By Steve Murray
The Market is Shifting-Again .What's Your Game Plan?
Historically, top sales professionals marketed heavily to get listings, to get calls, to generate prospects, to drive their businesses. A few years ago a shift took place. With the exponential growth of social media and online marketing along with the surging importance of the buy side, prospecting for buyers took hold in a big way. Prospecting through these new channels because the modus operandi for growing your business. It didn't help that distressed inventory took over many markets.
Now the leaders of some top teams indicate that listings may be moving back into a position of importance. Why? According to several leaders of top teams from around the country, the growing strength of such sites as Realtor.com, Zillow and Trulia along with strong traffic on Craigslist and some of the national branded sites, having listings online is driving an increase in traffic to sales professional websites. Also with the general improvement in the economy (slight but headed in the right direction) and consumer confidence (ditto above) buyers in the last few weeks are starting to be interested once again in the investment in housing either for personal use or as investment property.
This is but one finding of the research REAL Trends and MarketLeader are doing in preparation for the release of a new book, "Game Plan--How Real Estate Professionals Can Thrive in the Future." Months of research and over 60 interviews with leaders from every aspect of the residential real estate industry will be featured in the book, as well as a companion video that will outline where the industry is likely heading and how brokerage firms and sales professionals can grow their businesses and profits in the years ahead.
One large challenge mentioned by every leader is that brokerage firms and sales professionals will have to sharpen their business tools and systems should they want compete at the highest levels. Focusing on ways to articulate one's value to the counter party in a relationship (whether a brokerage to a sales professional or a sales professional to a housing consumer) is absolutely at the top of everyone's list. "Game Plan" will lay out several paths to building the value proposition at every level of real estate brokerage.
As real estate professionals and housing consumers have access to more and more content along with the tools that provide analysis, the importance of systems will rise relative to the importance of relationships. While relationships will have a high importance to consumers, real estate professionals should be prepared to compete on the basis of their knowledge at deeper levels than ever before
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Why We Value the Government’s Role in Housing
Before we jump on the 'anti-government' bandwaggon, and insist on closing down entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, read this...
After I posted Real Estate Is About Jobs (Feb. 9), I received several dozen comments from members. Some of you questioned NAR’s stance on the best way to restore housing markets. I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to engage with us and share your opinions. We will be seeking more member feedback during our Home Ownership Matters bus tour next month. I also want to try to address some of the concerns that were raised. I think it’s important that you know where the National Association of REALTORS® and your Leadership Team are coming from on some of these contentious issues. We may not agree on every point—but please believe that NAR recognizes and respects the differences that exist within our million-strong association.
In your blog post you suggested that we can increase home sales by (1) preserving the mortgage interest deduction, (2) moving the credit pendulum to equilibrium, and (3) maintaining government backing in the mortgage market. Two of those items—MID and government backing—seem to be about maintaining the status quo. How will that drive up home sales?
According to our research, the market is underperforming by some 20 percent. We are at 2000-level home sales—yet we have 30 million more people living in the United States today. A federal commitment to maintaining the MID and government backing would bring more certainty to buyers and investors. Getting back to a normal level of underwriting—combined with an improving job picture—would get the country back on track to a normal level of sales. The issue of jobs is critical, and one of the messages we’re sending to Congress, as they begin their debate over the 2012 budget, is that housing creates jobs at home.
A few members have suggested that we give up on the mortgage interest deduction. However, a vast majority of NAR members, nearly 80 percent, said in a recent survey they favor retaining the mortgage interest deduction as is and look to NAR to carry that message to Washington. Yes, during these financially challenging times, government incentives must be scrutinized. But let’s not allow our critics to use today’s crisis to end a policy that has served U.S. citizens well for decades.
Why should the federal government even have a role in housing?
NAR supports the free-market system for real estate financing. The ideal marketplace is one in which individual home buyers and multifamily developers transact business with private lenders. History reminds us, however, that the federal government plays an important role in regulating lenders and ensuring the smooth flow of capital. In tough economic times, private financing may simply choose to exit the market; the government provides gap financing when the private market does not or cannot participate. Without the active participation of the GSEs, and programs like the FHA, VA, and Rural Housing Services loan programs, there would be no money to fund home purchases and our ongoing housing recovery would not be possible. When private markets are healthy and we return to a more typical lending environment, the role of these entities should reduce. The government also protects borrowers against predatory lending practices that borrowers might otherwise not recognize. One of the lessons of the mortgage market meltdown is that banking regulators weren’t doing enough to rein in bad lending practices.
How do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fit into that?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together known as government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs) have traditionally played two important roles. One, by purchasing mortgage loans and securitizing the loans for sale to investors, they have enabled lenders to have ready capital to make more loans for home purchases, small-business lending, and other purposes. Second, by setting underwriting standards for the loans they purchase, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped ensure the quality of the collateral for investors and created a level playing field for consumers.
But weren’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “standards” one of the main causes of the mortgage meltdown? Didn’t they encourage lenders to reduce their underwriting standards in order to expand home ownership to underserved groups?
The GSEs made numerous missteps in the years leading up to the mortgage crisis. Almost all investigations and reports on the crisis, however, have agreed that the GSEs were only one factor in a system-wide breakdown. It was the private-label securitization of bad loans—and the packaging of those securities into “tranches” enabling investment banks to make money on the same underlying collateral over and over—that led the way to the crisis. The U.S Treasury report, Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market, released on February 14, 2011, explains:
Initially, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely on the sidelines while private markets generated increasingly risky mortgages. Between 2001 and 2005, private-label securitizations of Alt-A and subprime mortgages grew fivefold, yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued to primarily guarantee fully documented, high-quality mortgages.
But as their combined market share declined – from nearly 70 percent of new originations in 2003 to 40 percent in 2006 – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursued riskier business to raise their market share and increase profits. Not only did they expand their guarantees to new and riskier products, but they also increased their holdings of some of these riskier mortgages on their own balance sheets.
In other words, the GSEs followed the private market into the too-risky lending practices and then compounded the problem by holding in their own portfolio the securities created using these risky loans. The quasi-governmental status of the GSEs, combined with their need to make money for shareholders, resulted in an unacceptable level of risk taking. To date, the government has put $132 billion into honoring the guarantees made by the two agencies.
So why does NAR seem to be speaking out in support the GSEs?
To be clear, NAR does not support the status quo. We do not believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reconstituted as they were before the crisis. The public mission of the entities, ensuring the flow of mortgage capital, cannot exist alongside the private profit motive that led to the GSEs’ downfall. More than a year ago, an NAR Working Group released a set of principles for reforming the GSEs. We recommended that they be converted to government-chartered, non-shareholder owned authorities—subject to strong regulation—that can accomplish their mission of creating a steady flow of affordable mortgage capital and protect the taxpayer.
We’ve read that many of the banks that accepted TARP money have paid much of it back with interest. Will any of that $132 billion paid to cover the GSE guarantees ever be made up?
The two companies, under the rules of their conservatorship, are required to pay the government a 10 percent quarterly dividend on the money they receive from the U.S. Treasury. The Obama administration has calculated that, by 2013, the companies will be paying back in dividends more than they receive in assistance. In its 2012 budget request to Congress, the administration estimated the bailout will end up costing the taxpayers about $73 billion by 2021. NAR believes the 10 percent dividend is too high (higher than the 5 percent banks paid under TARP) and has asked the Treasury Department to reduce it, retroactively. If they did that, the GSEs could start paying back the government soon and more quickly.
Why do we need a secondary mortgage market? Why not let the private market take the risk?
Without a secondary mortgage market, private lenders would likely do away with the 30-year fixed rate mortgage because of the interest-rate risk to lenders and investors when they hold these loans. The market would be primarily shorter-term and adjustable-rate mortgages, which put the interest-rate risk on the borrowers instead of large institutions like insurance companies and pension funds that are equipped to manage this risk. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has provided generations of Americans with a chance to own real estate and build wealth over time. In the preamble to the NAR Code of Ethics, our founders talked about the value of real estate ownership:
Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival and growth of free institutions and of our civilization.
That’s why, during the 1930s, we fought for creation of a secondary mortgage market, and it’s why we are fighting for reform today that will restore the important role the GSEs played for many years. — Ron Phipps, 2011 NAR President
After I posted Real Estate Is About Jobs (Feb. 9), I received several dozen comments from members. Some of you questioned NAR’s stance on the best way to restore housing markets. I want to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to engage with us and share your opinions. We will be seeking more member feedback during our Home Ownership Matters bus tour next month. I also want to try to address some of the concerns that were raised. I think it’s important that you know where the National Association of REALTORS® and your Leadership Team are coming from on some of these contentious issues. We may not agree on every point—but please believe that NAR recognizes and respects the differences that exist within our million-strong association.
In your blog post you suggested that we can increase home sales by (1) preserving the mortgage interest deduction, (2) moving the credit pendulum to equilibrium, and (3) maintaining government backing in the mortgage market. Two of those items—MID and government backing—seem to be about maintaining the status quo. How will that drive up home sales?
According to our research, the market is underperforming by some 20 percent. We are at 2000-level home sales—yet we have 30 million more people living in the United States today. A federal commitment to maintaining the MID and government backing would bring more certainty to buyers and investors. Getting back to a normal level of underwriting—combined with an improving job picture—would get the country back on track to a normal level of sales. The issue of jobs is critical, and one of the messages we’re sending to Congress, as they begin their debate over the 2012 budget, is that housing creates jobs at home.
A few members have suggested that we give up on the mortgage interest deduction. However, a vast majority of NAR members, nearly 80 percent, said in a recent survey they favor retaining the mortgage interest deduction as is and look to NAR to carry that message to Washington. Yes, during these financially challenging times, government incentives must be scrutinized. But let’s not allow our critics to use today’s crisis to end a policy that has served U.S. citizens well for decades.
Why should the federal government even have a role in housing?
NAR supports the free-market system for real estate financing. The ideal marketplace is one in which individual home buyers and multifamily developers transact business with private lenders. History reminds us, however, that the federal government plays an important role in regulating lenders and ensuring the smooth flow of capital. In tough economic times, private financing may simply choose to exit the market; the government provides gap financing when the private market does not or cannot participate. Without the active participation of the GSEs, and programs like the FHA, VA, and Rural Housing Services loan programs, there would be no money to fund home purchases and our ongoing housing recovery would not be possible. When private markets are healthy and we return to a more typical lending environment, the role of these entities should reduce. The government also protects borrowers against predatory lending practices that borrowers might otherwise not recognize. One of the lessons of the mortgage market meltdown is that banking regulators weren’t doing enough to rein in bad lending practices.
How do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fit into that?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together known as government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs) have traditionally played two important roles. One, by purchasing mortgage loans and securitizing the loans for sale to investors, they have enabled lenders to have ready capital to make more loans for home purchases, small-business lending, and other purposes. Second, by setting underwriting standards for the loans they purchase, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped ensure the quality of the collateral for investors and created a level playing field for consumers.
But weren’t Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “standards” one of the main causes of the mortgage meltdown? Didn’t they encourage lenders to reduce their underwriting standards in order to expand home ownership to underserved groups?
The GSEs made numerous missteps in the years leading up to the mortgage crisis. Almost all investigations and reports on the crisis, however, have agreed that the GSEs were only one factor in a system-wide breakdown. It was the private-label securitization of bad loans—and the packaging of those securities into “tranches” enabling investment banks to make money on the same underlying collateral over and over—that led the way to the crisis. The U.S Treasury report, Reforming America’s Housing Finance Market, released on February 14, 2011, explains:
Initially, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely on the sidelines while private markets generated increasingly risky mortgages. Between 2001 and 2005, private-label securitizations of Alt-A and subprime mortgages grew fivefold, yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continued to primarily guarantee fully documented, high-quality mortgages.
But as their combined market share declined – from nearly 70 percent of new originations in 2003 to 40 percent in 2006 – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pursued riskier business to raise their market share and increase profits. Not only did they expand their guarantees to new and riskier products, but they also increased their holdings of some of these riskier mortgages on their own balance sheets.
In other words, the GSEs followed the private market into the too-risky lending practices and then compounded the problem by holding in their own portfolio the securities created using these risky loans. The quasi-governmental status of the GSEs, combined with their need to make money for shareholders, resulted in an unacceptable level of risk taking. To date, the government has put $132 billion into honoring the guarantees made by the two agencies.
So why does NAR seem to be speaking out in support the GSEs?
To be clear, NAR does not support the status quo. We do not believe that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reconstituted as they were before the crisis. The public mission of the entities, ensuring the flow of mortgage capital, cannot exist alongside the private profit motive that led to the GSEs’ downfall. More than a year ago, an NAR Working Group released a set of principles for reforming the GSEs. We recommended that they be converted to government-chartered, non-shareholder owned authorities—subject to strong regulation—that can accomplish their mission of creating a steady flow of affordable mortgage capital and protect the taxpayer.
We’ve read that many of the banks that accepted TARP money have paid much of it back with interest. Will any of that $132 billion paid to cover the GSE guarantees ever be made up?
The two companies, under the rules of their conservatorship, are required to pay the government a 10 percent quarterly dividend on the money they receive from the U.S. Treasury. The Obama administration has calculated that, by 2013, the companies will be paying back in dividends more than they receive in assistance. In its 2012 budget request to Congress, the administration estimated the bailout will end up costing the taxpayers about $73 billion by 2021. NAR believes the 10 percent dividend is too high (higher than the 5 percent banks paid under TARP) and has asked the Treasury Department to reduce it, retroactively. If they did that, the GSEs could start paying back the government soon and more quickly.
Why do we need a secondary mortgage market? Why not let the private market take the risk?
Without a secondary mortgage market, private lenders would likely do away with the 30-year fixed rate mortgage because of the interest-rate risk to lenders and investors when they hold these loans. The market would be primarily shorter-term and adjustable-rate mortgages, which put the interest-rate risk on the borrowers instead of large institutions like insurance companies and pension funds that are equipped to manage this risk. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has provided generations of Americans with a chance to own real estate and build wealth over time. In the preamble to the NAR Code of Ethics, our founders talked about the value of real estate ownership:
Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated ownership depend the survival and growth of free institutions and of our civilization.
That’s why, during the 1930s, we fought for creation of a secondary mortgage market, and it’s why we are fighting for reform today that will restore the important role the GSEs played for many years. — Ron Phipps, 2011 NAR President
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Haunted Hollywood Hills Mansion listed by Sotheby's Realty
Hollywood Hills Mansion Haunted? Cursed? Definitely For Sale
Published February 16, 2011
FoxNews.com
It’s an imposing mansion, sitting high on a ridge in the Hollywood Hills with incredible views of downtown LA, the famous Hollywood sign, and surrounding canyon.
But it has sat vacant and unfinished for years. Some say it’s haunted, cursed, an old Indian burial ground, or maybe even an alien landing site. Other rumors say a murder occurred there and it was the site of Satanic worship.
Whatever the history may be, the home is an empty, yet-to-be finished mansion located at 2450 Solar Drive, Los Angeles, CA and it’s now on the market for $15,200,000.
Because it sits adjacent to Runyon Canyon Park, a popular destination for hikers and dog walkers, trails lead right near the home, so the curious are bound to wonder and speculate on its existence. Why is it boarded up and tagged with gang graffiti? Why is it vacant? Who owns it? Why is it under 24-hour guard?
Sorting out what is true and what is urban legend even inspired New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney to investigate. “I live near there, was hiking there and wondered for a long time what that was. (I) have been asking people about it. When I saw it went on the market, it seemed like a good hook for the story. But the first time I saw it I said, ‘there is a story to be written on that thing.’ ”
According to listing agent Richard Klug of Sotheby’s International Realty, the home has had two owners, “that have gotten into fights.” The original owners — and the ones who commissioned the home to be built — divorced before it was finished. It was then sold to a business couple who bought it in 2004 for $3.7 million with the intention of fixing it up and selling it for a profit. When one of the partners went bankrupt, the other partner bought her out and is now the sole owner of the home. According to Klug, the owner of the home (music executive Timothy Devine), “… wants to get out of the real estate business and wants to get back to music.”
So what about rumors that it is haunted and cursed, or it’s the site of Satanic worship?
According to The New York Times article, the home has become a magnet for riff-raff — some more raffish than others. The Armenian Power gang used the home as their clubhouse and tagged the home with graffiti. It became a teen hangout spot for weekend raves. It also took turns as a crack house and, yes, a place for Satanic worshipers. No reported murders or aliens, though. Police nailed the windows and doors shut only to have them pried open again for more mayhem. That’s when Devine hired a 24-hour guard to ” … run off the gangs, squatters, crack smokers, interlopers, and curiosity seekers.”
With a guard now in place and a price on the home, the goal is to find a buyer. The Mediterranean-style home sits on 22 acres and offers incredible views all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Inside is 9,800 sq ft of living space with 5 bedrooms and 7 bathrooms.
Amenities include a 200-bottle wine cellar, 6-car garage, stone floors, pool, and hot tub. Klug says the reason this home is called “uninhabitable” is because it’s still unfinished and requires a certificate of occupancy. There are subdivision possibilities and, as the listing description states, it is the ” … last big parcel in the Hollywood Hills so bring your developers/contractors and clients who want something rare and unique.”
The story of this home will be continued, we’re sure.
Published February 16, 2011
FoxNews.com
It’s an imposing mansion, sitting high on a ridge in the Hollywood Hills with incredible views of downtown LA, the famous Hollywood sign, and surrounding canyon.
But it has sat vacant and unfinished for years. Some say it’s haunted, cursed, an old Indian burial ground, or maybe even an alien landing site. Other rumors say a murder occurred there and it was the site of Satanic worship.
Whatever the history may be, the home is an empty, yet-to-be finished mansion located at 2450 Solar Drive, Los Angeles, CA and it’s now on the market for $15,200,000.
Because it sits adjacent to Runyon Canyon Park, a popular destination for hikers and dog walkers, trails lead right near the home, so the curious are bound to wonder and speculate on its existence. Why is it boarded up and tagged with gang graffiti? Why is it vacant? Who owns it? Why is it under 24-hour guard?
Sorting out what is true and what is urban legend even inspired New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney to investigate. “I live near there, was hiking there and wondered for a long time what that was. (I) have been asking people about it. When I saw it went on the market, it seemed like a good hook for the story. But the first time I saw it I said, ‘there is a story to be written on that thing.’ ”
According to listing agent Richard Klug of Sotheby’s International Realty, the home has had two owners, “that have gotten into fights.” The original owners — and the ones who commissioned the home to be built — divorced before it was finished. It was then sold to a business couple who bought it in 2004 for $3.7 million with the intention of fixing it up and selling it for a profit. When one of the partners went bankrupt, the other partner bought her out and is now the sole owner of the home. According to Klug, the owner of the home (music executive Timothy Devine), “… wants to get out of the real estate business and wants to get back to music.”
So what about rumors that it is haunted and cursed, or it’s the site of Satanic worship?
According to The New York Times article, the home has become a magnet for riff-raff — some more raffish than others. The Armenian Power gang used the home as their clubhouse and tagged the home with graffiti. It became a teen hangout spot for weekend raves. It also took turns as a crack house and, yes, a place for Satanic worshipers. No reported murders or aliens, though. Police nailed the windows and doors shut only to have them pried open again for more mayhem. That’s when Devine hired a 24-hour guard to ” … run off the gangs, squatters, crack smokers, interlopers, and curiosity seekers.”
With a guard now in place and a price on the home, the goal is to find a buyer. The Mediterranean-style home sits on 22 acres and offers incredible views all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Inside is 9,800 sq ft of living space with 5 bedrooms and 7 bathrooms.
Amenities include a 200-bottle wine cellar, 6-car garage, stone floors, pool, and hot tub. Klug says the reason this home is called “uninhabitable” is because it’s still unfinished and requires a certificate of occupancy. There are subdivision possibilities and, as the listing description states, it is the ” … last big parcel in the Hollywood Hills so bring your developers/contractors and clients who want something rare and unique.”
The story of this home will be continued, we’re sure.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
San Diego is one of only 4 cities with price gains in Novemeber
This looks like more bleak news for the housing market....until you get to the part that says San Diego is one of only 4 cities with increasing housing prices!
February buying advice: Should you wait to buy a home?
Here's a look at whether it's a good time to make that purchase, and what foreclosures are doing to your market.
By Melinda Fulmer of MSN Real Estate
In this uncertain market, it's hard to decide whether to take the plunge and commit to a home purchase while prices are so low or hold off to avoid getting stung by further declines. With prices falling in most major cities, can buyers afford to fall in love? We'll help you make that decision.
We'll also examine the "shadow inventory" of foreclosures that is looming in your city, and syndicated real-estate columnist and author Ilyce Glink will answer a reader's question about whether to trade up now or keep saving for a larger down payment.
Should you wait to buy?
Homebuyers got some chilling news last week, with S&P/Case-Shiller's November Home Price Index. Nineteen of the 20 metro areas surveyed reported home-price declines. Indeed, nine cities — Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Detroit; Las Vegas; Miami; Portland, Ore.; Seattle; Tampa, Fla.; and Chicago — hit a new post-bubble low, lower than the plunge in spring 2009.
It's enough to give buyers in many parts of the country cold feet about taking the homebuying plunge. Sure mortgage rates are near historic lows, and sales are picking up, according to December sales figures, but how much further will values fall?
That's the billion-dollar question. David Blitzer, chair of S&P's Index Committee, says that prices in its 10-city and 20-city indexes could hit a new post-peak low as early as this spring.
"With these numbers, more analysts will be calling for a double dip in home prices," Blitzer said. Indeed, the National Association of Realtors reported that the median price of existing home sales declined 1% to $168,800 in December on a higher inventory of foreclosures, even as sales surged 12.3% from the year prior.
The only markets posting home price gains in November were San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
So does that mean you should put your search on hold? Not necessarily, according to another report by real-estate search website Trulia.
While it's likely that prices could remain depressed for some time, the cost of homeownership also has plummeted to some very attractive levels.
February buying advice: Should you wait to buy a home?
Here's a look at whether it's a good time to make that purchase, and what foreclosures are doing to your market.
By Melinda Fulmer of MSN Real Estate
In this uncertain market, it's hard to decide whether to take the plunge and commit to a home purchase while prices are so low or hold off to avoid getting stung by further declines. With prices falling in most major cities, can buyers afford to fall in love? We'll help you make that decision.
We'll also examine the "shadow inventory" of foreclosures that is looming in your city, and syndicated real-estate columnist and author Ilyce Glink will answer a reader's question about whether to trade up now or keep saving for a larger down payment.
Should you wait to buy?
Homebuyers got some chilling news last week, with S&P/Case-Shiller's November Home Price Index. Nineteen of the 20 metro areas surveyed reported home-price declines. Indeed, nine cities — Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Detroit; Las Vegas; Miami; Portland, Ore.; Seattle; Tampa, Fla.; and Chicago — hit a new post-bubble low, lower than the plunge in spring 2009.
It's enough to give buyers in many parts of the country cold feet about taking the homebuying plunge. Sure mortgage rates are near historic lows, and sales are picking up, according to December sales figures, but how much further will values fall?
That's the billion-dollar question. David Blitzer, chair of S&P's Index Committee, says that prices in its 10-city and 20-city indexes could hit a new post-peak low as early as this spring.
"With these numbers, more analysts will be calling for a double dip in home prices," Blitzer said. Indeed, the National Association of Realtors reported that the median price of existing home sales declined 1% to $168,800 in December on a higher inventory of foreclosures, even as sales surged 12.3% from the year prior.
The only markets posting home price gains in November were San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
So does that mean you should put your search on hold? Not necessarily, according to another report by real-estate search website Trulia.
While it's likely that prices could remain depressed for some time, the cost of homeownership also has plummeted to some very attractive levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)