I don't believe anyone can dispute that Benjamin Graham was one of the most successful and knowledgeable investors of his time. Although Graham died in 1976, many, if not all, of his books are still in publication. His book, "The Intelligent Investor" was recently revised and re-issued in 2006. This edition includes the original text as written by Graham, and then each chapter includes a "comments" section to attempt and compare the original text to the current investment world.
Warren Buffet endorses this books as: "By far the best book on investing ever written". Rolandovich seconds that endorsement.
Of particular interest is Graham's philosophy that most investors should split their portfolios 50-50 between stocks and bonds.
"We are thus led to put forward for most of our readers what may appear to be an oversimplified 50-50 formula. Under this plan the guiding rule is to maintain as nearly as practicable an equal division between bond and stock holdings." (pg. 90).
In today's investment climate and constant marketing to investors by the brokerage houses, Graham's approach may appear overly conservative. But is it? Perhaps Graham's philosophy is worth heading.
Graham makes the ever important distinction between "investing" and "speculating".
He defines investing as:
"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return." (pg. 35).
This sentence is further broken down as follows:
"thorough analysis" means "the study of the facts in the light of established standards of safety and value".
"safety of principal" signifies "protection against loss under all normal or reasonably likely conditions or variations"
and "adequate" return refers to "any rate or amount of return, however low, which the investor is willing to accept, provided he acts with reasonable intelligence."
Let us all strive to become investors and not gamblers or speculators with our money.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
ThriftBooks
Investment theories come and go. It's amazing how many books have been written on investments that are now discarded. Further, it's fascinating to see what current "hot" authors in the investment field wrote about ten or twenty years ago.
A great resource of cheap books that no-one wants any more is ThriftBooks.
We recently purchased numerous books by Harry Browne and Doug Casey. Each book was only 1 cent with $2.49 shipping and handling. We received such quality publications as "The Economic Time Bomb: How You can Profit from the Emerging Crisis" written in the early 1980's by Harry Browne.
We have all lived through cycles of bubbles and mass investment hysteria. During each period there are bestseller books glorifying the current investment trend. For example, do you remember the book Dow 36000?
After the relevant bubble or crisis passes, these books eventually end up at ThriftBooks where you can pick them up for a song. The purpose of purchasing such books, of course, is to study what the popular media during a given time-period predicts as the "next hot thing", and then to compare their predictions with reality.
As you may imagine, the "experts" generally had no idea what they were talking about.
A great resource of cheap books that no-one wants any more is ThriftBooks.
We recently purchased numerous books by Harry Browne and Doug Casey. Each book was only 1 cent with $2.49 shipping and handling. We received such quality publications as "The Economic Time Bomb: How You can Profit from the Emerging Crisis" written in the early 1980's by Harry Browne.
We have all lived through cycles of bubbles and mass investment hysteria. During each period there are bestseller books glorifying the current investment trend. For example, do you remember the book Dow 36000?
After the relevant bubble or crisis passes, these books eventually end up at ThriftBooks where you can pick them up for a song. The purpose of purchasing such books, of course, is to study what the popular media during a given time-period predicts as the "next hot thing", and then to compare their predictions with reality.
As you may imagine, the "experts" generally had no idea what they were talking about.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
What If?
At the risk of contradicting my previous statement about the value of articles about the Civil War, I read this fascinating piece on General George Henry Thomas this morning.
I suppose a simplistic summary of this article lies in General Thomas's unfair characterization only as the Rock of Chickamauga even though he was actually a much more important figure. Perhaps he was distrusted due to his Southern origins, or as the author opines, he lacked only a Congressional sponsor like Sherman and Grant had.
Thomas, as a young man, taught his slaves to read, his HQ in the war was the picture of effeciency and discipline. He bested Stonewall Jackson in an early skirmish, and of course, saved the Union army from disaster at Chattanooga. The author points out:
Thomas "comes down in history...as the great defensive fighter, the man who could never be driven away but who was not much on the offensive. That may be a correct appraisal," wrote Catton, an admirer and biographer of Grant. "Yet it may also be worth making note that just twice in all the war was a major Confederate army driven away from a prepared position in complete rout—at Chattanooga and at Nashville. Each time the blow that finally routed it was launched by Thomas."
As I finished the rather depressing demise of General Thomas, the inevitable question arose: what if Thomas had his sponsor and even earlier assumed the rank Grant eventually took. Would the disaster at Cold Harbor occured? Is it possible that 100,000 lives would have been saved? What if Thomas would have been elected president instead of Grant, bringing his organizations abilities, and sympathies for all southerners, (after all, he was one) not just those who were white. Reconstruction might have succedded, the civil rights movement might have occured 100 years earlier. What if Thomas had joined Robert E. Lee? Would we ever remember James Longstreet? Would this country be called the CFA now? The possibilities are fascinating and tragic to consider, but ultimately, it is a futile exercise.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that the best people do not always win. The same can be said for the best ideas. Every day the most effecient systems, the best products, the most profitable ideas are cast aside, down into the dustbin of history. Those that prevail often have little to do with merit. It seems like these days, most of them have must more to do with proximatey to power. This author might agree with that assertion, at least for generals in the Civil War. I don't think anyone who ever worked for a boss who always followed his favorite employee's advice would disagree either.
I suppose a simplistic summary of this article lies in General Thomas's unfair characterization only as the Rock of Chickamauga even though he was actually a much more important figure. Perhaps he was distrusted due to his Southern origins, or as the author opines, he lacked only a Congressional sponsor like Sherman and Grant had.
Thomas, as a young man, taught his slaves to read, his HQ in the war was the picture of effeciency and discipline. He bested Stonewall Jackson in an early skirmish, and of course, saved the Union army from disaster at Chattanooga. The author points out:
Thomas "comes down in history...as the great defensive fighter, the man who could never be driven away but who was not much on the offensive. That may be a correct appraisal," wrote Catton, an admirer and biographer of Grant. "Yet it may also be worth making note that just twice in all the war was a major Confederate army driven away from a prepared position in complete rout—at Chattanooga and at Nashville. Each time the blow that finally routed it was launched by Thomas."
As I finished the rather depressing demise of General Thomas, the inevitable question arose: what if Thomas had his sponsor and even earlier assumed the rank Grant eventually took. Would the disaster at Cold Harbor occured? Is it possible that 100,000 lives would have been saved? What if Thomas would have been elected president instead of Grant, bringing his organizations abilities, and sympathies for all southerners, (after all, he was one) not just those who were white. Reconstruction might have succedded, the civil rights movement might have occured 100 years earlier. What if Thomas had joined Robert E. Lee? Would we ever remember James Longstreet? Would this country be called the CFA now? The possibilities are fascinating and tragic to consider, but ultimately, it is a futile exercise.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that the best people do not always win. The same can be said for the best ideas. Every day the most effecient systems, the best products, the most profitable ideas are cast aside, down into the dustbin of history. Those that prevail often have little to do with merit. It seems like these days, most of them have must more to do with proximatey to power. This author might agree with that assertion, at least for generals in the Civil War. I don't think anyone who ever worked for a boss who always followed his favorite employee's advice would disagree either.
Tags:
Interesting thoughts on the world
It never ceases to amaze me that thoughtful analysis is not found in the places where conventional wisdom would dictate.
It goes back to the adage that in today's print media, we are the product and the organizations that advertise therein are the customers. You can still compartmentalize things to find good reading (aside from the instances where it does not matter much like articles about the Civil War, which are often nonetheless very interesting).
The blogosphere (as much as I dislike its mostly derisive connotation) is the great exception and still in its infancy. You can probably find out more about the state of the economy by talking to a someone on the street than by reading an article about it in Business Week. However, it is important to understand what you are supposed to believe. It is much easier to learn the truth that way.
It goes back to the adage that in today's print media, we are the product and the organizations that advertise therein are the customers. You can still compartmentalize things to find good reading (aside from the instances where it does not matter much like articles about the Civil War, which are often nonetheless very interesting).
The blogosphere (as much as I dislike its mostly derisive connotation) is the great exception and still in its infancy. You can probably find out more about the state of the economy by talking to a someone on the street than by reading an article about it in Business Week. However, it is important to understand what you are supposed to believe. It is much easier to learn the truth that way.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Wade B. Cook - cooking the books cooked his goose
Real Estate Investment Guru Wade Cook was recently found guilty by jury trial in the Federal Court for the Western District of Washington. Look's like Cook's cooking of the books got him thrown in the slammer. Check out this great bookcover from one of Cook's books from the 1980's. Rolandovich found it in a used book store, and just couldn't help buying it:
John T. Reed - a different sort of Real Estate guru
For the last 2 years I have been an avid reader of John T. Reed's investment newsletter. Reed produces a wonderfully insightful real estate newsletter that provides some great tips on how to avoid being an "appreciation-lord" and instead investing in real estate for double-digit cap rates or using one's expertise to increase the value of real estate by 20%.
Reed is well known for his vehement attacks on "Real Estate Gurus". All those 0-Down people and the like. Check out his "review" of Real Estate Gurus here:
http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html
To get more of a flavor of Reed's adivce, check out some of his free articles on subjects such as "lease-options" and the truste of "due-on-sale clauses":
http://www.johntreed.com/rateseminars.html
If anyone wants a sample issue of Reed's newsletter, feel free to email Rolandovich.
Reed is well known for his vehement attacks on "Real Estate Gurus". All those 0-Down people and the like. Check out his "review" of Real Estate Gurus here:
http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html
To get more of a flavor of Reed's adivce, check out some of his free articles on subjects such as "lease-options" and the truste of "due-on-sale clauses":
http://www.johntreed.com/rateseminars.html
If anyone wants a sample issue of Reed's newsletter, feel free to email Rolandovich.
Friday, February 23, 2007
The Permanent Portfolio
Harry Browne, the former Libertarian candidate for President and Investment Advisor is well known for his "Permanent Portfolio" theory.
According to Browne, one's assets should be invested:
25% in long term Treasury Bonds;
25% in short term Treasury Notes or Money Market accounts;
25% in a stock market Index Fund, such as the Vanguard S&P500 Fund. Said index fund should have the lowest possible cost to the investor;
25% in physical Gold - preferrably under your control and/or partially located in the safety deposit box of a foreign country.
In the 1970's Browne predicted the end of the U.S. Dollar and the rise of gold. Although he was partially correct in his prediction, he changed his investment philosophy in later years. Browne became convinced that it was impossible for anyone to predict the market or future events. As such, the Permanent Portfolio was designed to be simple and accomodate almost any possible future economy.
The returns over the years have been quite good: Perm Portfolio Returns
According to Browne, one's assets should be invested:
25% in long term Treasury Bonds;
25% in short term Treasury Notes or Money Market accounts;
25% in a stock market Index Fund, such as the Vanguard S&P500 Fund. Said index fund should have the lowest possible cost to the investor;
25% in physical Gold - preferrably under your control and/or partially located in the safety deposit box of a foreign country.
In the 1970's Browne predicted the end of the U.S. Dollar and the rise of gold. Although he was partially correct in his prediction, he changed his investment philosophy in later years. Browne became convinced that it was impossible for anyone to predict the market or future events. As such, the Permanent Portfolio was designed to be simple and accomodate almost any possible future economy.
The returns over the years have been quite good: Perm Portfolio Returns
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Seattle Viaduct
Lawgavulon is a small office consisting of a Rabid Liberal, a Rabid Republican and a wishy-washy Libertarian. Surprises never cease as we all agree that the Seattle Viaduct should be torn down and not replaced with anything other than a surface boulevard.
The question of whether the Seattle Viaduct will be replaced or built as a tunnel is heading to the Seattle voters in March 07.
Rolandovich urges you to vote NO in the upcoming Viaduct special election.
As loosely quoted from Suburban Nation (by: Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck): "You don't solve transportation problems by building roads any more than you lose weight by loosening your belt."
The question of whether the Seattle Viaduct will be replaced or built as a tunnel is heading to the Seattle voters in March 07.
Rolandovich urges you to vote NO in the upcoming Viaduct special election.
As loosely quoted from Suburban Nation (by: Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck): "You don't solve transportation problems by building roads any more than you lose weight by loosening your belt."
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Olive 8 Status?
On or about January 31, 2007 the Seattle Times reported that "The developer of Seattle's tallest residential tower and its general contractor are parting ways".
The article is in reference to the 39-store hotel and condominium project on Olive Way and 8th Ave (the "Olive-8").
The contractor, Skanska USA, will continue construction through mid-March 07. Supposedly at that time another contractor will complete construction - although the developer has not released information on who this contractor will be.
Curious minds want to know, will the Olive-8 actually finish construction or will we be left with a huge construction pit for years to come?
If the Olive-8 developer cannot find a replacement contractor for Olive-8, then Rolandovich predicts the beginning of the end for Seattle's Condo Market.
A poster on UrbanLiving explained that the parting of ways between the developer and contractor had been planned for months and that the press release was a mere marketing ploy.
Why would any developer want to advertise that they can't keep their construction contract together? If I had pre-leased a condo in the Olive-8, then I would be worried about what is actually going on... and hopefully the "reservation fee" was paid to escrow and not directly to the developer (as has actually happened with past projects in Seattle).
The article is in reference to the 39-store hotel and condominium project on Olive Way and 8th Ave (the "Olive-8").
The contractor, Skanska USA, will continue construction through mid-March 07. Supposedly at that time another contractor will complete construction - although the developer has not released information on who this contractor will be.
Curious minds want to know, will the Olive-8 actually finish construction or will we be left with a huge construction pit for years to come?
If the Olive-8 developer cannot find a replacement contractor for Olive-8, then Rolandovich predicts the beginning of the end for Seattle's Condo Market.
A poster on UrbanLiving explained that the parting of ways between the developer and contractor had been planned for months and that the press release was a mere marketing ploy.
Why would any developer want to advertise that they can't keep their construction contract together? If I had pre-leased a condo in the Olive-8, then I would be worried about what is actually going on... and hopefully the "reservation fee" was paid to escrow and not directly to the developer (as has actually happened with past projects in Seattle).
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Iran
The justifications of our foreign policy in the
However, the saber-rattling over
Russia,
It seems that the last six years in
That's the best case scenario, if the rest of the world continues to switch out their dollars for Euros or whatever else, and the superficially inflated wealth of millions of flipped houses becomes worthless, well then you might even have the old new
Tags:
LLCs and Small Investment Properties
In a comment posted on seattlebubble it was asked why someone would quitclaim a home into a Limited Liability Company.
This is truly a pet peeve for us at Lawgavulon. Almost every other week Rolandovich gets a call which invariable has the following tale: "Hi, I'm a small investor in real estate. I want to shield my personal assets from liability and therefor transfer my home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC. My real estate agent said it really wasn't a big deal, can you quitclaim my home/duplex/tri-plex to my LLC? What, ohh, you want to know whether my loan is in the name of the LLC. Well actually it's not. You see my real estate agent told me that it would be cheaper to obtain an owner-occupied FNMA loan. As a result we couldn't close in the name of the LLC, but I saved a lot of money. My loan officer even helped me set up the LLC and said I should quitclaim the property after closing. Why, is there a problem?"
Here are the problems:
(1) DUE ON SALE CLAUSE. Practically every single loan has a "due-on sale" clause in it. These clauses state that if the current property owner sells the property without seeking lender approval, then the lender may call the loan due. Thus, a transfer of your home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC will violate the due-on sale clause and the lender could foreclose on you on any time.
"But Rolandovich, it's not illegal to transfer my home without lender approval."
Yes, that's true. It's not illegal. You are merely breaching your contract that you have with your lender. So feel safe, you won't go to jail, you might just lose your investment property.
"But Rolandovich, everyone tells me that banks have no way of knowing that I've transferred the investment property."
Yes and No. It's true Lenders generally have no knowledge of what is recorded subsequent to their loan. They generally do not check the recorder's office after the loan is collateralized and the lender has earned their points. But one should be careful. Back in the last 1970's when interest rates were rising and lenders had nothing to do they decided to "audit" their loan files. Invariably they found many properties that had been transferred without their approval. This allowed the loan officers to "call due" the loan and force the borrower into a much higher interest rate loan. (i.e. you are in default. So we will foreclose and you the investor will have to refinance). During the late 1970's interest rates had shot up to 15-18%. Thus the incentive was high for lenders to get people out of those loans that didn't earn much money for them.
Lenders receive a copy of your homeowner's insurance policy. If you want to keep any kind of insurance on the property then the "named insured" would have to be changed to the LLC and as such the lender will find out that the property was transferred when they receive their certificate of insurance coverage. This could be the trigger forcing the investor to refinance. Or I suppose we can all hope that lenders receive so much paperwork that they just won't read or review the insurance certificates sent to them.
"But Rolandovich, I was told that the Gairn-St. Germain Act allows me to transfer my property into an LLC without lender approval."
No. That is false. The Gairn-St. Germain act is a federal law that allows borrowers to transfer their homes into a Revocable Living Trust of which they are the trustee without the loan being called due. This federal law does not apply to LLCs or other corporate forms and a living trust is an estate planning tool, it doesn't actually protect any of your assets from creditors.
(2) HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. As briefly mentioned above, your homeowners insurance will have a "named insured" and that will be the property owner. Once you transfer your property into an LLC, you need to either change the insurance policy to cover the LLC or you will be paying insurance that does not actually cover you. For example, if you transferred your investment property into an LLC and did not change the "named insured" and then the property burned down - well I can almost guarantee you that the insurance company will not pay that claim as they never insured your LLC - only you and you no longer own the property.
So as an alternative you can transfer the investment property into an LLC and change your homeowner's insurance - but then you run into potential problems with your lender, as explained above.
As a result some people transfer their properties into an LLC without lender approval and continue paying homeowner's insurance which won't actually cover them if a claim is filed. I'm sorry, but isn't that just ludicrous?
(3) TITLE INSURANCE. At closing you will have received Title Insurance insuring you against loss from title defects. That insurance will also be issued in your personal name. If you transfer the property into an LLC without obtaining a "rider" on your Title Insurance policy to insure the LLC, then once again you will be without insurance if there is a title claim.
This problem can be remedied relatively easily. A Title Insurance rider to cover your LLC should only cost $75.00 or so and the good news is that such a rider is not sent to your lender and so you won't inform your lender of what you have done by this move.
(4) DO YOU REALLY HAVE LIABILITY PROTECTION? The whole purpose of transferring the investment property into an LLC was to create a liability shield. However, if you transfer property into an LLC but the loan on the property is in your personal name, are your personal assets actually protected? In most states a plaintiff who sues you will check to make sure that you have met all corporate formalities. The easiest way to "pierce the corporate veil" is to show that someone has not kept their personal finances separate from their business finances. If your loan is still in your personal name but the LLC own the property, I posit that your liability protection is more illusionary than anything. It's a corporate veil waiting to be pierced.
So the lesson is to either (1) Form an LLC prior to closing on an investment property + get the lender on board with the concept. Do not obtain an owner occupied FNMA loan, but rather an investment grade loan that will close in the name of the LLC. You will be above board. There will be liability protection and far less risk; (2) Don't close in the name of an LLC. Just buy the property in your own name and carry a good insurance policy. Don't bother transferring into an LLC. It's just not worth it.
The above is not to be construed as legal advice. Do no rely on it. Seek the advice of an attorney before closing a real estate transaction. Relying on the advice of your attorney will keep you out of hot water much better than relying on the advice of your real estate agent or loan officer whose only true goal is to close the deal and thereby earn a commission. The attorney, who is generally paid by the hour, will only have your best interests in mind.
This is truly a pet peeve for us at Lawgavulon. Almost every other week Rolandovich gets a call which invariable has the following tale: "Hi, I'm a small investor in real estate. I want to shield my personal assets from liability and therefor transfer my home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC. My real estate agent said it really wasn't a big deal, can you quitclaim my home/duplex/tri-plex to my LLC? What, ohh, you want to know whether my loan is in the name of the LLC. Well actually it's not. You see my real estate agent told me that it would be cheaper to obtain an owner-occupied FNMA loan. As a result we couldn't close in the name of the LLC, but I saved a lot of money. My loan officer even helped me set up the LLC and said I should quitclaim the property after closing. Why, is there a problem?"
Here are the problems:
(1) DUE ON SALE CLAUSE. Practically every single loan has a "due-on sale" clause in it. These clauses state that if the current property owner sells the property without seeking lender approval, then the lender may call the loan due. Thus, a transfer of your home/duplex/tri-plex into an LLC will violate the due-on sale clause and the lender could foreclose on you on any time.
"But Rolandovich, it's not illegal to transfer my home without lender approval."
Yes, that's true. It's not illegal. You are merely breaching your contract that you have with your lender. So feel safe, you won't go to jail, you might just lose your investment property.
"But Rolandovich, everyone tells me that banks have no way of knowing that I've transferred the investment property."
Yes and No. It's true Lenders generally have no knowledge of what is recorded subsequent to their loan. They generally do not check the recorder's office after the loan is collateralized and the lender has earned their points. But one should be careful. Back in the last 1970's when interest rates were rising and lenders had nothing to do they decided to "audit" their loan files. Invariably they found many properties that had been transferred without their approval. This allowed the loan officers to "call due" the loan and force the borrower into a much higher interest rate loan. (i.e. you are in default. So we will foreclose and you the investor will have to refinance). During the late 1970's interest rates had shot up to 15-18%. Thus the incentive was high for lenders to get people out of those loans that didn't earn much money for them.
Lenders receive a copy of your homeowner's insurance policy. If you want to keep any kind of insurance on the property then the "named insured" would have to be changed to the LLC and as such the lender will find out that the property was transferred when they receive their certificate of insurance coverage. This could be the trigger forcing the investor to refinance. Or I suppose we can all hope that lenders receive so much paperwork that they just won't read or review the insurance certificates sent to them.
"But Rolandovich, I was told that the Gairn-St. Germain Act allows me to transfer my property into an LLC without lender approval."
No. That is false. The Gairn-St. Germain act is a federal law that allows borrowers to transfer their homes into a Revocable Living Trust of which they are the trustee without the loan being called due. This federal law does not apply to LLCs or other corporate forms and a living trust is an estate planning tool, it doesn't actually protect any of your assets from creditors.
(2) HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE. As briefly mentioned above, your homeowners insurance will have a "named insured" and that will be the property owner. Once you transfer your property into an LLC, you need to either change the insurance policy to cover the LLC or you will be paying insurance that does not actually cover you. For example, if you transferred your investment property into an LLC and did not change the "named insured" and then the property burned down - well I can almost guarantee you that the insurance company will not pay that claim as they never insured your LLC - only you and you no longer own the property.
So as an alternative you can transfer the investment property into an LLC and change your homeowner's insurance - but then you run into potential problems with your lender, as explained above.
As a result some people transfer their properties into an LLC without lender approval and continue paying homeowner's insurance which won't actually cover them if a claim is filed. I'm sorry, but isn't that just ludicrous?
(3) TITLE INSURANCE. At closing you will have received Title Insurance insuring you against loss from title defects. That insurance will also be issued in your personal name. If you transfer the property into an LLC without obtaining a "rider" on your Title Insurance policy to insure the LLC, then once again you will be without insurance if there is a title claim.
This problem can be remedied relatively easily. A Title Insurance rider to cover your LLC should only cost $75.00 or so and the good news is that such a rider is not sent to your lender and so you won't inform your lender of what you have done by this move.
(4) DO YOU REALLY HAVE LIABILITY PROTECTION? The whole purpose of transferring the investment property into an LLC was to create a liability shield. However, if you transfer property into an LLC but the loan on the property is in your personal name, are your personal assets actually protected? In most states a plaintiff who sues you will check to make sure that you have met all corporate formalities. The easiest way to "pierce the corporate veil" is to show that someone has not kept their personal finances separate from their business finances. If your loan is still in your personal name but the LLC own the property, I posit that your liability protection is more illusionary than anything. It's a corporate veil waiting to be pierced.
So the lesson is to either (1) Form an LLC prior to closing on an investment property + get the lender on board with the concept. Do not obtain an owner occupied FNMA loan, but rather an investment grade loan that will close in the name of the LLC. You will be above board. There will be liability protection and far less risk; (2) Don't close in the name of an LLC. Just buy the property in your own name and carry a good insurance policy. Don't bother transferring into an LLC. It's just not worth it.
The above is not to be construed as legal advice. Do no rely on it. Seek the advice of an attorney before closing a real estate transaction. Relying on the advice of your attorney will keep you out of hot water much better than relying on the advice of your real estate agent or loan officer whose only true goal is to close the deal and thereby earn a commission. The attorney, who is generally paid by the hour, will only have your best interests in mind.
Tags:
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
