Net Loss as a Percent of Revenue: Redfin and Zillow (2014-2016)

Redfin files S-1, likely to IPO later this year

Disclosure: Tim worked at Redfin from 2010 through 2013, and owns a modest amount of Redfin stock.
Disclaimer: Nothing in this post should be construed as investment advice.

News broke late this afternoon that after 13 years as a “startup,” Redfin has finally filed their S-1 with the SEC, signalling their intent to make an initial public offering (IPO) later this year.

Check out the excellent coverage over at GeekWire:

Seattle-based online real estate company Redfin filed for an initial public offering on Friday with U.S. regulators and will seek to raise up to $100 million.

It’s unclear when exactly Redfin would go public or how many shares it will offer. The company plans to trade on the NASDAQ under “RDFN.” Redfin declined to provide additional details when contacted by GeekWire.

Redfin would be the first Pacific Northwest company to go public in 2017.

The 13-year-old self-described “technology-powered real estate brokerage,” which has been a recent candidate to test the public markets, is active in more than 80 markets across the U.S. It has helped customers buy or sell more than 75,000 homes worth more than $40 billion combined.

They also discuss some interesting bits of information from the filing, including the fact that Redfin has been testing something called “Redfin Now” since January:

In Redfin’s IPO filing that posted Friday, the company revealed a new service it is testing called Redfin Now that lets the online real estate brokerage buy homes directly from customers.

Redfin, which is looking to raise up to $100 million in its public offering, said customers of Redfin Now will “typically get less money for their home than they would listing their home with a real estate agent, but get that money faster with less risk and fuss.”

If that sounds familiar, that’s because it’s basically the same thing that the startup OpenDoor has been doing for a few years. Zillow also launched their own version of a similar service called “Zillow Instant Offers” in May, although personally I believe Zillow’s service is just another thinly-veiled way of harvesting leads for agents. But we can discuss that later.

Speaking of Zillow, Redfin’s IPO filing gives us the first opportunity we’ve had to directly compare some financial and usage data between Redfin and Zillow.

Before we get to the charts, keep in mind that Redfin and Zillow have vastly different business models. Redfin is a real estate brokerage that actually helps people buy and sell homes, while Zillow is a middle-man self-proclaimed “media company” that sells ads to agents and has no interest in disrupting real estate. The two companies are different enough that I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to compare them, but everyone is going to anyway, so I may as well get the ball rolling.

First up, here’s a chart comparing the top-line revenue and total net loss each company has seen over the last three complete years 2014 through 2016:

Revenue and Loss Comparison: Redfin and Zillow (2014-2016)
Revenue and Loss Comparison: Redfin and Zillow (2014-2016)

Zillow’s revenues are roughly three times Redfin’s revenues. What’s interesting about this to me is that Zillow has been getting over eight times as many “average monthly unique visitors” than Redfin. The SEC filing shows Redfin’s monthly average unique visitors at 20.16 million, while Zillow’s first quarter 2017 report put theirs at 166 million. It would seem that Redfin’s business is a lot more efficient at converting web visitors into dollars.

Also interesting: here’s the loss shown in the chart above, expressed as a percentage of total revenue:

Net Loss as a Percent of Revenue: Redfin and Zillow (2014-2016)
Net Loss as a Percent of Revenue: Redfin and Zillow (2014-2016)

While both Redfin and Zillow have lost money the last three years, Redfin’s trajectory looks a lot more promising than Zillow’s.

Again, this is not investment advice. I have no idea whether Redfin’s IPO will be a good investment or not. I certainly hope that Redfin will go on to be a profitable business long into the future, but I have no way of knowing whether or not that will happen.


About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

47 comments:

  1. 1

    Redfin Now sounds a lot like they want to compete with “We Buy Ugly Houses.” I don’t get that, nor do I get that they are moving into escrow. I haven’t seen that escrow locally, but unless they also want to get into title insurance I don’t see that having much draw.

    I love how they are trying to play the tech company angle. I don’t see how they are any more tech than JLS or Winderemere, and probably less tech than Estately (but more tech than many national firms). And in that regard, as Geekwire notes they apparently have all their tech in one location. That doesn’t sound very tech to me. They are really just a real estate firm with an unproven and ever changing business model and a very good website.

    It will be interesting to see how the market reacts to this. Realology hasn’t exactly been burning up with the rising real estate and stock markets. Will the market buy the tech angle or not? And if not, what will happen?

  2. 2
    jon says:

    What would set apart a tech-driven real estate company would be Big Data-driven decisions at key steps of the process: selecting agents, setting the listing price, making an offer, accepting an offer. That could be done by gathering data on past results, house characteristics, and changes in demographics and economic factors. To make such a business grow they would have to measure and publicize the benefits of such an approach.

    The question is whether Redfin is that company, or will it be a unit of Amazon.

  3. 3
    Tommy Unger says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 1 – They are getting in the title business (See “Offer a Complete Solution” section in S-1). They want to help with the whole process of buying and selling homes.

  4. 4

    RE: Tommy Unger @ 3 – Thanks, I missed that looking at the risks section, but it does mention Title Forward there too. My bad.

    I’m assuming we’re not one of the states they started that in, or else I’ve just not seen a Redfin agent ask for it to be used.

  5. 5

    RE: jon @ 2 – So you want people to buy based on a Zestimate? ;-)

  6. 6
    jon says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 5:

    RE: jon @ 2 – So you want people to buy based on a Zestimate? ;-)

    Zestimate has a lot of problems, the main one being that they do not look at the actual houses. Redfin has boots on the ground, and so they can correct that data. Of course then that presents a greater problem on the legal front about who is an appraiser and what is a real estate agent.

  7. 7

    By jon @ 6:

    Zestimate has a lot of problems, the main one being that they do not look at the actual houses. Redfin has boots on the ground, and so they can correct that data. Of course then that presents a greater problem on the legal front about who is an appraiser and what is a real estate agent.

    I don’t think that would present a problem in Washington state. Agents are authorized to do broker price opinions. It’s similar to how we’re authorized to complete contracts despite most agents not being attorneys.

    Your bigger issue might be the demographics suggestion. That would likely lead to fines for Fair Housing violations–steering.

    I actually like your idea of somehow automating the seller approval process for buyer offers. I think far too many sellers look only at the price offered. I try to help my clients with that, and they usually listen. The last time one didn’t was a few years ago, and that transaction didn’t go through. It failed fairly early on, but by the time it did the buyer I thought made the best offer had found something else. But anyway, it would be nice to automate things so that you could easily get information on the buyer, as well as assess technical differences in the offers themselves.

  8. 8
    jon says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 7:

    Your bigger issue might be the demographics suggestion. That would likely lead to fines for Fair Housing violations–steering.

    I didn’t mean to refer to steering, but simply to do better than hunches on what the forces are driving the market. For example the trend of people to prefer urban to suburban in some markets and not others. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattle-added-more-people-last-year-than-all-king-countys-suburbs-combined/ That would affect what wording that should go into the listing, the types of photos to chose, and various other sales techniques.

  9. 9
    The Tim says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 1:

    I love how they are trying to play the tech company angle. I don’t see how they are any more tech than JLS or Winderemere, and probably less tech than Estately (but more tech than many national firms).

    Obviously I have a different perspective having worked there and specifically having worked in the tech part of the business. Here’s a short list of some of the tech features Redfin has developed over the years:

    Plus, integrating dozens of MLS back-end systems, sale records, public home information, Walk Scores, school information, and more all into a single unified front end search and listing display is a pretty big tech challenge too.

  10. 10

    RE: The Tim @ 9 – I’ll give you the “unified front end” thing, but back when I was reviewing public websites many years ago Redfin was good, but it didn’t really stand out from the ones I mentioned, and I wasn’t describing any of them as great. My focus though was more on the search function, and I haven’t done that type of review for several years now though.

    Are you sure they were first on maps though? I thought that was Estately in the consumer area.

  11. 11
    The Tim says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:

    Are you sure they were first on maps though? I thought that was Estately in the consumer area.

    Redfin launched their public site in August 2004 (or thereabouts). Estately launched (as ShackPrices) in December 2006. Not even close.

  12. 12

    RE: The Tim @ 11 – And they both had maps searching from the start? And to be clear, what I’m talking about is where you can define an area on a map and search within that area. It could be a radius or a custom drawn area. I’m not talking about just doing a search and it shows where the result is on a map.

  13. 13
    The Tim says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 12 – Before Redfin, every online real estate search site returned results in list format with no visual indication of where the homes were. I don’t know exactly what your criteria is for “define an area” and I don’t know the full history of custom-drawn search areas or results with specific boundaries around a town or a zip code. What I’m talking about is the fact that Redfin was the first to show your search results on a map (e.g. search for homes in 98107, map zooms to 98107 and shows you all the results as map pins), which was a big deal at the time.

  14. 14
    Erik says:

    RE: jon @ 6
    Zestimates seem to always be closer to the actual price of a home in my experience. Redfin needs to use their more accurate data and write a better algorithm to predict values. Maybe scale the predicted value up 10%? Redfin estimate is usually low here in Seattle.

  15. 15

    RE: The Tim @ 13 – Fair enough. Here’s my 2009 “quick” review of five consumer sites, and I’m pretty sure the one with the feature I’m referencing was Estately (I didn’t name any of the websites). But it could be like other “tech reviews” the author didn’t spend enough time to fully understand the product! ;-)

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/realestate/2009/11/01/consumer-real-estate-search-tools-still-not-there/

    Searching by defined map area rather than city, zip code, MLS area, or whatever, is my preferred way of searching. The best example of that is I once had a search with a half mile radius around each of the Light Rail stations. My client wanted to take Light Rail to work. So I basically opened a map of South Seattle and Tukwilla and had a radius drawn around each station.

  16. 16
    Jasper says:

    The GeekWire article includes a mission statement that isn’t so much a mission statement as an identity statement:

    Rabid squirrels! Tenacious idealists who treat people with respect. Executives that admit they have made the “lion’s share” of mistakes at the company. A company that targets the whole enchilada, not just the enchilada‘s ad budget.

    Six-tenths of one percent market share, and growing. Probably losing money on every transaction (if you consider that the tech, marketing, general, and administrative costs are correlated with the number of transactions) but trying to make it up on volume. A burn rate of two million dollars per month.

  17. 17
    Brian says:

    Redfin IPO? RIP Zillow.

  18. 18

    By Brian @ 17:

    Redfin IPO? RIP Zillow.

    I don’t know why people keep grouping those two companies together. They both have real estate websites and both offer information on RE, such as automated valuations. But they are not the same beyond that. One is an actual brokerage which effectively does something productive, and the other is just a tool for agents to advertise, or a tool to suck money out of agents, depending on your perspective.

    But going deeper, it’s not like Redfin is going to do anything with this money that is going to in any way challenge or threaten Zillow. This is just money to stay alive and/or allow the initial investors to finally cash in.

  19. 19

    Thanks Tim for the Redfin Education

    Your grasp on the numbers controlling the agency is very thorough.

    Numbers are the real news, keep opinions sidelined. Great job!

  20. 20
    steve says:

    I have found Redfin to be much more accurate than Zillow in my experiences. I watch cap hill town homes quite regularly and their prices in zillow are so low compared to redfin and actual sales prices. Customer service access is much better on Redfin as well.

  21. 21

    RE: steve @ 20 – If you just want fake valuations there are a lot of places to look. This article doesn’t even mention them all!

    http://www.telegram.com/news/20170629/kenneth-harney-new-way-to-estimate-home-equity

  22. 22
    sleepless says:

    Kary doesn’t like redfin because it eats into his pie :). Soon Kary alikes will be unemployed. Way to go redfin!

  23. 23

    By sleepless @ 22:

    Kary doesn’t like redfin because it eats into his pie :). Soon Kary alikes will be unemployed. Way to go redfin!

    What above makes you think I don’t like Redfin?

    Other than the fact that they don’t make money I haven’t really said much bad about them at all. In the past I’ve said I like the rebate model as an alternative for consumers. I’ve commented that I refer unrepresented buyers to them on my listings, although that may change. Redfin used to be more like Starbucks or McDonalds, where they weren’t the best, but at least you knew what you were getting. More recently their agents have been of more variable quality.

    As to a competition between me and Redfin, that’s true of me and all other agents. The difference between me and Redfin is I’ve made a profit every year, while Redfin has never made a profit for a year. If I no longer deal in real estate it will be my choice. If Redfin stops it will most likely be the choice of venture capitalists and/or the stock market. But that doesn’t mean I don’t like Redfin–those are just the realities of a company that burns through hundreds of millions of dollars to fund operations.

    Are you maybe confusing my position on Zillow? I don’t like Zillow.

  24. 24
    S.S. says:

    While I love and use Redfin, their 31% gross margins for a “tech” company are abysmal when compared to the other big internet names.

    Also, only $36M cash balance isn’t much to get excited about and not much cushion.

  25. 25
    N says:

    http://wolfstreet.com/2017/06/30/on-seattles-construction-boom-rents-and-crane-counting/

    There are 67,507 apartment units in various stages of the pipeline

  26. 26

    The Seattle Times article on this was posted on the 30th at 1:38 p.m. The first reader comment wasn’t posted until 7 hours ago. And the Geekwire article only has four comments, two of which are mine.
    One of mine was a response to a question about my first comment, so there would have been only two comments if my first comment had been clearer. The other comment was a “congratulations” post. This thing doesn’t seem to be generating much excitement.

    The last sentence of the Times’ comment is pretty insightful (actually the entire comment is).

    This IPO appears to be more of an effort to bail out those prior investors and the millions of dollars they’ve sunk into this bottomless pit.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/redfin-files-to-go-public/

    (And BTW, I’m following the comments because I commented on FB at 10:30 that night about the lack of comments.)

  27. 27
    JonR says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 18 – I’m not sure why you don’t think Redfin could potentially disrupt Zillow. They may have different business models, but Zillow depends on customer eyeballs, right? I don’t know why anyone would spend much time looking at Zillow after trying Redfin. I have an agent sending me automated e-mails with links to the brokerage site for homes that fit our criteria, but I never look at them because going to Redfin is just a better experience. I’ll occasionally go to Zillow just to see if they have any info that’s not on Redfin, but it’s almost always fruitless.

  28. 28

    By JonR @ 27:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 18 – I’m not sure why you don’t think Redfin could potentially disrupt Zillow.

    I think maybe you’re reading too much into what I wrote. I said the two companies are different, and that this money isn’t going to do anything that would disrupt Zillow–it’s just money for Redfin to stay alive. It’s not like they’re going to use the money to go into an area Zillow prospers in (although both seemingly will have variations on “We Buy Ugly Houses”).

    I agree with you about Zillow. Zillow has no reason to even exist (at least not based on RE websites available locally–maybe the low quality national sites give it a reason to exist). But that doesn’t mean Redfin is going to kill off Zillow. The two have co-existed just fine–albeit both loosing a ton of money.

    On the topic of Zillow and Redfin, Tim mentioned the website unique visitors. I suspect Zillow gets a lot more agent views than Redfin, so that might account for at least part of the difference. That’s about the only explanation I have for Zillow getting so many views. It certainly isn’t due to the quality of the site or the quality of the information on the site.

  29. 29
  30. 30
    Blurtman says:

    Perhaps both Zillow and Redfin will take a page from the Fox News book of success and go the hottie leg-crossing route (and I don’t mean Kary.).

  31. 31
    Erik says:

    Where is all the inventory? Tim posted on here that 7,000 condos would be added to Seattle in 2017 and 10,000 condos would be added to Seattle in 2018. Where are they? We are still at super low inventory. I’ve been waiting patiently for this inventory, but we are at an all time low for inventory still.

  32. 32
    justme says:

    RE: Erik @ 31

    >>We are still at super low inventory.

    Not the inventory-wanking again!’ The supply is much larger than the inventory, and especially when people use the “month end inventory”. Inventory == surplus, as I have already pointed out

    http://seattlebubble.com/blog/2017/06/27/case-shiller-seattle-real-estate-hot-hot-hot/#comment-263511

    Supply = Inventory + Pendings + Newlistings – Delistings + FailedClosings
    Demand = Closings + Pendings

    In many ways, month-end (active) inventory is the SURPLUS of active listings from last month. It is NOT the pool from which next month’s closings (completed sales) must be fulfilled. Sure, the bubble-mongers want the public to think that inventory is the end-all and be-all of the market, but it isn’t.

  33. 33

    RE: justme @ 32 – Last time I looked, the median days on market was only 7 days for June, and the vast majority obtained an offer within 30 days. So again, it’s left over from the last week, not the last month! ;-)

    “7 days” from NWMLS sources, and not compiled by or guaranteed by the NMWLS.

  34. 34
    justme says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 33

    I more or less agree with that. Let me rephrase. Inventory == surplus overpriced junk listings, largely from the week before, but also including some even older crappy listings from sellers that did not get the memo on overpricing, or did not understand it.

  35. 35
    Erik says:

    RE: justme @ 32
    I don’t really care how or why we are at super low inventory, and I’m not going to pretend that I really know what’s going on. I stopped trying to do causation years ago because it’s a fruitless task in my opinion. Tim said 7000 condos were coming on the market this year. Those must be getting snapped up.

    Everytime i see super low inventory, a smile comes across my face because I know the value of my investments are rising.

  36. 36

    RE: Erik @ 35 – For your condos I’d worry more about conversions at some point in the future. I’m not sure I buy the reasons claimed as to why so few condos are being built, but if those same rules don’t apply to conversions we might see a third flood of conversions (the first being in the late 70s, and the second being in 2006-2007). But for that to happen they might need to overbuild rentals.

  37. 37
    Erik says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 36
    Yes, that is a concern of mine. Last bubble, people built apartments and couldn’t rent them out, so they converted them to condos. I’m sure some of these same people will repeat the same process this bubble. There was high supply back then though. Seems like this bubble has room to grow. I will sell at least one condo when we get above 6,000 houses for sale so I can weather the storm of negative cash flow if we go into another housing crash.

    Did you see that this week fannie and freddy are now allowing 50% LTV. Also Experian as well as Equifax/Transunion are deleting liens that have incomplete information so that more people can borrow. This is classic credit expansion. I suspect Seattle will see greater appreciation from this credit expansion. This is not fundamental economics. This is the early stages of a housing bubble.

  38. 38
    justme says:

    RE: Erik @ 37

    >>Did you see that this week fannie and freddy are now allowing 50% LTV.

    That would be great of FNM and FRE only allowed 50% loan-to-value, but unfortunately I think Erik got it wrong again. Very wrong.

  39. 39
    justme says:

    RE: Erik @ 35

    >>I don’t really care how or why we are at super low inventory, and I’m not going to pretend that I really know what’s going on. I stopped trying to do causation years ago because it’s a fruitless task in my opinion. Tim said 7000 condos were coming on the market this year. Those must be getting snapped up.

    Contradict yourself much? You stopped doing causation years ago, because you don’t know what is going on. But here you are trying to causate (pardon for verbing that noun) that there must be immense demand for condos, for some reason that AFAICT you have not even provided any solid data reference for. Way to be a bubble-monger, Erik.

  40. 40
    Erik says:

    RE: justme @ 38
    Yeah, not LTV, but DTI. Always mix those up.

    Down with the Volker Rule! Let’s get this bubble going!

  41. 41
    Erik says:

    RE: justme @ 39
    Why so mean all the time? You must be a computer programmer. Be nice or I’m not going to play with you anymore. I learned my lesson with wreckingbull and his minions. Some people are extremely angry inside and get joy from beating others down. I think it’s a software thing, but I’m sure it goes beyond software employees.

    Stop overthinking it. Condo supply is super low…that is because condos are selling. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

  42. 42
    justme says:

    RE: Erik @ 41

    PARODY VERSION:

    Oh noes! We must not be “mean” to our petit-rentier (or grand-rentier) landlords, speculators, monopolists and overlords. They are very sensitive and frail human beings that easily have their feelings hurt. Don’t people understand that landlords are good and well-meaning people just like the rest of the population. Actually, they are BETTER than the rest of the population, because they PROVIDE shelter for the great unwashed masses by buying up already existing housing and then renting it out to that same great unwashed mass of people. Where would the masses live if landlords and speculators had not bought up and bid up the housing stock to stratospheric levels?

    REAL VERSION:

    Mean behavior: Spreading lies and propaganda that increases the cost for people to have a roof over their head.

    Not mean behavior: Telling it like it is about nasty bubble-mongers that take profits and pleasure from screwing over those people who are seeking shelter.

    Conclusion: I’ll stop being “mean” to Erik when he stops being mean to people who need housing.

  43. 43
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: justme @ 32 – So we need to count failed closings in supply, but all the poor schlubs making unaccepted offers are not part of demand? Nice work for someone who likes to bandy about the “propagandist” word.

    More importantly, what would you do if you could manage to collect and integrate all the numbers in your supply and demand equation? (And yes; we note that you never do.) What would give it meaning? What would you compare it to?

    The nice thing about inventory is it reflects the impacts of all of those things. And you can go back and compare it to many years in the past. Need context? Tim’s monthly NWMLS charts will show you that new listings are middling, and sales are high. Even without perfect data, there should be no surprise that means fewer leftovers – and on a seasonal basis, fewer leftovers than Tim otherwise has on record. That is something. The argument that it is not everything is a not the point argument.

  44. 44
    Erik says:

    RE: justme @ 42
    I’m not mean to people that need housing. If anyone has had a hard time on here, it’s me. I use to live in the ghettos of north Everett and used a bucket for a restroom. I rented to crack heads, child molesters, and people with various addition problems just to pay my mortgage. Life sucked for a longtime and I will always hate north Everett no matter what data Tim finds. It’s a nasty place full of a lot of bad people. I know first hand.

    Thanks to the advice of ray peppers and the help of Ardell I was able to flip my situation 180 degrees in 2 years time. I could help you if you are in a bad situation by giving you advice that helped me, but I won’t. I was pretty angry on this website not long ago as I sense that is your situation. I am far from rich, but I think I’ll be doing pretty well if I can time this bubble right. Anyway, I wish you the best, but I’m not going to be the target of your anger.

  45. 45

    By Erik @ 44:

    RE: justme @ 42 -Thanks to the advice of ray peppers and the help of Ardell I was able to flip my situation 180 degrees in 2 years time.

    I know that seemed like a good idea at the time, but have you ever considered the fact that you sold way too early? Unless you somehow leveraged that sale into purchasing two units, seemingly you might have been better off sitting pat.

    Of course that would assume that the market and building where you were would perform equally to the market(s) and building(s) where you bought. And of that consideration, the building would probably be the most suspect. So if the complex you sold was poorly run than maybe it was a good decision. Otherwise . . ..

  46. 46
    uwp says:

    RE: whatsmyname @ 43

    You just don’t understand! Any house that someone owns is potential inventory, and should be listed.
    Also babies don’t buy houses, so net migration and household data doesn’t matter!

  47. 47
    Erik says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 45
    I leveraged the sale to buy 4 more units. At the time I racked up $12k in credit card debt to finish my remodel, was in engineering grad school at UW, and received a layoff notice. I needed the money, so I was unable to keep the place. It would have been a great rental for many years and I’m sure I would have been more profitable than I was. It would probably be worth a whopping $400k today. Instead, I leveraged it and own approximately $2M in real estate.
    I like looking at simple interest over 5 years to see the difference as shown below. This simplified calculation assumes Seattle real estate increases 10% per year for the next 5 years, which I think is a pretty reasonable assumptions based on Seattle economics and what is happening with credit expansion.
    $400,000(1.1)^5= $644,204
    $2,000,000(1.1)^5= $3,221,020

    If I kept first place I’d make around $644,204 – $400,000 = $244,204
    Looking at what I now have I’d make around $3,221,020 – $2,000,000 = $1,221,020

    I’d rather have $1.2M than $244k, wouldn’t you?

    I know this is an oversimplified calculation and I know that it will cost more to sell more expensive real estate and all that. But this still puts it into perspective for me. Owning more money in real estate is a very good idea in this area.
    One of my condos is more risky of special assessments, so I will sell that next summer and use those profits to buy more more more. Like I told my friend, I’m going to keep buying until the wheels fall off….or until I can see things are getting carried away. If I can walk away with a million dollars this bubble, I will be happy. I will be happier if we have another real estate crash and I can buy for cheap at the auction and get positive cash flow properties.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.