“The only reason it was higher was because people were willing to pay more.”
All back to teaser rates, allowing for low monthly payments for a year or two, just in time for you to flip and make $$$ be retired – or retarded if the plan doesn’t work.
I think Motley Fool is one of least useful analysis sites out there. They were eternally bullish and always justifying tech stock prices back in 1999 by using “it’s different now” analysis, and it seems they are still that way – now with houses.
I think Motley Fool is one of least useful analysis sites out there. They were eternally bullish and always justifying tech stock prices back in 1999 by using “it’s different now” analysis, and it seems they are still that way – now with houses.
I think Motley Fool is one of least useful analysis sites out there. They were eternally bullish and always justifying tech stock prices back in 1999 by using “it’s different now” analysis, and it seems they are still that way – now with houses.
I think Motley Fool is one of least useful analysis sites out there. They were eternally bullish and always justifying tech stock prices back in 1999 by using “it’s different now” analysis, and it seems they are still that way – now with houses.
I think Motley Fool is one of least useful analysis sites out there. They were eternally bullish and always justifying tech stock prices back in 1999 by using “it’s different now” analysis, and it seems they are still that way – now with houses.
I normally find Motley Fool reliable but in this instance I am reminded of David Lereah and Jim Cramer 2 years ago: ignorant, lying, and spreading propaganda.
I’d be less surprised if the fool was put up to this article by the NAR than if even one of their arguments held water.
It’s not ever worth refuting because the primary key to housing affordabililty is not once mentioned in that entire article.
I normally find Motley Fool reliable but in this instance I am reminded of David Lereah and Jim Cramer 2 years ago: ignorant, lying, and spreading propaganda.
I’d be less surprised if the fool was put up to this article by the NAR than if even one of their arguments held water.
It’s not ever worth refuting because the primary key to housing affordabililty is not once mentioned in that entire article.
I normally find Motley Fool reliable but in this instance I am reminded of David Lereah and Jim Cramer 2 years ago: ignorant, lying, and spreading propaganda.
I’d be less surprised if the fool was put up to this article by the NAR than if even one of their arguments held water.
It’s not ever worth refuting because the primary key to housing affordabililty is not once mentioned in that entire article.
I normally find Motley Fool reliable but in this instance I am reminded of David Lereah and Jim Cramer 2 years ago: ignorant, lying, and spreading propaganda.
I’d be less surprised if the fool was put up to this article by the NAR than if even one of their arguments held water.
It’s not ever worth refuting because the primary key to housing affordabililty is not once mentioned in that entire article.
