designers acknowledge that fact by not designing for plus size women. Trying to accommodate the different body types in normal sized clothing is difficult enough, doing it with plus size clothing is basically impossible without introducing dozens of sizes. And each of those sizes would have a smaller customer…