Comments on: Realtors Want You to Time the Market! http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html personal finance blog with anecdotes, advice and commentary. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:30:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: Andrew http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300474 Andrew Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:47:40 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300474 First of all, I never meant for anyone to take what I have written as financial advice. If you do so, you do so at your own peril. I would like to take a moment to clarify a few of the points I made and explain the reasoning behind them. First, investment "professionals" are compensated in one (or more) of three ways, at least to the best of my knowledge. These are: (1) commissions on the products they sell, (2) transaction fees each time they trade on your account, or (3) a flat fee. It seems obvious that methods (1) and (2) create a conflict of interest between you and the professional. Your goal is to maximize returns for a given level of risk or volatility. Their goal is to sell the products that pay the highest commissions (in method 1) or to maximize the number of transactions in your account (method 2). In neither case are they penalized when they lose your money (nor, to be fair, are they rewarded when they make you money). Method 3 is a much better idea for the investor but only if the professional makes more money for you than you would have without his advice, and that this additional money is more than enough to cover the fee. There's no way to be sure that will happen. I don't generally have a problem with trust, but I don't believe people whose incentives run contrary to mine will act in my best interest rather than theirs, as this denies basic human nature. If you can find an investment professional who is willing to be compensated with a percentage of your gains and refund you the same percentage of your losses, go for it, but I'm not holding my breath. As for calculating an hourly rate when deciding what investments to pursue, it's not nonsensical at all. I have a day job, and I receive overtime pay when I choose to work more than the required number of hours. There's plenty of work, and the cap of 20 hours per week is more than I would care to work (and more than I do work) in most cases. But in my situation, anything else that I do to earn money (such as management investments, be they property or financial instruments/bank accounts) must earn me (before tax) at least 1.5 times my base hourly rate per hour of effort before they become worth it. Otherwise, I'm better off just working more hours at my job, which is zero risk. Obviously, if you're limited in how many hours you can work at your job, or if your compensation is fixed regardless of your hours, this does not apply to you, but you still might want to consider how much you value an hour of leisure time and whether each hour spent managing your investments nets you that much utility. I suspect that most active traders and landlords underestimate the time they spend working on their investments and managing their properties and would not find their returns so appetizing if they kept accurate track of their time, but this is just a hunch and not backed up with hard evidence. First of all, I never meant for anyone to take what I have written as financial advice. If you do so, you do so at your own peril. I would like to take a moment to clarify a few of the points I made and explain the reasoning behind them.

First, investment “professionals” are compensated in one (or more) of three ways, at least to the best of my knowledge. These are: (1) commissions on the products they sell, (2) transaction fees each time they trade on your account, or (3) a flat fee. It seems obvious that methods (1) and (2) create a conflict of interest between you and the professional. Your goal is to maximize returns for a given level of risk or volatility. Their goal is to sell the products that pay the highest commissions (in method 1) or to maximize the number of transactions in your account (method 2). In neither case are they penalized when they lose your money (nor, to be fair, are they rewarded when they make you money). Method 3 is a much better idea for the investor but only if the professional makes more money for you than you would have without his advice, and that this additional money is more than enough to cover the fee. There’s no way to be sure that will happen. I don’t generally have a problem with trust, but I don’t believe people whose incentives run contrary to mine will act in my best interest rather than theirs, as this denies basic human nature. If you can find an investment professional who is willing to be compensated with a percentage of your gains and refund you the same percentage of your losses, go for it, but I’m not holding my breath.

As for calculating an hourly rate when deciding what investments to pursue, it’s not nonsensical at all. I have a day job, and I receive overtime pay when I choose to work more than the required number of hours. There’s plenty of work, and the cap of 20 hours per week is more than I would care to work (and more than I do work) in most cases. But in my situation, anything else that I do to earn money (such as management investments, be they property or financial instruments/bank accounts) must earn me (before tax) at least 1.5 times my base hourly rate per hour of effort before they become worth it. Otherwise, I’m better off just working more hours at my job, which is zero risk. Obviously, if you’re limited in how many hours you can work at your job, or if your compensation is fixed regardless of your hours, this does not apply to you, but you still might want to consider how much you value an hour of leisure time and whether each hour spent managing your investments nets you that much utility.

I suspect that most active traders and landlords underestimate the time they spend working on their investments and managing their properties and would not find their returns so appetizing if they kept accurate track of their time, but this is just a hunch and not backed up with hard evidence.

]]> By: Trevor http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300441 Trevor Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:13:48 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300441 Well, as I took a few minutes to review the thread again, I'm painfully aware that the arguments can't continue ;-). I've worked with many "Andrews" over the years, and can see quickly when people will no longer look at things objectively, and from all different viewpoints and thoughts. Andrew, kudos to you for knowing what works for you, and makes you comfortable as you work towards the elusive dream of "financial independence" in your own way. We all have to choose what works for each of us...and millions love real estate, and millions of others I'm sure look to other investment strategies. Balanced portfolio is the key. I will just pray that nobody takes too much advice reading Andrew's suggestions. Putting all your money in "equity and bond indexes", and CD laddering unfortunately is not a smart financial path for most...it's a great part of your overall plan. Not trusting anyone to help you know how to invest your money implies simply a lack of trust and an inability to find trustworthy experts. Yes, we must educate ourselves on the fees, and general investment choices...but with life, family, work, health...this is why we need help. To take the last year and a half of a downturn and "panic" is a horrible decision. Breaking down real estate ownership and investing to an "hourly rate" is also completely nonsense when comparing to "working for the man", in which you get paid directly for the hours worked. Real estate, and other investing, is to create passive income WHILE working a "day job". Real estate is passive income, whether you manage it yourself as a career, or have to fix a leaky roof or toilet once in a while. LOL - well, looks like I just continued to argue! Ignore that line I guess early in the entry! I respect Andrew and his opinions...just hope that others reading any of this remember...these are comments on a blog post by non-professionals (I'll even for sake of this post try to say I'm a non-professional so as not to sound biased.) My goal is always to empower people on how to make the right decisions based on THEIR situation and needs. Best to all...I'm ridiculously behind on watching some March Madness. Well, as I took a few minutes to review the thread again, I’m painfully aware that the arguments can’t continue ;-) . I’ve worked with many “Andrews” over the years, and can see quickly when people will no longer look at things objectively, and from all different viewpoints and thoughts. Andrew, kudos to you for knowing what works for you, and makes you comfortable as you work towards the elusive dream of “financial independence” in your own way. We all have to choose what works for each of us…and millions love real estate, and millions of others I’m sure look to other investment strategies. Balanced portfolio is the key. I will just pray that nobody takes too much advice reading Andrew’s suggestions. Putting all your money in “equity and bond indexes”, and CD laddering unfortunately is not a smart financial path for most…it’s a great part of your overall plan. Not trusting anyone to help you know how to invest your money implies simply a lack of trust and an inability to find trustworthy experts. Yes, we must educate ourselves on the fees, and general investment choices…but with life, family, work, health…this is why we need help. To take the last year and a half of a downturn and “panic” is a horrible decision.
Breaking down real estate ownership and investing to an “hourly rate” is also completely nonsense when comparing to “working for the man”, in which you get paid directly for the hours worked. Real estate, and other investing, is to create passive income WHILE working a “day job”. Real estate is passive income, whether you manage it yourself as a career, or have to fix a leaky roof or toilet once in a while.
LOL – well, looks like I just continued to argue! Ignore that line I guess early in the entry! I respect Andrew and his opinions…just hope that others reading any of this remember…these are comments on a blog post by non-professionals (I’ll even for sake of this post try to say I’m a non-professional so as not to sound biased.) My goal is always to empower people on how to make the right decisions based on THEIR situation and needs.
Best to all…I’m ridiculously behind on watching some March Madness.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300434 Andrew Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:37:53 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300434 There is no such thing as "inherent" value. Value is based on what someone would be willing to pay for something. AIG probably owns buildings which are just as "real" as your house. As for your renter paying the monthly cost of your investment, that's because they're using the housing and you're not. Everyone rents. Homeowners rent from themselves, and their rent is the opportunity cost of the foregone rent they could collect from a tenant. There is no such thing as “inherent” value. Value is based on what someone would be willing to pay for something. AIG probably owns buildings which are just as “real” as your house. As for your renter paying the monthly cost of your investment, that’s because they’re using the housing and you’re not. Everyone rents. Homeowners rent from themselves, and their rent is the opportunity cost of the foregone rent they could collect from a tenant.

]]> By: Duane http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300425 Duane Sat, 21 Mar 2009 14:13:21 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300425 Amen Trevor! You have explained very well how wealth is built from real estate better than the stock market. The real advantages are owning something with real inherent value (housing) as opposed to something with "paper" value, i.e. stocks. Just ask someone with stock in AIG or Bank of America. Sure my housing assets have declined over the past 2 years but they are not worth $1 like the above mentioned stock. Because of the benefit provided in providing housing to renters the government is willing to give tax breaks for this investment that they don't give to other investors. I am also glad you mentioned the fact that I can put 10% of my money to own an asset that has value 9 times my investment. With $10,000 of my money I get to get a return on a $100,000 investment and the bank doesn't ask me to share that return with them even though they own 90% of the asset. Tell me who will give you that deal to buy stock. Plus my renter pays the monthly cost of my investment because I am giving them housing. I am sure people can point out the pitfalls of not being smart in using housing as an investment and they usually point to stupid speculators who gambled and lost or landlords to rented to lousy tenants and got taken. But like any other type of investing if you look at it as a long term investment (and ride out the ups and downs) and learn the proper ways to rent your properties it can be the type of investing with a good steady return on your investment. Amen Trevor! You have explained very well how wealth is built from real estate better than the stock market. The real advantages are owning something with real inherent value (housing) as opposed to something with “paper” value, i.e. stocks. Just ask someone with stock in AIG or Bank of America. Sure my housing assets have declined over the past 2 years but they are not worth $1 like the above mentioned stock. Because of the benefit provided in providing housing to renters the government is willing to give tax breaks for this investment that they don’t give to other investors.

I am also glad you mentioned the fact that I can put 10% of my money to own an asset that has value 9 times my investment. With $10,000 of my money I get to get a return on a $100,000 investment and the bank doesn’t ask me to share that return with them even though they own 90% of the asset. Tell me who will give you that deal to buy stock. Plus my renter pays the monthly cost of my investment because I am giving them housing.

I am sure people can point out the pitfalls of not being smart in using housing as an investment and they usually point to stupid speculators who gambled and lost or landlords to rented to lousy tenants and got taken. But like any other type of investing if you look at it as a long term investment (and ride out the ups and downs) and learn the proper ways to rent your properties it can be the type of investing with a good steady return on your investment.

]]> By: Trevor http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300405 Trevor Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:45:39 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300405 Wow, quite the thread of responses, and great to see! My only commment to throw in to the ring is how surprised I am that there was no mention of the primary reason more millionaires have been made from real estate than any other...leverage. I know that these days this is a "dirty word" with the drastic down cycle (notice I say cycle), but I mean smart, strategic use of leverage. To argue back and forth on buying real estate or not, for a tax deduction, makes no sense...I agree. That's simply some icing on the cake. But the reason it should be an integral part of an overall balanced portfolio is: 1) Leverage 2) Compound interest on the VALUE of the property...NOT the amount you invested 3) Tax-free growth (upon sale of primary home) Let's be completely safe, and buy a $200,000 house, with $100,000 down (ignore the craziness we all know happened the last several years). Anywhere else, you will make your rate of return on your $100,000 that you invested. Assume 5% (from the laddered CD example) This is $5,000 gain in year 1. Year 2, 5% of now $105,000 is $5,250 (compounding). Now, if the house you bought instead increased 5%, you earn 5% on $200,000 value...that is a $10,000 gain in year 1. In year 2, you now have a house worth $210,000...5% of this is $10,500. Quite a difference. Yes, I know all the other details...you have payments to deal with, upkeep, property taxes, etc. If my rate is locked for 30 years, I've also hedged my payment against inflation...a tremendous strategy few think about. If renting, my landlord would increase my rents over time by an average of 5%-8% per year. Finally, selling my primary home, and being able to enjoy up to $250,000 (single) and $500,000 (married) in tax-free profit...is an amazing opportunity after years of investing. *A more subtle reason...you also don't pay taxes on the "phantom" gains with your primary house each year as you do with "phantom earned interest" on investment assets you didn't even cash out or realize.* All investments have risk...our economy is constantly going through cycles. Aguing "black and white" on whether one should own a house or rent just seems naive. I could go on and on, and I'm completely open-minded to think outside the box and play "devils advocate" with the "pro-renter" arguments...owning a home as a primary home for your family IS, and always will be an investment. The simple key is just taking the time to learn how to make smart decisions, not buy TOO much house (which is the real problem of what happened), and make sure to always keep a high amount of liquidity. If we can learn anything through 2008 and now...liquidity (cash on hand) is the key to financial safety. Wow, quite the thread of responses, and great to see! My only commment to throw in to the ring is how surprised I am that there was no mention of the primary reason more millionaires have been made from real estate than any other…leverage. I know that these days this is a “dirty word” with the drastic down cycle (notice I say cycle), but I mean smart, strategic use of leverage.
To argue back and forth on buying real estate or not, for a tax deduction, makes no sense…I agree. That’s simply some icing on the cake. But the reason it should be an integral part of an overall balanced portfolio is:
1) Leverage
2) Compound interest on the VALUE of the property…NOT the amount you invested
3) Tax-free growth (upon sale of primary home)
Let’s be completely safe, and buy a $200,000 house, with $100,000 down (ignore the craziness we all know happened the last several years). Anywhere else, you will make your rate of return on your $100,000 that you invested. Assume 5% (from the laddered CD example) This is $5,000 gain in year 1. Year 2, 5% of now $105,000 is $5,250 (compounding).
Now, if the house you bought instead increased 5%, you earn 5% on $200,000 value…that is a $10,000 gain in year 1. In year 2, you now have a house worth $210,000…5% of this is $10,500. Quite a difference. Yes, I know all the other details…you have payments to deal with, upkeep, property taxes, etc. If my rate is locked for 30 years, I’ve also hedged my payment against inflation…a tremendous strategy few think about. If renting, my landlord would increase my rents over time by an average of 5%-8% per year.
Finally, selling my primary home, and being able to enjoy up to $250,000 (single) and $500,000 (married) in tax-free profit…is an amazing opportunity after years of investing.
*A more subtle reason…you also don’t pay taxes on the “phantom” gains with your primary house each year as you do with “phantom earned interest” on investment assets you didn’t even cash out or realize.*
All investments have risk…our economy is constantly going through cycles. Aguing “black and white” on whether one should own a house or rent just seems naive.
I could go on and on, and I’m completely open-minded to think outside the box and play “devils advocate” with the “pro-renter” arguments…owning a home as a primary home for your family IS, and always will be an investment. The simple key is just taking the time to learn how to make smart decisions, not buy TOO much house (which is the real problem of what happened), and make sure to always keep a high amount of liquidity. If we can learn anything through 2008 and now…liquidity (cash on hand) is the key to financial safety.

]]> By: Duane http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300399 Duane Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:03:21 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300399 Could be they don't have a high enough credit score, no down payment, will only be in the area a couple of years (we have a lot of military in our area) and today the cost of the same townhouse would be higher with a higher mortgage. Could be they don’t have a high enough credit score, no down payment, will only be in the area a couple of years (we have a lot of military in our area) and today the cost of the same townhouse would be higher with a higher mortgage.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300391 Andrew Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:07:17 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300391 That's great if you can get it, but I wonder why the tenant is willing to pay so much. Why don't they just buy a condo and pay $1,175 per month? That’s great if you can get it, but I wonder why the tenant is willing to pay so much. Why don’t they just buy a condo and pay $1,175 per month?

]]> By: Duane http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300389 Duane Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:25:40 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300389 This discussion on renting versus buying is a little like comparing apples to oranges but I will try. I believe for most people over the long run owning is cheaper than renting but I agree not always for all people. There are some issues with owning like maintenance costs that a landlord pays for in a rental. But let me give a real example. I bought a 4 bedroom town home 5 years ago for an amount that my monthly payment with taxes now is $1175 a month. I rent that townhouse for $1750 a month. Would I be better off to be renting it today from someone for $1750? In five years my taxes have increased per month about $125 and I get $250 a month more in rent. I get a nice tax deduction each year on that property and the renter gets nothing. This discussion on renting versus buying is a little like comparing apples to oranges but I will try. I believe for most people over the long run owning is cheaper than renting but I agree not always for all people. There are some issues with owning like maintenance costs that a landlord pays for in a rental. But let me give a real example.

I bought a 4 bedroom town home 5 years ago for an amount that my monthly payment with taxes now is $1175 a month. I rent that townhouse for $1750 a month. Would I be better off to be renting it today from someone for $1750? In five years my taxes have increased per month about $125 and I get $250 a month more in rent. I get a nice tax deduction each year on that property and the renter gets nothing.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300386 Andrew Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:44:48 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300386 It might be a little easier to time the market when you're making one very large transaction (e.g., buying or selling a house) rather than making frequent, small transactions (e.g., buying shares of stock each payday). But still, I wouldn't count on it. The time to buy a house is when you can get more housing for your money than you can get through renting. The risk, of course, is that the value of the house will fall, but if you plan to stay in it for the rest of your life, and you're under 50, you probably don't need to worry about that. It might be a little easier to time the market when you’re making one very large transaction (e.g., buying or selling a house) rather than making frequent, small transactions (e.g., buying shares of stock each payday). But still, I wouldn’t count on it. The time to buy a house is when you can get more housing for your money than you can get through renting. The risk, of course, is that the value of the house will fall, but if you plan to stay in it for the rest of your life, and you’re under 50, you probably don’t need to worry about that.

]]> By: TStrump http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300379 TStrump Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:55:44 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300379 I guess the lesson is to be wary of people giving advice when they depend on your for their living. Timing the market is next to impossible. If I could do it consistently, I wouldn't need to work. I guess the lesson is to be wary of people giving advice when they depend on your for their living.
Timing the market is next to impossible. If I could do it consistently, I wouldn’t need to work.

]]> By: saladdin http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300359 saladdin Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:25:11 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300359 Spending a dollar to save $0.30. Come one, you can come up with something better then that. saladdin Spending a dollar to save $0.30. Come one, you can come up with something better then that.

saladdin

]]> By: Jim http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300357 Jim Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:59:09 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300357 It wasn't as much a "defense" as it was an explanation, right? :) I don't think real estate agents are to blame, but they're complicit. The financial crisis is the result of many things and I'd say that good old fashioned greed is the true culprit. It wasn’t as much a “defense” as it was an explanation, right? :)

I don’t think real estate agents are to blame, but they’re complicit. The financial crisis is the result of many things and I’d say that good old fashioned greed is the true culprit.

]]> By: Beth http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300355 Beth Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:52:47 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300355 "He started it" is really the defense you're going with? ;) Thanks for your response about RE. Given your comments, I'd say "monopolistic racket" was fairly accurate, actually :) I keep forgetting which country we're talking about. My frame of reference is very different when it comes to real estate because I really only know the system in my country. It's hard to see all real estate agents tarred with the crush, as Ken put it, when I don't think the Canadian real estate market is as corrupt as the US. (Our market didn't cause a world-wide financial crisis -- that's one sign). “He started it” is really the defense you’re going with? ;)

Thanks for your response about RE. Given your comments, I’d say “monopolistic racket” was fairly accurate, actually :) I keep forgetting which country we’re talking about.

My frame of reference is very different when it comes to real estate because I really only know the system in my country. It’s hard to see all real estate agents tarred with the crush, as Ken put it, when I don’t think the Canadian real estate market is as corrupt as the US. (Our market didn’t cause a world-wide financial crisis — that’s one sign).

]]> By: Jim http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300346 Jim Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:27:33 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300346 To be fair, I wasn't resorting to insults when my work was criticized, Ramit's work was criticized. Also, Ken hurled the first insult by implying it was a paid advertisement because he didn't like what Ramit said. Calling a post that I publish a paid post is attacking my honesty and credibility, something that I thought was uncalled for. Ramit asked me if he could put up a guest post to promote his book, I agreed. The reason I think RE is monopolistic (the entire process of buying and selling real estate, not just agents) is because of how exclusive the multiple listing service (MLS) system was (resulted in a DOJ lawsuit against the NAR for anti-competitive prices), the set-in-stone commission structure (regardless of how much work is performed), how many (not all) appraisers were working quid pro quo with banks so that the appraisals came in high enough to get loans approved, how title companies charge you thousands to do a "title search (why do you have to buy MORE title insurance when you refinance?)," etc. I'm sorry to Ken and to real estate agents that felt slighted, I shouldn't have reacted in that way. Calling it a racket was unfair and I was upset, but I believe the whole system is monopolistic. To be fair, I wasn’t resorting to insults when my work was criticized, Ramit’s work was criticized. Also, Ken hurled the first insult by implying it was a paid advertisement because he didn’t like what Ramit said. Calling a post that I publish a paid post is attacking my honesty and credibility, something that I thought was uncalled for. Ramit asked me if he could put up a guest post to promote his book, I agreed.

The reason I think RE is monopolistic (the entire process of buying and selling real estate, not just agents) is because of how exclusive the multiple listing service (MLS) system was (resulted in a DOJ lawsuit against the NAR for anti-competitive prices), the set-in-stone commission structure (regardless of how much work is performed), how many (not all) appraisers were working quid pro quo with banks so that the appraisals came in high enough to get loans approved, how title companies charge you thousands to do a “title search (why do you have to buy MORE title insurance when you refinance?),” etc.

I’m sorry to Ken and to real estate agents that felt slighted, I shouldn’t have reacted in that way. Calling it a racket was unfair and I was upset, but I believe the whole system is monopolistic.

]]> By: Beth http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/realtors-trying-to-get-you-to-time-the-market.html/comment-page-1#comment-300343 Beth Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:06:32 +0000 http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/?p=4386#comment-300343 Oh VERY mature response. I'm sorry, it's very off-putting to see writer's resort to insults when someone criticizes their work. (That's why I stopped reading Ramit's blog). I have to admit, the post did look like a paid advertisement. There's very little actual content in it (it's mainly an email and a book excerpt) and there's more sales tactics than substance. (Compared to his guest post on Get Rich Slowly, this one is quite weak). If someone wasn't familiar with Ramit's writing style, it'd be very easy to mistake it for an advertorial. Jim, how exactly is real estate a "monopolistic racket"? Do you guys not have sale by owner in the States? I don't mean that to sound like an attack (it's not). I'm curious -- I really don't know much about the US real estate market (except that it got us all into one huge financial mess). Up here, private sales are gaining in popularity, and there are services like "Property Guys" and "For sale by owner"" which help if you don't want to go it totally alone. With all the opportunities to sell online and in the local newspaper, I don't think real estate is quite the monopoly it used to be. (But I'm interested to hear your take on it). Oh VERY mature response. I’m sorry, it’s very off-putting to see writer’s resort to insults when someone criticizes their work. (That’s why I stopped reading Ramit’s blog).

I have to admit, the post did look like a paid advertisement. There’s very little actual content in it (it’s mainly an email and a book excerpt) and there’s more sales tactics than substance. (Compared to his guest post on Get Rich Slowly, this one is quite weak). If someone wasn’t familiar with Ramit’s writing style, it’d be very easy to mistake it for an advertorial.

Jim, how exactly is real estate a “monopolistic racket”? Do you guys not have sale by owner in the States? I don’t mean that to sound like an attack (it’s not). I’m curious — I really don’t know much about the US real estate market (except that it got us all into one huge financial mess).

Up here, private sales are gaining in popularity, and there are services like “Property Guys” and “For sale by owner”" which help if you don’t want to go it totally alone. With all the opportunities to sell online and in the local newspaper, I don’t think real estate is quite the monopoly it used to be. (But I’m interested to hear your take on it).

]]>