Chuck Ponzi June 28th, 2006

Allright, this is going to go way off topic on this one, but please bear with me for a short while while I explain what is bouncing around in this empty head…

With the 17th FED funds rate hike imminent, we are reflecting on a number of issues…

1. Is there inflation, and how much?
2. What about price deflation and asset deflation?
3. Where are precious metals heading, and is that an indicator or inflation or have they become decoupled much like SoCal Housing?

First off, I have no definite, easy answers for any of them.

Urban Legends

There is a common urban legend about the value of gold. It goes something like this: An ounce of gold is worth about what you can buy a nice tailored suit for. This was the case 100, 200, and 300 years ago, and it is true today.

If you believe this theory, you are picking and choosing your facts. Gold is right now in the $580/ounce range. While you can buy a suit for that price, it is hardly anything I would call a “nicely tailored suit”. This is a bone-stock off-the-rack mid-quality suit. Professionally tailored suits will cost you a lot more in the US. Try $3-$4K on for size and see how it fits.

On the flipside, you can buy a nicely tailored suit in Malaysia for about $580 if you would like to. Of course, the $1500 ticket there might set you back a bit, but otherwise, the urban legend would be true.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately as you might see it) we do not live in Malaysia. Dollar and US financial hegemony has inflated the prices of everything you buy here. Transport costs, risk, etc, all contribute to raise prices here and not there. Gold, on the other hand is easily transportable, has low risk, and its purity is easy enough to test that you would find only a small difference in price between the 2 places.

Imagine for a moment, a machine, that could render a perfect 3-dimensional model of your body and transmit that information to a sweatshop in Malaysia for a few pennies. A tailor could construct a finely craften tailored suit to your specifications from the other side of the world, and final fitting could be done interactively. What would this do to the prices of tailored suits in the US? (that’s a rhetorical question, you don’t need to comment to reply)

In the long run, it would both lower the price in the US and raise the price in Malaysia. It would then be as transportable in both locations as gold is.

Would gold need to change to match this new price? Would it go up, or would it go down? (this, again, is a rhetorical question, there is no link between the price of gold and the price of a nicely tailored suit)

Hedonics

Another urban legend is that when your computer has twice the memory for the same price, the CPI portion for computers is halved.

OK, everybody knows this one isn’t right, but should there be an adjustment to inflation figures if higher quality products replace earlier models? One side of the debate says no, it performs basically the same functions, but does not reduce the cost. The otherside says yes, the enhanced performance will increase the longevity of the product and therefore reduces use costs over the long-term.

What about the car that now gives a user 300K miles of worry-free service compared with the 100K mile version of 30 years ago? Is there some hedonic value that our official figures should show even though it still essentially gets us from point A to point B? What about the same car that uses 50% less fuel? Should that be deflationary, or not?

The answers are not simple. The age-old question of how is inflation defined is critical to our understanding. Generally, it is the loss of purchasing power of money, but that can be measured by price sampling or money supply. A number of factors can serve to temporarily toss one or the other out of whack, and it is important to remember that a holistic approach to inflation is probably the most prudent.

Is there inflation? If you look at houses, yes, but not if you look at computers. Will there be deflation in the future? I would recommend reading the last statement again. Hedonics are someone’s “best guess” into understanding what is driving prices. Hence, it won’t be the same.

I think the appropriate question is not “will there be inflation or deflation”, but rather “Where will we see inflation or deflation? Housing is an almost certainty over the next 5 years in SoCal. (if you have to ask, please read the title of the blog)

Gold, gold gold!

Where is gold headed? I think we already answered that question… nobody knows. It appears to be decoupled from prior fundamentals; it no longer serves as a formal currency, and its value is largely determined by someone’s opinion of its value. Sounds a lot like typical investments… except that it provides no residual cash flow or earnings to base its value on. It is, therefore, a pure speculative asset, and in true Keynsian economics, really contains speculative demand, much like demand for US dollars, Euros, or Yuan.

Just ask the Chinese if they think gold is an “investment”

Is this the end?

Perhaps the appropriate question is not whether this is the end (of anything, you just insert what you think this is the end of), but rather What is this the end of? Perhaps you might reflect on some of the following:

1. Affordable housing in the US.
2. US financial hegemony
3. Sino-US trade defecits and currency imbalances
4. Low interest rates
5. High interest rates
6. The world as we know it
7. The largest financial bubble the world has ever seen.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(10)

Chuck Ponzi June 23rd, 2006

Picked up on the news wire yesterday by several local news outlets (including the Daily Bulletin)was a warning that the south end of the San Andreas Fault has not made significant moves for some time and has a substantial amount of potential energy built up and ready to go at any time.

Using eight years of data from satellites that precisely measure ground position plus 20 years of global positioning system data, researcher Yuri Fialko with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego concluded the plates are moving about an inch per year.
But the southern segment of the fault hasn’t budged since about 1690, more than 300 years ago, meaning the pressure is not being released.
When it does go, the fault could lurch up to 30 feet and generate a magnitude 8 quake, the same size quake that destroyed San Francisco in 1906, which occurred along the fault’s northern section. No quake that size has rattled California since.

Is anyone worried about what this could do to the value of homes?

If you’re thinking a large quake would lower the value of homes, you might be wrong, or you might be right.

Housing (land) prices are primarily a funtion of supply and demand. Land has no production cost (site preparation notwithstanding), has a very long shelf-life, and its value is primarily determined by location and intended use.

In wikipedia’s description of Economic Rents (which should not be confused with the layperson’s definition of rents), land is the sole producer of economic rents… a factor of production.

In classical economics, analysis focused on three factors of production — land, labour and capital — each of which earned a distinct type of income — rent, wages and interest, respectively. These three categories or types were used to explore what determined the distribution of income. It was observed that higher wages or higher interest rates might be expected to draw additional labor or capital to market, but higher rents did not induce God to make any more land; the owners of land rented or made useful all the land they had, regardless of the going rent. Still, some land commanded considerably higher rents than other land. Since only a minimal rent was necessary to bring land into some kind of productive use, almost all of any rent earned must be attributed to market competition to determine how land was to be allocated to particular uses.

In short, location is a prime determinant of value because of the concepts of centrality and transport (where you produce and how much it costs to transport yourself and/or goods). California property is valuable primarily because it produces the greatest amount of income from rents. Local businesses are successful, and pay their employees to stay in an area of rising costs if they can. Rents are established by the productive use; housing people or companies. This is the primary reason that local recessions produce falling land values and local booms produce rising land values.

What would an earthquake do to change the value of housing in Southern California? Would it raise it or lower it? Let’s look at the following conflicting forces:

1. It would raise the value
Increased demand and sudden and substantial decrease in supply would mean more users would be competing for fewer pieces of habitable property.
An assumed cost of tighter building restrictions would further increase site preparation costs and decrease production of land.
Additional demand on construction resources for reconstruction purposes would raise the cost of construction locally.

2. It would lower the value
Fence sitters, or marginal users would be forced out of the area. They would likely relocate where their income could support them.
Buyers would discount the value based on the potential of future earthquakes. Where the risk had previously been uncertain, present memories would influence long-term decisions.
Companies (which typically have longer working-spans than average people) will formulate business risk decisions that include moving from the area, decreasing demand.
Companies required to pay higher insurance and taxes would find decreased competitiveness in our global environment and seek lower-cost inputs (locations) if any exist.

However, I think most importantly, discussion of potential devastating earthquakes only lowers the value. Like FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Imagine you were a clairvoyant living in New Orleans some time before Hurricaine Katrina and you had a premonition that a flood could destroy your house completely. Would you wait around and see if it really happened, or would you find some way to reduce your risk? The rational person would reduce the potential risk.

Bubble or not, widespread discussions of potential catastrophic events could lower the value of land in Southern California.

P.S. As a sidenote, about 2 years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a similar story where scientists estimated that over 25% of the housing in Orange County at the time would not be able to withstand a Northridge-sized earthquake. If anyone remembers that story, please feel free to comment with the name.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(13)

Chuck Ponzi June 19th, 2006

Many legislators have looked at California’s home ownership rates and wondered what they could do to increase the number of owner-occupied homes. In recent years, speculation has run rampant, consuming up to 40% of all home sales by some estimates. Seemingly in lock-step, it appears that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For a decidedly blue state, California does a terrible job of assisting with the support of the underpriveledged.

Why, you ask? What makes it so that fewer people afford homes in one of the states with the greatest number of opportunities for people to increase their personal wealth?

One answer is simple and staring us in the face: it’s cheaper to own a home to rent than it is to own a personal residence. Never was this more apparent to me than when I rented a home near Studio City for the first time after owning my own home; my landlord who was approximately my age, owned a rental property, but was renting a home himself. How, might you ask, is it cheaper for my landlord than it is for me?

It’s all about the deductions.

The first one is obvious and has been discussed numerous times by legislators; interest decuctions. While an average homeowner essentially has a lower limit of what is deductible by the use of the standard deduction, essentially for the first several thousand dollars of expenses, it is irrelevant whether a person rents or owns. On the other hand, the full extent of expenses are deductible to anyone’s landlord. (there are limits to passive losses, which I will discuss later)

The second one is just as important (if not more) and is often overlooked. It is the depreciation of the rental asset. Depreciation, you say? But, don’t home prices always go up? Good question. According to the IRS, they don’t. They assume that the total life of your property is 30 years. Even that broken down apartment building in Van Nuys built in 1965 is assumed that it still has another 30 years left in it as soon as someone buys it. Your home? Well, you don’t get to take that deduction if it is your personal residence. Some will argue that personal residences are exempt from gains up to 500K (for married and 250K for single) after 2 years; and yes, while this is truly the case, investors can simply do a like-kind exchange (1031) and essentially defer taxes indefinitely. (but that can be a long, long, ways off, and just like 401k’s and IRAs, paying taxes later is better than paying them now)

Passive Losses

Some will say, but this only works for small-time investors because passive losses are limited based on MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income). True, and this is the magic of our speculative frenzy. See, large investors are likely to see passive losses for quite some time when constructing a brand-new large scale apartment buildings (and can only offset that to passive income or roll it forward) whereas small-time investors actually get a tax advantage to owning one or 2 additional homes. So, the barriers to entry for large-scale rental developments are great because it really only helps if you have existing properties with positive income to offset that loss against.

The meat of the issue

Most American’s aren’t aware that landlords get such a great tax break, and the ones that are are busily buying up properties to rent out. Those who can are trading up to larger properties through 1031. And, it has been noted that several of the large players are exiting the market because cap rates have become so depressed. What’s the end game of this current cycle? You may want to read my old post Strong Hands, Weak Hands for the answer to that one.

Legislators, what to do?

Our 2 big question for our elected officials are these:

If you want to promote home ownership and affordability why don’t you level the playing field by:

1. Making interest deductibility ambivalent? Several options exist from the small to the extreme. We could change it so that all home interest is deductible regardless of the user and without respect to the standard deduction. We could make it so that no home interest is deductible (the president’s council on tax suggested this), or most extreme, we could make interest neither deductible nor countable as income, making saving in tax-bearing vehicles more attractive even during inflationary bouts.

2. Throwing away the idea that real property depreciates? In an inflationary fiat currency environment, it is almost assured that asset prices will be inflated over time. In those cases that it doesn’t (which would be rare), a deduction based on those losses could be incurred only in disposition when they are guaranteed. This nonsense of rolling over assets is exactly that. Do any stock traders get to roll over their gains? What makes real property that much more desirable to our national economic engine that it receives such preferential tax treatment?

The Consensus

The reforms are staring most legislators in the face. The problem? This is a zero-sum game where one winner creates a loser. Because those with more money and real estate investments have even more benefits under the current laws, the likelihood of our elected representatives to listen to what’s best for the little people and act according to their conscience (if they have one, thank you Mr. Condit) is very low. After all, this is about money, power, and influence, not about affordability of home ownership for Americans.

Add in a tight supply environment such as we have in California, and you will find that the best financed will win out again and again.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(25)

Chuck Ponzi June 15th, 2006

Hi all readers, I came across a company recently that if I were in the market to buy, I would definitely use. Personally, I see this type of marketing to be the future of the real estate industry.

Basically, his Craigslist ad stated that he would credit a buyer of a specific home $18,750.00 on close of escrow of a property. Interested, I visited his website at www.wehelpubuy.com to check to see if this is actually legal, since a buyer would have a huge interest in working with someone who shares their commission, especially such a high amount. Basically, Brad Davidson credits his buyers for any commission over the 1% that he takes.

Before any of you start thinking that I’ve sold out, I just have to point out; he and I won’t see eye to eye on the belief of a local housing bubble, but regardless, I believe his business model will attract more buyers and earn him more money on volume.

I sent Brad an email and posed a few questions about his business that I will copy exactly:

1. This seems like an exciting way to attract buyers in a buyers market. What was your primary purpose in offering this type of incentive?

I was looking for a way to set myself apart from hoards of other agents and came up with the plan for We Help-U-Buy Realty after seeing the number of realtors offering discount services to list and sell homes. With home prices in the stratosphere, there’s plenty of money to be made working on one percent in Orange County, especially since I don’t split my commissions or have hefty advertising costs associated with listings. Plus the fact that I make the cost of homeownership slightly more affordable for the buyer.

2. Do you see more of your colleagues in your profession changing to this type of model?

Real Estate is dominated by the large brokerages and they don’t allow their agents to offer this sort of discounting. There are a few independents that offer discounts but I haven’t seen any others who offer to work for one percent. I’m not too concerned because the big money in real estate is in getting listings.

3. How has customers’ access to the MLS on the internet made the job of a buyer’s agent easier?

Everyone now has multiple sources to access the MLS and do their own searches for property. They don’t need or necessarily want a real estate agent holding their hands and/or deciding which properties to show them. Once a client has told you their preferences you set them up to automatically receive new listings that become available and meet their criteria. Most agents have their clients drive by homes without them and just show the houses after the clients preview the property. I do the same thing but rebate approximately $10,000 on each transaction.

4. It appears that there is a loan pre-qualification with your affiliate. Is this required, or can buyers use their choice of lender?

I offer lending but it is in no way a requirement for using my services. However, if I can offer a competitive loan, your real estate transaction will be much smoother with my being involved in the loan process.

5. Are there any indications that other agents might be retaliatory? If so, how do you plan to overcome those obstacles?

I haven’t had any problems and all of the seller agents I work with are very professional. There really isn’t much they can do if they don’t like my business model since what I do is perfectly legal and ethical.

6. How do you currently see the real estate market (please be candid)?

Frankly I do not see a “Socal Bubble”. Yes, Socal real estate prices are astronomical and we could live like kings and queens in Houston, but have you ever been to Houston in the summer? Southern California is one of the most desirable places to live in the nation and people are not going to stop coming here. Particularly in Orange County, we are almost out of buildable land and new homes are not keeping up with demand. Combine that with a good national economy, low local unemployment and reasonable interest rates and there is no bubble to burst. The pace of sales and appreciation has certainly slowed but barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there is no sign of a precipitous drop in real estate prices.

I appreciate the opportunity to tell your readers about my services. Anyone who would like more details may contact me at 949-697-5467.
Brad Davidson
We Help-U-Buy Realty
brad@wehelpubuy.com

Once again, this is not just a plug (but if you’re buying a home and doing most of the work yourself over the internet, why not get paid for it?)

I personally believe that the real estate market will continue along its path of disintermediation much like many other businesses have with the Internet. While I don’t believe that the standard 6% (or 5%) commission will change substantially to 1% like Europe, I believe that there will start to be concessions both on the sell and buy sides.

Sell side agents will begin cutting commissions to be placed in an online forum (such as MLS or Ziprealty) and will be paying Help-you-sell prices of 1% to sell. Buyers agents will continue to recieve 2-3% commissions, but full-service agents that drive you around and meet with you if you are internet impaired will still retain the entire commission. For Gen-x and Gen-y and beyond, the agent will retain a percentage and the remainder will go to the buyer.

Let’s hope that this is the beginning of a new kind of real estate model for buyers. It is often this type of revolution with early pioneers that will be shaping an industry. Here’s a good luck to Brad in his work

• Uncategorized
• Comments(25)

Chuck Ponzi June 14th, 2006

Sometimes, it’s hard to see where we are going until we look back at our own deluded selves and wonder… What were we thinking?

Just such a great opportunity comes to us from a San Diego Realtor, Peter Toner. Courtesy of his January 5, 2006 entry titled “2005 A Year for the Real Estate Record!” we read the following from 6 short months ago…

Home inventory levels are expected to rise slightly in 2006 but will remain low by historic standards. This will fuel continued price appreciation in the California market. Homes were on the market for an average of 3.3 months in 2005.

Uh….

Let’s reflect on that for a moment. We know from Bubble Markets Inventory Tracking blogger OCRenter that SD inventory is THE HIGHEST EVER IN HISTORY, having surpassed that critical inventory peak from 1996 of 19,250 on April 22nd 2006. The inventory for SD county has been rising steadily since then at a breakneck pace, and we are set to break the population adjusted record perhaps within the week that is currently estimated at 22,174 homes for sale. Hardly “low by historical standards”.

Nice to know you’ve been paying attention. What does that mean? I’ll let you decide.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(17)

Chuck Ponzi June 14th, 2006

An article in the OC Register yesterday tells us of the current bloodbath in OC employment. You may surprised to find out that 1,140 Mortgage Jobs in O.C. Cut in the last 3 months.

This is a hangover for the people involved, but also in the commercial properties space.

ACC’s layoffs are effective July 7, although they were announced in May, according to the state’s Employment Development Department and the company. Most cuts are in Orange and Anaheim, and more than 100 are in Irvine.
Encore Credit, a unit of Irvine-based ECC Capital, cut 101 jobs in Irvine, effective June 9. Acoustic Home Loans eliminated 203 jobs in Orange, when it closed for good in April.
All the layoffs come on top of previous job cuts at the beginning of the year.

The worst part of this for commercial properties?

Now, mortgage companies are suddenly looking for companies to take about 1 million square feet of office space off their hands, according to brokers.

and…

Still, Royce Sharf, who heads local operations for brokerage Studley, said space from ACC is coming on the market just as ConAgra Foods is leaving about 260,000 square feet in Irvine. The combination is like having two or three office buildings hit the market at once, he said.
“That’s going to have an effect,” Sharf said

Never post anything negative without some spin…

Simon Dillon, a broker with CB, said all the sublease space will take some pressure off the market.
“It’s actually a healthy thing,” Dillon said.

Please tell that to the people who lost their jobs.

All reminiscent of a post I made just over a year ago… Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Recovery to Crash

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Chuck Ponzi June 14th, 2006

Not for long for many Californians. An interesting news report from CBS 13 informs us that there are 2500 foreclosures currently in California with 84,760 additional homes in pre-foreclosure. Considering that the economy is still in a growth mode, this will definitely be difficult to explain any other way than lax lending.

I highly recommend watching the newsreel. It is short and interesting to see what the MSM is saying about the reason for foreclosures.

The next question is, who gets blamed?

• Uncategorized
• Comments(5)

Chuck Ponzi June 14th, 2006

Or… as the flipside is, a turd by any other name is… well… just a turd.

SignonSanDiego.com (San Diego Union Tribune) told us yesterday that San Diego County Home Prices take a tumble. While most of the people in the area know that SD county is wildly overpriced for the typical earner for the area, home prices are in a slightly downward holding pattern for the hottest period of home sales for the year. Word on the street from Realtors confirms that the true state of affairs is, “Slow, slow, slow”.

While many are quick to point out that the past few years were an outlier in terms of pace, it bears noting that the real estate agencies are still staffed like it’s 2005. The UT wrote:

San Diego County’s home prices took their biggest tumble for any spring on record last month, DataQuick Information Systems reported Tuesday.

That doesn’t bode well for sellers. One of our favorite cheerleaders for the industry was available for a lesson in the relationship of selling and semantics.

Leslie Appleton-Young, chief economist for the California Association of Realtors, said she no longer uses the term “soft landing” to describe the state of the housing market, but has yet to find a way to characterize current conditions.

“I’m searching for a new moniker,” she said.

You don’t say.

Spinning facts is much easier when we use words like “correction” instead of “crash”, “soft landing” instead of “bubble”. I am sure we will see many more iterations on a theme in the next year or 2.

While the 15K lost this month was something picked up over the course of a month leaving us at basically zero for a year with a slight uptic, we are in a vastly different market today than we were 1 year ago.

Housing markets are like a vast container ship that is fully loaded. The engines have been in full reverse since mid last year, but there is still forward momentum. Once that momentum comes to a stop, the engines will still be in reverse, and we will soon be moving backward. We have reached that inflection point at the end of last year/beginning of this year and the conditions have eroded even more with interest rates and economic indicators. All arrows point down at this point for our local economy. With some of the most expensive real estate, and options aplenty out of state, we will likely bleed many more people to out of state as construction jobs dry up.

Searching for a new moniker for the housing bubble does not change that we will indeed be seeing housing price declines. Soon, all kinds of people will be talking about how much prices have come down in my area.

Heck, even in my neighborhood, there is a 4 bed house for sale UNDER 700K and it is sitting! I’m sure this is a disappointment to my neighbor who closed on his much smaller house in July last year for 745K but inevitable when you view a home as an investment… investments go up AND down.

• Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Chuck Ponzi June 11th, 2006

Hi all, with the increasing number of trolls hiding under our bridge and eating poo fed to them by unsuspecting posters, I am giving them full opportunity to bash and boohoo in this post so that others can freely post in other areas. This way, their shrinking home equity in no way impede their ability to feel like a real man.

The session will be a Q&A from John Doe…

Q: You must be a bitter renter.
A: Like most troll questions, this one starts out as a statement. Leaving me to defend myself. No such luck here.

Q: You sold your house too soon.
A: Yes, but now would be too late.

Q: Why do you run the blog, don’t you have better things to do with your time?
A: I do, I just purposefully neglect my family so that I can become even more embittered.

Q: If you had the stones, you’d post your real name. You must be a 16-y.o. in Indianapolis who can do nothing more than look on Google Earth.
A: You just nailed me.

Q: Do you hate California, or just Californians?
A: I’m a Californian… so I must just hate Californians. j/k. Actually, I love living in California, but I’m not too crazy about buying a 2 Bed house on a postage stamp lot for 750K. I’ll leave that for the immigrants to California (no, immigrants do not necessarily have to come from outside the country, and by judging the rest of the country, multiple families will need to live in that 2 bed I was just talking about.) More likely, we will have oil barons descending upon SoCal anytime soon, it just hasn’t been expensive enough for their tastes just yet. In addition, we will also have rich boomers retiring here….oh, wait, they’re already here? Uh, well, we’ll import some from China or something.

Q: I hope you die, you lousy, filthy commie.
A: Good question. I’m in my early 30’s, and I’m definitely going to die someday. Not much is going to happen in my life between now and then, so I might as well call it quits.

Q: You deleted my comment when I used words like *#$% and $*($@ and (*&@$!.
A: Yes, no potty mouth on SCREBCB. Have your mommy and daddy tell you what those words mean.

Q: You’ll never be able to buy a home in SoCal, you loser.
A: Sadly yes, my mid 6-figure income will alas, never buy me a home where I currently live. I will likely move out of state in a year or 2. Housing prices are set to skyrocket and an average condo will likely be $1M before the year is over. Right now I’m waiting until my company decides to move out of state.

Q: I’m leaving now, you fags are total idiots on SCREBCB.
A: Oh, please don’t go. We’ll miss your calm demeanor, your enjoyable personality, and uncommon wit so much.

Well, I guess that does it for troll Q&A. Maybe if we can get the little monster to come back some day, we’ll do another such interview.

Until then, we now return to our regularly scheduled programming of the SoCal housing crash in progress.

John Doe

• Uncategorized
• Comments(21)

Chuck Ponzi June 5th, 2006

Once in a while, we come a telling sign of the bubble market. I have taken a complete posting from Craigslist to show where the money is going when you use a mortgage broker of such high standards.

$1585 / 3br - HOME IN SAN DIMAS
Reply to: hous-168209953@craigslist.org
Date: 2006-06-05, 10:06AM PDT

THIS IS’NT A ADD TO RENT THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD PAY TO OWN THIS HOME A MONTH.HOW MUTCH DO YOU PAY IN RENT 900 1200 1700 THATS ALOT OF CASH TO GIVE TO SOMEONE ELSES MORGAGE EVERY MONTH. IM A LOCAL LENDER HERE IN GLENDORA CA WHO SPECIALIZES IN HELPING AVERAGE FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS GET INTO THEIR OWN HOME. GOT BAD CREDIT , NO PROBLEM, I WILL REPAIR IT, DONT GOT ANY MONEY FOR A DOWN PAYMENT, NO PROBLEM, WE WILL ASK THE SELLERS TO PAY SUM OR ALL CLOSEING COSTON THE PROPERTY YOU PUT A OFFER ON. WE HAVE 100% FINACING PROGRAMS AVALIBLE WITH 500 FICO SCORES AND HIGER, BUT DONT WORRY ABOUT YOUR FICO I HAVE PROGRAMS THAT DONT EVEN LOOK AT FICO SCORES, IF I CANT DO A LOAN FOR YOU THEN NO ONE CAN. INVEST IN “YOUR” FUTURE, NOT YOUR LANDLORDS .———-WWW.HOUSETRAC.COM .

To say that this is atrocious, doesn’t even get to the meat of the problem. This is also posted in Orange County’s Craigslist, which if my geography’s correct can only be described in Craigslistspeak as “San Dimas Adjacent”.

Perhaps with their commission, they can go back and get a GED. Please, support our local economy by buying overpriced real estate!

• Uncategorized
• Comments(25)