Vancouver Condo market is collapsing!

[maroonedsailor]

1. every month that goes by creates more pent up demand.
2. the price of a 2x4 has not fallen substantially
3. land is not being created
4. population continues to increase
5. over 80% of the population still has a job
6. the sky is not falling although it's cloudier than usual.

Anyone who builds anything knows that this too shall pass. Demand will return. Banks will start lending money because that's how banks earn profits and they are not going to disappear any time soon. People will continue to make babies who will need a place to sleep. Wages will rise to meet requirements. Currency will be devalued or revalued depending on GNP and debt ratios. Old debts will be paid with devalued $. Inflation will drive up prices and everyone will go bananas in the stock market all over again. What makes any of you imagine that the future does not = the past?????

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Funny, I know of a couple of realtors and none of them are running off their asses with sales at the moment.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

This affects everyone unless you just have your cash socked away in a mattress.

No one is suggestion the market isn't going to go down, or that people's net worth isn't going to be adversely affected, we're merely discussing to what extend the market is going to drop. Some say 40-50%, I feel that's being overly pestimestic and I've explained in detail as to why I think that.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

I'd suggest 50% is pessimistic. I do think that 40% is in the outer realm, but that the more likely figures are going to run in the range of 30 to 40% with 40% being absolute worst case scenario.

The thing we have to remember is that the US markets dropped this much prior to this whole credit crunch...they haven't seen the end of it yet and the Canadian marketplace does tend to mirror the american marketplace.

Not saying it doesn't. But I did list a number of reasons as to why the markets are different, mostly related to the lending criteria, and the US offering more loans that have resets which significantly and adversely affected many people's ability to pay. Ultimately the issues is cash flow. Most people don't default just on the drop in value, they default when they don't have the cash flow necessary to service their debts.

 

[hapkido]

Ultimately the issues is cash flow. Most people don't default just on the drop in value, they default when they don't have the cash flow necessary to service their debts.

So let's pick up with this train of thought about servicing debt.

1. The average Canadian household debt to income is 130%. Canada's main export partners U.S. 78.9%, UK 2.8%, China 2.1% (2007). The world is experiencing a broad based secular recession/depression with no sight on bottom. If our neighbour down south is sinking into the abyss we are going down along with them despite "better" fundamentals in Canada.

This means heavy job losses if you haven't read the news lately. All it takes is one primary income earner to lose their jobs and the home is lost.

2. The world is going through massive deleveraging process which in turns causes prolong DEFLATION (The Great Depression and Japan Zombie 20 year economic funk). Deflation puts downward pressure on wages. Also the other main reason why deflation can cause so many problems is that it serves to make debt more expensive. Here's why. If you borrow $1,000 at the start of the year to pay for a new sofa, the cost of the loan does not change throughout the year. It remains at $1,000. But the sofa is falling in price. So at the end of the year – when you are still paying back the loan – you have ended up taking out $1,000 to pay for a sofa now worth just $900 or $800. Magnify that 100x with homes. People who bought at the peak in 1989 had to wait 17 years for prices to return to the same level.


3. No one really knows the true stat on the number of high risk loans made in Canada - 0 down/40 year. CMHC refuses to disclose this.

Special investigation: How high-risk mortgages crept north.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wmortgage13/BNStory/Front/home

 

[Cosmo]

Gee... I didn't even start this one.

Thanks for the link to the original article, BrokeBastard, I had not seen that one yet.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

No, people also default when its time to renew and the loan to market value is out of whack and they do not have the capital to make up the shortfall. In addition, people are more likely to make a business decision and walk away rather than pay a mortgage that far exceeds the value of the home.

It isn't all just about cashflow...just focussing on that is too simplistic.

Yes, that is also another reason that some may default. In terms of forclosures, any news about the foreclosure rates in Vancouver?

I imagine they're up, but by how much? Based on your assertions, they must be dramatically higher. And being the astute financial guru and debater that you are, you surely would have some evidence to back this up.

Please provide it.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

No one really knows the true stat on the number of high risk loans made in Canada - 0 down/40 year. CMHC refuses to disclose this.

Special investigation: How high-risk mortgages crept north.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081212.wmortgage13/BNStory/Front/home

Here's part of the story not being told. I have client with 6 houses. Because of cash flow issues he actually insisted on getting 40 year mortgages. Why? because the interest is tax deductible and it increases his flexibility.

Currently he has some mortgages at prime -.8 which is at about 2.2%. This allows him to have more flexibility with respect to his cash flow. If he has excess cash flow he can allocate the difference to the principal, which he is now doing.

If times are tough due to renovations etc. he has as much flexibility as he possibility can get. And his net worth is several million dollars.

Having this type of product doesn't mean you can't accelerate your payments it merely makes your minimum payments lower than would otherwise be the case.

So it's a misconception to think that these products are just being exclusively used by those just squeaking into the market. Although it is safe to say the majority of people using these are likely first time buyers.

Going one step further, I would even suggest increasing the amortization period in the US might not be all that bad of an idea, and I believe it's one component of the Obama housing bailout plan.

Products themselves are usually not the issue, it's more related to whether or not people understand them and the appropriateness of a particular product to a particular individual.

As to average household debt. That's almost meaningless. The guy above owes over $2M. It just so happens he as assets worth about $7M. I too have debt and assets far in excess of the 138K mark, who cares?. The questions are do you have assets that greatly exceed this amount and can you comfortably service the debt. If the answer to both those questions is yes, I don't even understand why it's an issue.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

How can anyone provide evidence for something that we are speculating is going to occur in Vancouver but hasn't occurred yet because this market hasn't reached that point yet?

If you want I can go through the effort of posting hundreds of thousands of examples from the US that cashflow isn't the only consideration in foreclosures. My argument is that Vancouver will mirror that and history shows that Canadian markets typically do lag behind american markets by a year or two.

I can however post evidence to support my arguments in other debates that we've previously had months ago to defeat your previous positions where you said that interest rates wouldn't rise (despite fed rates dropping) and that the Vancouver market wasn't going to crash. I can also start digging up more Case-Shiller indices over the last few months showing Florida housing markets further dropping to defeat your position that your condo purchase wasn't going to further drop. Since our "debating" started last year you have been wrong on almost every one of your speculatory positions.

But hey...you say you're the "financial guru" who is so credible that you successfully convinced your friends to buy in San Diego last year (how's that going? ). How can I argue against that?

I didn't convince him of anything. The told me he bought in San Diago, He never asked my advice one way or the other before he did it. And truthfully I don't know enough about the US market in general to offer an opinion. He may very well be happy with his investment, I don't know. I believe he's got it rented out, but I don't know if he's in a positive or negative cash flow position.

As to the Florida property, you're funny. You keep insisting you know the score when I have reality on my side. You absolutely can't win and if you want to make a friendly and sizable wager, I'll prove it.

I can show you what the last place sold for in my building. Compare to to what I bought it for, adjust for the difference in exchange rates and prove beyond a doubt that you're wrong and I have an unrealized gain. You can argue about theory all you want, but you aren't going to win this one because the facts are the facts. But hey if you want to try, be my guest.

But to protect whatever semblence of anonymity, I have, this would have to be a private undertaking.

But the results of this bet along with your admission you're wrong could be posted.

As for debates and/or prove you haven't shown me anything. I have the case-shiller numbers and yes they're not good. I never said they were. I'm merely telling you why I think the housing market won't drop to the 50% level you said it was going to in reference to post number 18 on this thread.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

How can anyone provide evidence for something that we are speculating is going to occur in Vancouver but hasn't occurred yet because this market hasn't reached that point yet?

aw..so once again the great speculator has no data. How interesting.

Well okay but if you don't have any data, surely you must have some idea what you think will happen.

So what do you think the foreclosure rate will end up being in Vancouver?

Surely you must have some idea since this is a key component to your argument about the impending housing crash that's going to occur.

 

[hapkido]

Jesus Dude I'm looking at the big picture. You can pick out individual positive cases and and declare it's all negative media hype.

That's not what I call being objective and factual. There are always savvy and sophisticated real estate investors or investors period be it any asset class .... but they are a SMALL minority. For every successful investor I can site 10000 fold horror stories who are not. Now if your client's properties REAL costs (mortgage, property tax, maintenance etc) are all covered fully by rental fee then he is ok. After his NET capital gain upon selling the properties you can calculate his true ROI based on his investment less life time expenses attributed to that asset.

I disagree about your arguement that's all about one's ability servicing debt. It's about the Real Return on Investment and the investors time horizon. Now, for principle residence it's about the "real cost" of servicing debt. I chuckle when some folks said look I made money on my principle home! but when you factor all the costs related to carrying that home assuming they sell ...they made less than 5% annually vs 50% they had thought originally.

So we arguing about degree of severity of the downturn right? And you are saying it aint gonna be that bad - hiccup. So make your call. How much of a drop from peak avg price will the Vancouver market fall by end of 2010? I'm betting 50%.

The underlying fundamentals and economics don't support this ridiculous hockey stick rise.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hYipV07cr...AAhU/IOSsAPwwWlE/s1600-h/u-r-here-q3-2008.JPG

May I ask what is your profession? Are you an agent? Lawyer? Or a mortgage broker?

Here's part of the story not being told. I have client with 6 houses. Because of cash flow issues he actually insisted on getting 40 year mortgages. Why? because the interest is tax deductible and it increases his flexibility.

Currently he has some mortgages at prime -.8 which is at about 2.2%. This allows him to have more flexibility with respect to his cash flow. If he has excess cash flow he can allocate the difference to the principal, which he is now doing.

If times are tough due to renovations etc. he has as much flexibility as he possibility can get. And his net worth is several million dollars.

Having this type of product doesn't mean you can't accelerate your payments it merely makes your minimum payments lower than would otherwise be the case.

So it's a misconception to think that these products are just being exclusively used by those just squeaking into the market. Although it is safe to say the majority of people using these are likely first time buyers.

Going one step further, I would even suggest increasing the amortization period in the US might not be all that bad of an idea, and I believe it's one component of the Obama housing bailout plan.

Products themselves are usually not the issue, it's more related to whether or not people understand them and the appropriateness of a particular product to a particular individual.

As to average household debt. That's almost meaningless. The guy above owes over $2M. It just so happens he as assets worth about $7M. I too have debt and assets far in excess of the 138K mark, who cares?. The questions are do you have assets that greatly exceed this amount and can you comfortably service the debt. If the answer to both those questions is yes, I don't even understand why it's an issue.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Yes, I know. lol! You'd make me a wager that you can't prove so you won't! Again...you apparently own the only piece of real estate in both Florida and the US that has appreciated in value. Of course Case-Shiller index (which was originally your reference, not mine) supports my argument and would counter your argument - but what can I do? I can only use published statistics, right? (even if they're actually your reference )

And when you justify your Florida purchase by continually saying "adjust for currency exchange" you are fooling yourself. If you don't adjust for the currency exchange it was a BAD INVESTMENT. You just got lucky on the timing because of the rapid currency gains at a wierd time in the market. However, its not likely you're going to realize that currency gain:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aQqU07AMztnI&refer=canada

If the dollar comes to par then you're fucked. Stop using that as your argument because its weak.

And its funny how now you're only responsible for your San Diego friend's tax return. You made previous reference to him to make is sound like you were a real estate professional as opposed to a tax professional. I guess you're not a real estate pro like you were propping yourself up to be?

And by the way...I never used the figure of 50%. When you're arguing with someone at least know what is being argued.

No I'm far from a real state expert, I just like to argue. lol

As for the real estate holdings, I always look at a five year holding period, so it's way to early to speculate as to whether or not it's a good investment. But to buy the same place today in Cdn $, costs more than I purchased it for, so things are positive at the moment.

But in general your assessment of Florida is pretty accurate. Things are fairly dire there.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

He's finally disclosed that he's a tax accountant despite that for months he's tried to put convince us he's a real estate pro.

I never said anything of the sort. Please reference one post that suggested this.

Anyway, this thread has run it's course.

 

[FunSugarDaddy]

Dude...you're in a downward spiral now. I've never argued that I would know what foreclosure rates were going to be...just that when market prices go down that foreclosure rates are further exacerbated because mortgage balances become higher than market value.

I've said the market was going to crash (which it is), and that the cycle feeds upon itself due to upside down mortgages. Apparently you don't get this because you were arguing that foreclosures are only dependant on cashflow.

Pull your head out of your ass and stop grasping at straws.

This is stupid. You spend 1/2 a thread arguing that we're going to mirror the US situation in terms of house prices falling. You surely must know that much of the reason prices are falling is due to forclosures right?

Follow me so far or has this basic premise passed you by?

It only stands to reason that if you think we're going to mirror the US experience that foreclosures here would have to dramatical rise. Or is this connecting the dots too challenging for you?

Do you even know what the foreclosure rates are in the US verses Vancouver at the moment?

You don't have a clue do you, yet it's the underlying premise of your whole argument.

Remember cash flow, difference it value upon mortgage renewals, has all that slipped by so quickly? You were the one saying this would dramaticaly affect the forclosure rates, yet you don't have a clue what they even are.

As to the post from the other gentleman, I've never suggested that most of you don't have the general trend right, (ie the market's going down) all I'm arguing is the degree. When people suggest we're going to have a correction greater than 40% I simply disagree. I think 20-30% is the more likely outcome. Could I be wrong. Of course I could.

In any event, for reasons I don't understand, or even care about, there seems to be a hostle undertone developing and I'm simply not interested in participating on this thread anymore.

Have a nice day.

 

[hapkido]

It was fun gentlemen! I know we all get spirited in debate. Call it passion

I'm the first one to admit wrong if logic dictates it but the circle of one's competence is defined by one's experience, belief system, critical thinking & objectivity and education . Hence never ending debate!

 

[Krustee]

For starts let`s look at the differences, they`re very significant.

1. The US had loans called NIJA (No Income, Job or Asset) verification. WE NEVER HAD THESE TYPE OF LOANS. (these were called sub-prime mortgages)

I think your talking about NINA loans FSD & no these were NOT given to those who had no job, income or assets.
Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_loans

You are claiming that the US gave loans to people who had no jobs or income & that is partially true but what you fail to divulge is that those who obtained a NINA or No Doc loan were required to show an acceptable credit score of 660 or higher & with a proven track record of credit worthiness. They also were not allowed more than 65% of the loan to value on the property they are taking the loan on.

They weren`t giving loans to people on welfare.

2. The next step up to sub-prime were Alt loans. These were in the middle between sub-prime and conventional loans and had features such paying only a portion of your interest and the difference going onto the principal actually pushing the loan value in excess of 110%. WE NEVER HAD THESE TYPE OF LOANS.

I recently discussed these here:
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=855654#post855654

Losses are creeping up on so-called Alt-A loans, which are considered less risky than subprime mortgages, but may have lower credit quality than "prime" loans.
That`s sparked concern among investors in companies such as IndyMac Bancorp.

Subprime mortgages are offered to lower-income borrowers with spotty credit records. The sector has descended into crisis recently as rising interest rates and stagnant home prices have left more borrowers struggling to meet monthly payments.
Alt-A loans were originally designed for borrowers with clean credit records, but with other issues that often meant they provided fewer documents or even no documents showing what they earned. These loans were attractive to mortgage investors because they offered higher yields than traditional "prime" home loans, but were underpinned by the cleaner credit records of the borrowers.

The popularity of Alt-A mortgages exploded in recent years. A record $400 billion of these loans were originated in 2006. They accounted for 13.4% of all mortgages offered last year, up from 2.1% in 2003, according to industry publisher Inside Mortgage Finance.
But as the Alt-A business grew, more of these loans were offered to less creditworthy borrowers, creating what Mark Adelson, head of structured finance research at Nomura Securities International, calls "Alt-B" products.
"The Alt-A market has absorbed and disguised a portion of the subprime space," he said. "You can debate how to define these loans, but many have ended up being an Alt-A product with subprime deficiencies."
Surging house prices earlier this decade are partly to blame, Adelson said.

When buyers realized they couldn`t afford the home they wanted, they took out alternative mortgages that helped them pay the higher price. Alt-A mortgages requiring few documents - often called stated-income loans -- allowed buyers to inflate their earnings and get a bigger loan, he explained.
"In the past few years, Alt-A loans were made to weaker and weaker borrowers and the sector expanded downward along credit spectrum," he said. "In doing that, you draw up into the Alt-A space some of the problems that are affecting the subprime space."
Indeed, losses on Alt-A loans were already creeping up at the end of last year: 2.38% of Alt-A loans were at least 60-day delinquent in December, according to First American LoanPerformance, a unit of real estate data specialist First American.

That`s the highest level since February 2004 and up from 0.93% in August 2005.
Data on Alt-A mortgages that have been packaged up and sold as mortgage-backed securities show the growing popularity of low-documentation and stated-income loans.
More than 80% of Alt-A mortgages that were securitized in 2006 were low-documentation, stated-income loans, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. That`s up from 68% in 2005.
Data from LoanPerformance tell a similar story: 58% of all mortgages originated in the fourth quarter of 2006 were low-documentation loans. That was up from 21% at the start of 2000.
In California, which has seen some of the biggest gains in home prices this decade, 86% of all mortgages offered in the fourth quarter were low-documentation loans. That`s up from 29% in early 2000, LoanPerformance data show.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={664D15E5-33EA-41AB-BAF7-116BBF929245}

3. Included in both these type of loans where rate teasers, whereby they would offer you a below market rate (say 2%) which after a couple of years would revert to market rate plus something extra for allowing this initial "deal" It`s these type of loans that are resetting and causing all kinds of havoc as payments jump from say 800/mo to $1500/mo. WE NEVER HAD THESE TYPE OF LOANS.

This article gives some good detail on these loans & what we can expect in the coming months:

Coming Wave of Resets - Is there a Simple Answer?

Want some more bad news? Well sorry about that because London`s Financial Times says we ain`t seen nothing yet.

According to an article written last week by Eric Uhlfelder, Credit Suisse maintains that about $1 trillion in Alt-A and option payment mortgages are scheduled to have rate resets in the next 30 months. These resets, the bank says, could cause as much future damage as the subprime crisis has already inflicted.

If these resets and the resulting increased monthly payments send defaults soaring, and given other factors such as job losses and falling home prices there is every indication they will, the bank projects that foreclosures over the next four years could reach nine million or 18 percent of all mortgages.

The newspaper estimates that there are approximately three million Alt-A loans outstanding with a value of $1 trillion. Fannie Mae, which owns or guarantees about 30 percent of them has called them loans with a higher risk of default than non-Alt-A loans.

At the time they were issued they weren`t viewed as particularly risky. They were primarily given to borrowers with reasonable credit scores who would have been prime prospects except for an inability to document sufficient income. No one seemed to much care whether this indicated a lack of documentation or a lack of income. As many of these loans carried introductory or teaser rates, the amount that borrowers owe each month (and in the case of option payment loans the amount they owe in total) has increased as home prices have fallen.

Whitney Tilson, a partner in T2 Partners an asset management firm, told The Times that he expects the reset in rates to accelerate default rates, further flood the housing market, and put even more downward pressure on housing prices preventing establishment of a price floor which is viewed as critical to ending the current economic crisis. And he projects an even more grim scenario than Credit Suisse - a 50 percent default in both option ARM and Alt-A loans.

As these defaults happen it will spill over into the securities market where a T. Rowe Price spokesperson estimates some $800 billion in securities are backed by Alt-A mortgages. As these securities fall in value, perhaps to pennies on the dollar, there will be a further tightening of credit markets.

Most of you reading this are mortgage professionals and all of this brings me to a question. I know full well that I am not the only one asking it, yet I have yet to hear a reasonable answer. Why don`t the powers that be, the wizards behind the screen, waive these resets? For that matter, why don`t they lower rates across the board at least temporarily so as to reduce payments for everyone. I know about securitization and all of the nameless and faceless investors that supposedly won`t allow this to happen. But wouldn`t they rather be collecting 4 percent on their investment rather than not collecting 9 percent?

It seems like such a simple thing to do. Or am I just simple for asking?

4. In the US they often have no recourse mortgages. Meaning if you brought a rental property and you ended up upside down in terms of the value of the mortgage exceeding the value of the property you could walk away from the loan and they couldn`t go after your other property. (I don`t believe this to be the case in Canada)

This is true only if the property is in a non-recourse state such as California.

5. These loans were packaged and resold on the market and given a triple AAA rating to boot. This is why the banks in Europe and even Canada suffered huge losses around these type of loans. To my knowledge the Canadian mortgages weren`t collateralized.

Yes & no.
I think what you meant to say is they were packaged with other loans that were at a AAA rating.
That is the reason these securities were so pervasive in the market because there was no overt declaration of this in the portfolio.

We were in a market where buyers had to mortgage to the hilt in order to afford to get in - and yes, many of these buyers were 20 and 30 year olds who put everything on the line. And you are fooling yourself if you don`t think Canadian lenders weren`t aggressive in their lending. Of course they had different products...but they were still lending with zero down and up to 40 year amms on product that was fundamentally way overvalued.

This is true!

Yes...if you worked in the mortgage lending industry, you would know that there are computerized lending programs which allow brokers to input information and get approvals for strong enough applications with minimal, if any, type of verification. They don`t call it NIJA, but these programs do exist...and these are being abused. Furthermore, there are "A" lenders, "B" lenders, and "C" lenders in Canadian mortgage markets. "C" lenders aren`t officially called "sub-prime" lenders, but they sure as hell are equivalent.

Rate teasers are available through new home developers all the time. Open up a newspaper and you`ll see them all over the place.

And yes...Canadian loans are repackaged just like American loans.

I`m sorry FSD...but it is going to happen just like it did in the US.

As stated above they are NINA loans.

It won`t be the same here as the states but we will see a significant drop in price.

The vast majority of owns have mortgages far less than the market value even with the recent correction.

Think about it. My guess is that about 40-50% of the owners probably don`t even have mortgages. Certainly most people in their 50`s or older don`t.

I don`t think there are that many peeps out there who own their homes outright.
Keep in mind many have used the equity in their home to do renovations & use for other reasons.

So that leaves those who bought over the last 2-3 years, and for some reason can`t continue to make the payments. I would suggest we`re talking about a relatively small % of the real estate market.

Like they were saying on CNN today. Yes, 10% of mortgages are facing forclosure and yes the norm is about 1% but that still means 90% of the people are still getting by. Albeit, times are tough and these ratios could change.

That is true for now FSD but what about when we start seeing large #`s of unemployed here?

 

[Krustee]

1. every month that goes by creates more pent up demand.
2. the price of a 2x4 has not fallen substantially
3. land is not being created
4. population continues to increase
5. over 80% of the population still has a job
6. the sky is not falling although it`s cloudier than usual.

Anyone who builds anything knows that this too shall pass. Demand will return. Banks will start lending money because that`s how banks earn profits and they are not going to disappear any time soon. People will continue to make babies who will need a place to sleep. Wages will rise to meet requirements. Currency will be devalued or revalued depending on GNP and debt ratios. Old debts will be paid with devalued $. Inflation will drive up prices and everyone will go bananas in the stock market all over again. What makes any of you imagine that the future does not = the past?????

Man are you out of the loop!

Read the following:
Debt
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=102876
Bankruptcy
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=850033#post850033
Real Estate prices
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=100198

 

[hapkido]

Confessions of a former real estate bull

This is a good example of the obfuscation by the mainstream media and anyone who makes decisions based on their spin is gonna get sucker punched. .

Classic paid puppet down south. As chief economist for the National Association of Realtors, David Lereah was famously optimistic. Now a private consultant, he's abandoned what he calls the 'positive spin.'

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/05/real_estate/Lereah.moneymag/


Now if you've been following Cameron Muir, BC Chief CREA Economist, his constant spin and forecast has been overly optimistic in every single commentary. This will be tragic for those who bought into his guidance.

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=0bb538be-8264-495c-9795-3ab56007b8ad

Derrick Penner, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

"British Columbia real estate sales will fall substantially by the end of this year, but will stage a modest recovery in 2009, according to the latest forecast of the B.C. Real Estate Association."


I'm not a Economist nor a Real Estate Expert but good grief a person with some level of critical thinking and analysis would have figured this is a total outright LIE or pure INCOMPETENCE.