Anyway, to maybe get back to some semblance of a topic…
I have the general (and perhaps misguided) sense that as purchase price goes up, a higher percentage of those buyers actually have lower LTVs. That is, richer people generally own more of their houses. Do you have any sense for this from an historical perspective, sdrealtor?
Anyway, to maybe get back to some semblance of a topic…
I have the general (and perhaps misguided) sense that as purchase price goes up, a higher percentage of those buyers actually have lower LTVs. That is, richer people generally own more of their houses. Do you have any sense for this from an historical perspective, sdrealtor?
Anyway, to maybe get back to some semblance of a topic…
I have the general (and perhaps misguided) sense that as purchase price goes up, a higher percentage of those buyers actually have lower LTVs. That is, richer people generally own more of their houses. Do you have any sense for this from an historical perspective, sdrealtor?
Anyway, to maybe get back to some semblance of a topic…
I have the general (and perhaps misguided) sense that as purchase price goes up, a higher percentage of those buyers actually have lower LTVs. That is, richer people generally own more of their houses. Do you have any sense for this from an historical perspective, sdrealtor?
Anyway, to maybe get back to some semblance of a topic…
I have the general (and perhaps misguided) sense that as purchase price goes up, a higher percentage of those buyers actually have lower LTVs. That is, richer people generally own more of their houses. Do you have any sense for this from an historical perspective, sdrealtor?
