Real Estate Crash thread

[quote[Yet how can you save a housing market that by definition is too expensive for the immediate population?[/quote]

For starters, the immediate population has never been in the market to buy a house. What happened is we sold houses to the immediate population and now we see what happens served on a silver platter. I'm glad I bought a house in 2008. Good luck buying one the next 10 years unless you are coming in with cash. Interest rates will sky rocket while the houses will drop in value. For me, i could give a collective fuck. I bought a new house that I really wont have to fuck with i'd imagine in my lifetime besides maybe some upgrades 10-15 years from now on the bathrooms and kitchen. Ive got a tile roof, wont be fucking with that in my lifetime. If i live to be 80 i might have to fuck with it. The only ones who should really give a fuck are investors who bought and were hoping to flip. Otherwise, you bought a house, when you retire, no house payment. Thats a shitload of money i'll have to live on via 401k and SS. Hello RV and hello travelling. None of my money was put into my purchase. People were stupid not to buy when the government was giving you a down payment and FHA was handing out loans like candy. I took my down payment out of 401K and turned around and paid it back 3 months later, thank you feds! Buying now, id probably wait since im actually having to bring money to the table. But buying in 08-09, why not. Didnt cost me a fucking dime. Maybe a couple g's closing but i got 3.5% back on closing from seller (aka bank). So where am i at now. Paying less than i paid in rent. If i wanted to, i could rent my house out for my house payment if not more. Housing is too expensive for the immediate population and it always has been. What makes you think thats going to change? Drop my house 50K in value, you still dont have anyone who doesnt already own that can qualify for a 150K loan. I threw away 250K in rent in 10 years in the bay area. Telling someone like me that its not a good idea to buy is down right retarded.

a house is not an investment, its somewhere to live and call home. If you take that perspective you'll enjoy your home and life. I assure you. Either way, if you can afford to buy now and want to buy now, id do it if your are looking long term. I know im much happier not paying someone else house payment. You gotta throw in the pride factor too. I'm paying a monthly payment that will someday be mine. sweeeeet....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

gloom and doom..........

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramer

sweeeeet....

---

rock paper scissors for it?

oh, and I'm investing primarily in season passes for 2011/2012.

I think I'm required to post this....

666 Fifth Ave

Quote:

---

Over two years ago, when discussing the absolutely top ticked purchase of one 666 Fifth Avenue by under-30 real estate mogul extraordinaire, NY Observer owner and now Donald Trump son in law, Jared Kushner, we said: "Looks like the commercial mortgage apocalypse is about to claim its next victim, this time in the form of the appropriately numbered 666 Fifth Avenue building, home to such previously flourishing tenants as Citi Private Wealth Management...the building's DSCR has fallen to an abysmal 0.69. Even when taking into account the $98 million (or much less) reserve fund the building has set aside to cover rent shortfalls, one can assume it won't be long before the 666 insignia again prominently graces the roof, especially since it would have to replace a laughable Citi sign." Ah, the good old days of 2009, when news mattered, data actually flowed through models, hedge funds traded on constant inside information, markets actually dipped, POMO was a clown, and central planning was merely a drop of unrecycled ink in Ben Shalom Mugabe's toner cartridge. But we digress. As usual Zero Hedge may have been just a little bit ahead of the curve, though still better late in our prediction than never. With little surprise we read in the WSJ, that after an artificial delay of over 2 years, the inevitable is about to catch up with reality, confirming that no amount of Vissarionovichian market manipulation can make up for the complete absence of cash flows. "As of March, the aluminum-panel-clad skyscraper was about $3.5 million-a-month short on debt service, say people familiar with the matter. Only $10 million remained in a reserve fund used to service the property's $1.22 billion mortgage, which is tied to the office portion of the building. Its revenues are only one-fourth the amount forecast in 2007." Next steps: technical and/or full blown default.

---

[QUOTE=skier666;3228963]I think I'm required to post this....

"Over two years ago, when discussing the absolutely top ticked purchase of one 666 Fifth Avenue by under-30 real estate mogul extraordinaire, NY Observer owner and now Donald Trump son in law, Jared Kushner, we said: "Looks like the commercial mortgage apocalypse is about to claim its next victim"

Am I the only jong here old enough to remember when Donald almost had his ass handed to him by the last RE collapse? Guess it runs in the family.

About a year ago, Zero Hedge first floated the then apocryphal idea that the economy is receiving an implicit boost from the money "saved" by squatters: people who no longer pay their mortgage, but due to banks' unwillingness to have a price discovery event on the home (in the form of an auction on REO or foreclosed properties) which would force mark bank assets far lower (due to impairments on the mortgage as opposed to it merely being in "Special Servicing" status), continue to reside in the property. Furthermore we disclosed yesterday, per LPS the average delinquency period is now 573 days meaning the typical deadbeat resides in their home for over a year and a half without paying a single cent. And since there are millions of delinquent mortgages, all this adds up to a lot of money. How much? Well, nobody had been quite able to quantify this huge boost to the economy, which is why the topic never received prominent media notice. Until now. In "Rental income and "Squatter's Rent" JP Morgan's Michael Feroli kills two disinformation birds with one client note: first he debunks all myths that "rental income" is surging, as was reported in glaring headlines in a variety of propaganda media outlets following Monday's personal income report was released. This is patently false. As Feroli explains: "This rise has little to do with landlords getting more from their tenants. In fact, it has very little to do with what speakers of the English language would normally consider "rent." Instead, it mostly reflects mortgage payments of the household sector coming down, in part because of the aggregate decline in household mortgage debt due to net cancellation of mortgages associated with foreclosures." In other words, surging rental income is nothing more than "squatter's rent" saved by not paying one's mortgage. As to quantifying this amount - per Ferroli until recently it was $60 billion a year! This is a stunning 0.5% of GDP. Luckily there is good news: this unethical and artificial "boost" to the economy is finally declining... and is now only $50 billion on an annualized basis.

Read the full article: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ben...0-billion-year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

About a year ago, Zero Hedge first floated the then apocryphal idea that the economy is receiving an implicit boost from the money "saved" by squatters: people who no longer pay their mortgage, but due to banks' unwillingness to have a price discovery event on the home (in the form of an auction on REO or foreclosed properties) which would force mark bank assets far lower (due to impairments on the mortgage as opposed to it merely being in "Special Servicing" status), continue to reside in the property. Furthermore we disclosed yesterday, per LPS the average delinquency period is now 573 days meaning the typical deadbeat resides in their home for over a year and a half without paying a single cent. And since there are millions of delinquent mortgages, all this adds up to a lot of money. How much? Well, nobody had been quite able to quantify this huge boost to the economy, which is why the topic never received prominent media notice. Until now. In "Rental income and "Squatter's Rent" JP Morgan's Michael Feroli kills two disinformation birds with one client note: first he debunks all myths that "rental income" is surging, as was reported in glaring headlines in a variety of propaganda media outlets following Monday's personal income report was released. This is patently false. As Feroli explains: "This rise has little to do with landlords getting more from their tenants. In fact, it has very little to do with what speakers of the English language would normally consider "rent." Instead, it mostly reflects mortgage payments of the household sector coming down, in part because of the aggregate decline in household mortgage debt due to net cancellation of mortgages associated with foreclosures." In other words, surging rental income is nothing more than "squatter's rent" saved by not paying one's mortgage. As to quantifying this amount - per Ferroli until recently it was $60 billion a year! This is a stunning 0.5% of GDP. Luckily there is good news: this unethical and artificial "boost" to the economy is finally declining... and is now only $50 billion on an annualized basis.

Read the full article: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ben...0-billion-year

---

Can we get this summarized into idiot terms for us idiots like myslef? I tried to follow the post, But i'm about as educated as moonlight bunny ranch whore when it comes to economics. I'm not sure what that post meant or what you are pointing out. Rents are on the rise or not? As for the whole foreclosure piece. 500 days+., where do those #'s come from. I'm assuming , once again outside the bay area. They were handing my buddy cash, here ya go, 5K to get out now so i can sell your house. The house sold in under a month. ??/ I'm just not clear on the area's impacted besides nevada, florida and arizona. I'm assuming thats where these #'s are coming from? Either eway, im looking at renting my house out and buying into a connected townhouse walnut creek, ca. Townhouse = fucking suck but i love the area. Any feedback appreciated.

good thing you work for a bank

sweet jesus the US is fucked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramer

Either eway, im looking at renting my house out and buying into a connected townhouse walnut creek, ca. Townhouse = fucking suck but i love the area. Any feedback appreciated.

---

It is too early in the morning for me to address your other questions, but as far as buying today, I wouldn't do it unless you want to be underwater in the next two years. There have been many posts in this thread that support values already have collapsed 50-60%. In my area, prices are only down about 20%. To me that means my area will likely get smoked going forward, while the areas that have already corrected 50% will go down another10-20%. So if Walnut Creek has been hanging in there value wise, like Coronado, it probably has a long ways to go down. Simply, why buy today what will very likely be 20% less in a few years? That is just my 2 cents. Listen to 4matic and he will tell you to BTFD. Only time will tell.

All real estate is local right.....

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17704873

Investors eager for metro Denver housing projects

An apartment building boom is on the horizon as increasing demand for a limited supply of apartments pushes rents higher and gives developers and investors an incentive to start building multifamily projects.

Investors, meanwhile, are eager to finance new projects.

"There is an institutional desire to have multifamily as an asset class," said Marcus Mollmann, president of Reliquid Capital Network, a Greenwood Village-based online network that connects those seeking capital for commercial real estate projects with those who provide it.

After a steep dip in the number of apartments constructed last year, a flurry of new projects has been announced for metro Denver in recent weeks. At a recent multifamily conference, developers projected that 2,500 apartments would be delivered in the Denver metro area this year. That number is expected to double to 5,000 next year.

Denver's situation mirrors a national trend. The number of units expected to be added to the nation's apartment supply is expected to jump from 22,536 this year to 94,588 next year and just over 109,000 units in 2013, according to CoStar Group, a Washington-based commercial real estate research firm.

"We're currently building at a 50-year low," said industry veteran Tom Toomey, president and chief executive of UDR Corp., a Denver-based multifamily real estate investment trust. "There's no question that number could triple in a very short window. It's nowhere even near the size and scope of the demand equation."

Vacancy rate at decade low

Last year, just 498 apartments were delivered to the market in the entire seven-county metro area, but developers received permits for 1,001 units, according to a survey by the Colorado Division of Housing.

At least 1,000 new units currently are planned in and around downtown, said Brian Phetteplace, manager of retail and residential development for Downtown Denver Partnership Inc.

"In downtown, we're seeing tightening vacancy," he said. "Buildings that were built 2006 and 2010 are absorbed. Incentives are being burned off, and we didn't have overbuilding. The next wave of development can come in and respond to the market."

By the end of the year, the apartment vacancy rate in metro Denver is expected to slip to its lowest level in a decade, allowing owners to raise rents and scale back concessions, according to a report by Marcus & Millichap.

Metro Denver's vacancy rate was 5.5 percent during the fourth quarter, according to a survey for the Colorado Division of Housing.

At the same time, land is easier to come by, construction prices are down about 10 percent and contractors are eager to take on the work, said Mike Kelly, president and co-founder of Caldera Asset Management, a multifamily consulting company.

"You don't have the craziness of anybody being able to tie up land," Kelly said. "Builders are building a lot quicker because they don't have any other projects."

Investors and developers are focused on high-end or affordable, deed-restricted projects, but nothing in between, said Gordon Von Stroh, professor of management at the University of Denver's Daniels College of Business.

Luxury projects are appealing to developers because they bring in higher rents. There is funding available through the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority for affordable projects.

"You could really call it a dichotomy," Von Stroh said.

Demand resurfaces

The meltdown in the housing market found developer David Zucker rethinking his 2020 Lawrence condo project in late 2008.

Originally, Zucker planned for a 62-unit condo project. Now, with financing finally in line for the deal and the acquisition of an additional 25,000 square feet of land, he's building a 231-unit apartment building.

"We are very much focused on affordability, on rental and on converting this to what I like to call the first project in downtown Denver conceived after the end of the gilded era of 2007-2008," Zucker said.

Developer Randy Nichols plans to break ground by the end of the year on a 307-unit apartment project in the Central Platte Valley. At the moment, Nichols is weighing a variety of financing scenarios and is in conversations with King Soopers and Safeway about opening a 43,000-square-foot grocery store.

"We're getting a lot of interest from financing sources and joint-venture partners and that sort of thing," Nichols said. "I think since Union Station and FasTracks and all that began, the level of interest has increased dramatically. That combined with the renaissance of the apartment business makes it a pretty hot commodity right now."

Steve Rahe and Tom Wanberg of Grubb & Ellis are close to selling a transit-oriented development site at South Lincoln Street and Interstate 25 to an apartment developer. They're also talking to the owner of a multifamily site in southeast Denver about marketing the site to apartment developers.

"We feel like the demand from developers resumed in January," Rahe said. "Last year, there was no interest in these sites. This year there is lots of interest in these sites. The quick turnaround has been amazing."

Institutional investors want to finance projects because they can't buy existing apartment buildings.

"If they can't buy it, the institutional capital has said there's an appetite to build to increase its holdings in multifamily," Mollmann said.

Margaret Jackson: 303-954-1473 or mjackson@denverpost.com

On the up and up

Apartment projects currently in the works in metro Denver

•Phoenix on the FAX in Denver, 50 units

•95 Logan St. in Denver, 16 units

•Junction Place in Boulder, 319 units

•Manhattan II in Denver, 134 units

•Senior housing at Yale Station in Denver, 60 units

•Alta Aspen Grove in Littleton, 280 units

•Nichols Partnership's development in Denver's Central Platte Valley, 307 units

•Lawrence project in Denver, 231 units

•Highland Park in Denver, 126 units

Highland Crossing (shown at left) in Denver, 55 units

Read more: Investors eager for metro Denver housing projects - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_...#ixzz1IBLHu3X5
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cramer

Either eway, im looking at renting my house out and buying into a connected townhouse walnut creek, ca. Townhouse = fucking suck but i love the area. Any feedback appreciated.

---

This is part of the "shadow inventory" that some talk about. A long daisy chain of survival....

http://patrick.net/forum/?p=654677

"My wife and I married in 2005, and bought a house in the Baltimore suburbs in 2006. It was a nice if kinda small house (4bed 1600sqr feet) with a view of the water. The neighborhood was marginal for the outlying county address, and the schools are pretty good. She is a RN, I am an IT security guy. When we bought our house we pulled about $120k combined, now we are at about $140 - $150, and have two kids.
In March of 2006 we bought our house for $325k. We had some cash in the bank, so we were able to put 10% down. Per the recommendation of my Uncle who is an accountant, we chose a 7 year balloon loan from my credit union. It amortized on a 30-year schedule and had a “guaranteed” refinance into a 23 year loan at the end of the term. This type of loan saved me .5% at the time, and I figured it was low risk as we would likely want to move before seven years. Navy Federal Still offers this type of MortgageClick here, and click other. I do not think this is a government backed loan, and I do think this loan is kept in house.

Fast forward five years:
We now rent this house out to a family who have been mostly reliable tenants for 6 months. We have moved about 80 miles away to York, PA for a job and a little more “wholesome” atmosphere to raise our children in. We are renting our current house. In fact there is a chain that looks like this:

My tenant owns a home in Maryland, they rent it out because they are upside down in equity and cannot sell. These people rent my house, because it is upside down in equity by about 50k and I cannot sell. I rent a house in Pennsylvania from a couple who moved back to Baltimore, and is upside down in equity by at least 75k and cannot sell. This couple (my landlord) rents an apartment in Baltimore.

Who knows if the chain go on longer than that? This my personal perspective on the shadow market, it is real, it is huge and it will take a long damn time to wind down. None of us wanted to be landlords, but we are because our families needed to move on from our boat anchor properties. None of us paid more for a home than we could reasonably afford by most recommendations."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

It is too early in the morning for me to address your other questions, but as far as buying today, I wouldn't do it unless you want to be underwater in the next two years. There have been many posts in this thread that support values already have collapsed 50-60%. In my area, prices are only down about 20%. To me that means my area will likely get smoked going forward, while the areas that have already corrected 50% will go down another10-20%. So if Walnut Creek has been hanging in there value wise, like Coronado, it probably has a long ways to go down. Simply, why buy today what will very likely be 20% less in a few years? That is just my 2 cents. Listen to 4matic and he will tell you to BTFD. Only time will tell.

---

Thanks for the feedback. MY buddy bought a house in vallejo rented out to section 8 and pretty much a nightmare. He bought ANOTHER house in fairfield which his bro in law paying the monthly on. Either way, sounds like what you are saying its not a good time to snatach a rental property. He's got alot more money to play with than i do. 20% drop in values then they are at now? I doubt it will be that drastic in the bay area besides the city and peninsula Im over in the FAR east bay, i bought for 230, valued at 219 now, i dont see it going down below 200. Its a new house realistically. Either way, im locked ni at 1700 a month which includes my property taxes and pmi. They've sent me a 1500+ check every year for overpaid on escrow. I'm not going to complain.

Either way, so you say dont buy a 2nd house or a rental and im going with your advice. Once again, thanks for the feedback. Ill sit on the money loser i have and hope to gain in the next 15 years.

so i ask, if i can rent my house out for my house payment, your advice is to live cheaper and stash cash for now? Or should i forget about real estate and just enjoy my home ive been in 2+ years

Cramer, pretty sure your happy with your home buying decision, so why become a landlord and move into a rental? I mean to save $300 a month if you rent, but possibly have to deal with tenant issues isn't worth it to me. I own rentals, they were bought as rentals (not as nice as my place) so if a tenant fucks them up a bit I will live. Just squirrel away some savings (always a great idea) and keep your eyes open for FHA and VA Repos. It is my understanding you can buy them as a N/O purchase with less than 20% down. Although you may need the larger down to have the rent cover the PITI and maintenance. Also, if you want rentals, look around. Sacramento (which I don't know shit about) seems to have an abundance of homes for under $100k. I am pretty sure a $70k home with 20% down would cash flow. Anyways, IMO, time is on your side, so be patient, save money and look around for different investment ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Missing Sock

All real estate is local right.....

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17704873

---

I like the contrast:

Quote:

---

The real problem in the Rockies is housing. Most cities there avoided a bubble. Where Las Vegas home prices rose about 131% from 2000 to 2006, Denver’s values increased just 38%—less than half of the national average. But the western states nonetheless found themselves inconveniently dependent on construction, thanks to a surge in population. New Census figures show that four of the five fastest growing states between 2000 and 2010 were located in the Mountain West. Energetic building in Colorado helped meet new demand and hold down housing costs, but it still increased the state’s exposure to a real estate crash. In places where the bubble didn’t end in a spectacular pop, the result has been a steady hiss as the air has gone out of the construction industry.

And the issue is that the workers displaced from construction are not being reemployed elsewhere. The fortunate thing for Colorado is that many of these workers are only now finding themselves out of a job. Where the bubble crashed with a spectacular pop in 2007 and 2008, unemployed workers have often been off the job for years. So while Colorado's unemployment rate is now rising, Nevada's is falling—thanks, largely, to a shrinking labour force.

---

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...sing_markets_1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

I like the contrast:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...sing_markets_1

---

Thanks Hugh, your post puts Missing Socks into better perspective, as I was thinking what is wrong with this article when I read his post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liv2ski

Listen to 4matic and he will tell you to BTFD. Only time will tell.

---

You can have an optimistic approach to real estate investment. Fortunes are being made in the all cash investment market right now with rates this low and rents on the rise. I signed a purchase agreement for an investment home recently. I backed out only because I didn't like the illiquidity of this particular deal I was doing with a partner. I don't need the risk right now either.

You don't need more investment risk liv2ski? Having all that money in depreciating dollars is no good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4matic

You can have an optimistic approach to real estate investment. Fortunes are being made in the all cash investment market right now with rates this low and rents on the rise. I signed a purchase agreement for an investment home recently. I backed out only because I didn't like the illiquidity of this particular deal I was doing with a partner. I don't need the risk right now either.

You don't need more investment risk liv2ski? Having all that money in depreciating dollars is no good.

---

That's quite the load. First you talk of Fortunes so easily made, but you back out due to illiquidity? Really? So, what is it? When will the "risk" level be suitable to make your Fortune?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

That's quite the load. First you talk of Fortunes so easily made, but you back out due to illiquidity? Really? So, what is it? When will the "risk" level be suitable to make your Fortune?

---

I don't need to make a fortune. Get it? Therefore, I don't need the additional risk and illiquidity. Call me lucky. Money is being made buying houses for cash and renting them out; often to the previous owner. That happened right across the street from me. It's just not a business I'm interested in right now.

Cash-Paying Vultures Pick Bones of U.S. Housing Market as Mortgages Dry Up

“If there weren’t vultures out there, you’d have a city of dead carcasses,” Robert Theocles, an independent consultant for Fort Lauderdale, Florida-based Delavaco, said in a telephone interview. “It’s like the circle of life.”

A record 33 percent of existing-home sales were made to cash buyers in February, when an annualized 4.88 million properties changed hands, the National Association of Realtors reported March 21 2011. That compares with 15 percent of the 4.82 million annualized sales when the Chicago-based trade group started monthly tracking of such purchases in October 2008.

The national sales data don’t count homes bought in foreclosure auctions on courthouse steps, which are almost all cash-only transactions. The “lion’s share” of all-cash purchases are by investors, according to Walter Molony, a spokesman for the Realtors association, though the group doesn’t keep specific numbers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...es-dry-up.html

Again you contradict yourself. You're promoting a market that you say is filled with risk and illiquidity. Just because someone has some cash in their hand on the ciurthouse steps, that doesn't raise their IQ. Renting to former owners is renting to bad credit risks to start, and, if they finally bite it and have to move in the middle of the night, well, then what? I guess the real market intrudes.
Talk to the geniuses who bought in South Florida two years ago when the "bottom was in". I doubt they have made fortunes.

You are looking at it to much from a buy and flip standpoint. Hes looking at it from a cash flow standpoint.

Anyone who bought a 50k condo cash and is renting it out is getting a decent return on their money. Rent values in FL arent that cheap, and even getting 500 a month is a 6k return on 50k, thats 12% before expenses. After condo fees and minimal upkeep your looking at 6-9% net easy. Thats pretty solid regardless of whatever investment vehicle you choose.

It doesnt matter if the house loses value, they will more than likely make up for that lost value in rent over a few years, and at the very least break even. Theres only so much room for 50k condos to go, and regardless of your naysaying Benny, they arent going to go all the way to zero. Even if they did, hold it for 10 years or so and rent it out and you recoup every last dime you have in the place.

I grew up in a household where both my rents were landlords my entire life. Ive seen all walks of renters through the years, and there are good ones and bad ones. But if you paid cash for the property its not going to hurt you to not have a renter in there for a month or two, as there is no mortgage to pay. So not really sure what your argument is there Benny.

Sure its not the most liquid of investments, but if your buying rental property with cash, your probably not looking to flip, unless your stupid. Buying a property cash to rent it out is still one of the best investments out there.

I can get 6.99 with a few clicks on the computer every now and then. No plumbing problems, roofing problems, tenant issues, property taxes. And that's not a "Fortune".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

So not really sure what your argument is there Benny.

---

Neither is Benny, other than he's happy folks who over leveraged themselves got fucked and imploded a housing market he never had the means to get into even if he wanted, so he bagged on it more from a sour grapes perspective rather than having any intelligent foresite as to what was coming. As it all comes crashing down, Benny does nothing more than search the interwebz for data to back up a big old "I told you so". According to Benny, RE will never ever go up, ever again, so everyone is just going to become renters in the future, which if true, is all the more reason to go out an buy income property now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powder11

According to Benny, RE will never ever go up, ever again, so everyone is just going to become renters in the future, which if true, is all the more reason to go out an buy income property now.

---

He's probably right about Detroit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

I can get 6.99 with a few clicks on the computer every now and then. No plumbing problems, roofing problems, tenant issues, property taxes. And that's not a "Fortune".

---

You talk about these problems as if they happen every other week. Roof is a once every 20 or 30 year expense. Plumbing is hit or miss, but contractors are cheap these days with the recession and all, and if you rent to the right person, there are zero tenant issues. Ill take that over your supposed 6.99 for a few clicks scheme anyday.

Point being, just like any other investment you need to research a bit what your buying, but making sure the roof checks out and not renting to the methhead in town are pretty elementary and if you cant handle that, you shouldnt own a rental in the first place.

says the dude who's going to clear 45% on his forex speculation