patrick.net

TechGromit says

bmwman91 says

We moved a few blocks away and are paying $1775+utilities for a ~900SF 2BR/1.5BA townhouse apartment.

I can't claim to be any expert in San Fransisco real estate market, but you can get a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom 2,600 sq ft house for about 600k. It order for it to make more sense to continue renting the house would have to lose 3.5% value a year to break even the first year, 3.6% the second, 3.7% the third year to break even on rent vs. deprecation.

This is absolutely incorrect. Just use the rent-vs-buy calculator on this site rather than guessing. 600K purchase verses 1775/mth. Not even close - continuing renting! Don't become a slave to the seller and the bank. 600k is equivalent to about a 3500-4000/mth rent payment. Do the math if you don't believe me.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

There are expenses to owning a home that sometimes dwarfs the mortgage payment. Property tax, insurance, maintenance, principal appreciation/depreciation

Of course they are not the same, but my entire point is to NOT buy a house because the house is going to continue to depreciate is just insane. The decreasing amount of depreciation vs the higher amount what your paying in rent more than offsets what saving by waiting.

I guess the assumption I have here is everyone here WANTS to buy a house at some point. If you want to be a renter forever, then why are you here, what difference does it make how much houses cost because your renting forever anyway.

Yes in most cases houses WILL cost more to own then to rent. But at some point the house will be paid off and the cost of living will drop considerably. You will always have a rent payment.

TechGromit says

I can't claim to be any expert in San Fransisco real estate market, but you can get a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom 2,600 sq ft house for about 600k

It's batshit crazy to pay that kind of money for that size of a house. Unless its on the beach in Hawaii. Or unless the walls are covered in gold foil.

Quit making bankers rich. And if you've got $600k cash to blow, put it in Canadian and/or Aussie dollars and earn interest until the next big financial meltdown lets you buy up assets on the cheap.

Realtors Are Liars says

Show some logic instead of BS to support your false assertions.

You logic is circular. You sound like a broken record repeating the same thing without explaining why. Congratuations, your the third to make my Ignore list. Good Bye.

TechGromit says

3.5% value a year to break even the first year, 3.6% the second, 3.7% the third year to break even on rent vs. deprecation.

I'm not completely sure, because I don't quite understand what you're illustrating, but I think the mathmatical flaw you made here is that you're representing the loss/gain as a linear function by incrementing 0.1% per year, when the bulk of the math involved with comparing two types of spending money with interest involve the exponential characteristic of compound growth/loss. Try the calculators here at patrick.net or at nytimes. They do this for you and allow you to plug numbers for varying parts of the comparison.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

Tude says

Even at 120% LTV on my house my mortgage payment is less than rents in my area for most apartments.

You can't just compare you rent payment to your mortgage payment like you are doing. There are expenses to owning a home that sometimes dwarfs the mortgage payment. Property tax, insurance, maintenance, principal appreciation/depreciation if any, the lose of investment returns from your downpayment, just to name a few. Come on people, this is you frigging life savings. At least do the correct math, and stop doing crap comparisons.

I know all the expenses, I have owned a home for nearly 10 years. My PITI comes to less than I would pay for rent, before any tax deductions. I also have the ability to do as I see fit in my home (we have animals). We have also done work to make the home super energy efficient, reducing our PG&E bill to less than $50 a month.

FunTime says

I'm not completely sure, because I don't quite understand what you're illustrating, but I think the mathmatical flaw you made here is that you're representing the loss/gain as a linear function by incrementing 0.1% per year, when the bulk of the math involved with comparing two types of spending money with interest involve the exponential characteristic of compound growth/loss.

What I was illustrating was if your spending 20k on rent, in order for you come out ahead by waiting for the house to depricate, the 600k house have to fall 3.5% in price the first year. So in 1 year the house would have to cost less then 580k to make the waiting worth it when you paying 20k in rent. Now assuming the house is now 580k, the amount deprication would have to be ever greater to equal or exceed 20k in rent. It's roughly 3.6% the end year, now the house is 560k, you need a 3.7% deprecation the third year to equal 20k in rent and so on.

Yes i'm completely aware that the mortgage, taxes, upkeep, etc on a 600k or even 580k house is far higher than the $1,775 rent. Everyone is saying wait prices will continue to depricate, so my assumtion is everyone is going to buy at some point, basing when your going to buy solely on deprication isn't a good statagy in my opinion. There are other reasons to wait, for example you don't have 20% saved yet for a good down payment, but waiting on prices to fall further should no longer be one of them based on the agruement I laid out.

TechGromit says

So in 1 year the house would have to cost less then 580k to make the waiting worth it when you paying 20k in rent.

Ahh, thanks. That helped me understand what you're saying a lot better. I'm still a little confused. You seem to be applying a popular idea which suggests that all the money spent on rent is lost and all the money spent on a house is gained. So you're showing that the market value of the house must go down in order for renting to make sense. That isn't the case if that's what you're saying. You'll be spending money in both cases, so you'll always be losing some money independent of the value of the house. The question posed by the calculators is, "How do the gains compare?" If the market value of a house is depreciating, it's really difficult to find cases where you're not better off renting. Because of the ways markets were played with investment securities, like CDOs, sold by investment firms such as those represented on Wall Street, it has rarely made sense to buy in the Bay Area because renting is so much less expensive.

Have you played with the calculators? It's kind of fun to just plug in ridiculous numbers to start observing the dynamics of the situation and then try to make them more reasonable and connected to your case/life.

TechGromit says

but waiting on prices to fall further should no longer be one of them based on the agruement I laid out.

Assuming no appreciation/depreciation in your calculation it still is suffice to say that renting for 1775/mth is much much better than buying for 600k. Plug in the numbers and play with the assumptions.

My assumptions:

- no price movement on the house at all! (very optimistic IMHO)
- 4% for you mortgage rate (assuming a perfect credit score),
- that you are like the average and sell in 7 years,
etc.

The finally verdict is you would be about 150K poorer to buy verses rent. Not even close.

http://patrick.net/housing/calculator.php?uaddr=%2C+&rent=1%2C775&price=600%2C000

If you change the assumption to a 3% annual house price appreciation then renting or owning are basically equivalent over a 7 year period. That used to be possible and if you think it still is, then buy. I don't

FunTime says

You seem to be applying a popular idea which suggests that all the money spent on rent is lost and all the money spent on a house is gained.

No really, When you rent you money is lost. When you buy a house and it deprecates in value you also lose money. (well not actaully lose unless you try to sell) The question is which one loses more money at this point in the market.

Many people were smart to wait on buying houses from the peak. When houses were depricating 10 or 20% a year from 400k, the houses were losing between 40k to 80k a year in value, far more than what it cost to rent. Now that houses are down to the 150k or less range and losing value at a much slower rate, 2 or 3% a year, what your paying it rent is far more than the house is losing in value. So to base when your going to buy solely when the market bottoms doesn't make sense since your losing less money in the long run by buying instead of renting.

FunTime says

"How do the gains compare?"

What I'm really interested in is how the loses compare, which one lost more by waiting.

TechGromit says

No really, When you rent you money is lost. When you buy a house and it deprecates in value you also lose money. (well not actaully lose unless you try to sell) The question is which one loses more money at this point in the market.

You are always renting. You either rent a house or rent money. If you have the full cash then you are stealing from your investment growth so in effect renting money from yourself. No one really owns. Everything has a cost you pay for whatever privilege you are getting.

TechGromit says

When you buy a house and it deprecates in value you also lose money.

Plus interest. That's the real killer there.

Agreed that rental money is lost although, of course, you still got to live in a certain place for a certain time which is sometimes lost in discussions.

In some cases, when you compare the monthly rent with monthly cost to buy, there is a big difference and the rent payment is much less. So that gives a person room to do something else with that difference. So that difference opportunity is also figured into the calculations, but I didn't see where when I just peeked at the patrick.net calc.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

You are always renting.

Basically true. It cost money to exist, weather your homeless, renting an apartment or own a mansion. But when you buy, you have the opputunity to lower your expenses eventaully. We'll take my first house as a good example. I paid 90k for my first house total expenses $800 a month for mortgage, taxes and insurnace. We'll assume upkeep of $200 a month to keep things simple. The same house would cost about $1000 to rent at that time. In 30 years my living expenses would drop to to somewhere around $500 a month, no mortage, but higher taxes, same upkeep, your rent will proably be $1,500 a month by then. Total cost over the course of my life to "live" $288,000 in housing expenses with a mortgage for 30 years and say I live another 30 years at $500 a month, $180,000, grand total for me to exist $468,000. If I had rented however, say $1,000 a month rent for the first 30 and $1,500 for the next 30, so thats $360k + $540k = $900,000. in the long run, buying would be cheaper in this case.

Realtors Are Liars says

TechGromit lies once more. 400k houses haven't fallen to $150k.

Prices are grossly inflated.

Prices are falling.

Demand is at 14 year lows.

Realtors Are Liars.

How about $550k houses falling to $240K, this is just ONE listing in a perfectly nice area listed today. There are dozens of examples. Same can be said about other areas of the Bay Area.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Pinole/2872-Ruff-Ave-94564/home/1045679

In my neighborhood there are homes that sold for $450-$550k now in the 200k range +/-

FunTime says

. So that gives a person room to do something else with that difference. So that difference opportunity is also figured into the calculations, but I didn't see where when I just peeked at the patrick.net calc.

Yes I'm aware of the theory. You you spend less on rent then you pay in a mortgage, you can take the difference and invest it earning lots and lots of money in the stock market. The problem is very few people do. They extra money ends up getting spent on an extra starbucks latte or those sexy jeans. Statically homeowners have greater wealth then renters, so while renters do have more disposiable income than homeowners, typcially they are not investing it, otherwise they would be more wealthy then homeowners. You could argue that renters have a better life cause they afford to buy that extra cup of starbucks latte or buy those jeans instead of going without, but they are certainly not wealther in the long run.

Source: http://www.thedanielsgroup.com/homeowners-do-save-more-than-renters

RentingForHalfTheCost says

You are always renting. You either rent a house or rent money. If you have the full cash then you are stealing from your investment growth so in effect renting money from yourself. No one really owns.

Bingo.

You think you "own" your house? Try missing a property tax payment.

The only people who "own" are the elite banking class, who own everyone's labor.

TechGromit says

I can't claim to be any expert in San Fransisco real estate market, but you can get a 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom 2,600 sq ft house for about 600k. It order for it to make more sense to continue renting the house would have to lose 3.5% value a year to break even the first year, 3.6% the second, 3.7% the third year to break even on rent vs. deprecation.

It definitely depends on the area. Around Mountain View, a 2600SF house will be, at a minimum, $1.2M. It is absolutely outrageous, and renting in this area is vastly cheaper than buying. Condos around here are sort of approaching rental parity thanks to rents shooting up, but buying a condo has never made any sense to me. They have all of the downsides that apartments do, for the same or slightly higher cost (and the HOA can nail you with assessments at any time). So you can paint the walls...yeah, great selling point!

I am perfectly fine giving up some of the conveniences of having my own house to save all of the money I am not spending on one (rather than blowing it on consumer goods), and to keep my 5 minute bike commute. Eventually my fiancee and I will buy because I want a garage for woodworking and car projects. I do not plan to go into it with any expectation of using the house as some sort of financial instrument because primary residences, long term, are lousy investments. Buying properties & renting them out can generate decent income, but that is a different scenario. I want to buy a house, live in it & pay it off and then have a nice low, fixed living cost for when I am old.

We have the cash to put 20% down on a $900k house right now. However, that is just too much money to spend on a house in our opinion because of the property tax liability, and all of the money that would be tied up in interest and taxes instead if being put into our retirement funds. Around here, the kinds of houses we are looking for basically start at $900k (2-3BR, 1200-1600SF, 40+ years old). We have a hard cap set at $500k, and we will likely move out of Mountain View to San Jose / Campbell after prices slide a bit more there.

Unless prices implode for some reason, we aren't really going to care if the house slides down in price a little after we buy it. At that point, it will make more long term sense to make payments on a slowly depreciating house than to rent since renting will lead to more wasted money than the house. For now though, renting sure as hell is cheaper, and we are saving every penny of the difference so that we don't have to borrow any more than we absolutely have to.

TechGromit says

Realtors Are Liars says

Prices are still at 2004 levels. The bottom is 1996 levels.

Realtors Are Liars.

But how long will it take to reach your 1996 price level? 2 years? 4? 6? If your renting for $1775 a month, in a year your spending $21,300 in rent, 2 years $42,600, 4 years $85,200 and so on. I looked at a housing price chart, for median-priced house adjusted for inflation were 150k in 1996, they are around 175k right now. So your going to wait out the market to save another 25k when you spending 21k a year doing it? Unless your living in a cave (or your parents) rent free, it make absolutely Zero sense to wait. Your far better off to buy NOW even with the depreciation hit.

In many markets yes, but over here in South Orange county the taxes and HOA alone are $800-1000/month (2% property and mello roos and about $300 HOA). Then add the mortgage payment for a $350,000 home (starter 1600sqft 3bd/2ba condo) with a $70,000 downpayment, add in maintenance, add in extra emergency cushion etc. and it's still a very pricey proposition...especially since incomes are falling in this area.

It is a bottom alright! A bottomless pit.

---- taken from the link below
I asked Yale economist Robert Shiller -- of S&P/Case-Shiller housing index fame -- that question in an exclusive interview earlier this month. His answer might shock you: Not only do home prices, on average, not produce real returns over time, but history shows they could actually decline over the long haul
----

What many of us have been saying all along. Momentum is a bitch. Go ahead, argue with a Yale economist. Use your 20K purchase that rents for $5000/mth to justify. Shiller is no joke. I get a sense he is actually trying to be overly optimistic. ;)

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/12/23/robert-shiller-on-why-home-prices-could-fall-for-s.aspx

I didn't say they were going up, I just said that in most markets, average sale price will not go down (In real $$$, not Infaltion adjusted) much more. Keep in mind that 1) prices will not go up any time soon and 2) the upper tier will still fall further, but on average, the nominal home prices will not change much from here on out. I expect the declines (measured in average sale price) have more or less stopped.

See you at the beginning of 2013 - we'll pick it up then, if you are still around.

This is monotonous and boring.

SubOink - agreed. I'll check back in about a year (presuming I remember) and we'll see if I'm right or not.

E-man - Thanks for the good wishes.

SubOink says

See you at the beginning of 2013 - we'll pick it up then, if you are still around.

This is monotonous and boring.

End of 2012 predictions just for the record.

- I'll still be renting for half the price in the BA

- House prices will have dropped another 10-12% from todays dollar amount. Because of real inflation (you know the one with energy and food included) being 4-6% that will mean a 14-18% drop in inflation terms.

- US will continue to run a high deficit (> 1 trillion) trying to firm up the housing industry only to keep failing badly.

- The jobs market will be turning the corner. We will be back to under 10% unemployment (again the real number) for the first time in 5 years.

- Obama repeats another term, but now looks much older than the beginning of his first term. Time will not be good to him.

- Buffet will stop making housing predictions because he has said "I was dead wrong" too many times already.

- Google will have traveled to the moon just ahead of SpaceX in the contest of "things we can do with our money instead of giving it back to shareholders". Google wins easily. In the race, spaceX was exposed while they were taping their supposed landing in the Arizona desert. The ironic part was it was caught by someone using google earth.

- Facebook will be reduced to a 2 inch x 2 inch portal that is surrounded by animated ads that get activated by just having your mouse pause over them at anytime. Facebook users will be skilled at the art of gliding the mouse over the ad mines without setting them off. A lot of people will give up and just resort to calling their friends again. It will take a while for people to get used to everyones voice again. After the initial IPO explosion of 2012 Facebook will have cratered in valuation. A study will be release late 2012 that will show that out of all the data Facebook collects on its users, only 15% of it is accurate. Facebook was being used by most people to create the people they wanted to be, not the person they were, so all the directed ad value just went out the window. You can't sell Cobe sneakers to a 90 year old man who is posing as a 15 years old jock. Or the 45 years old prisoner posing as a 18 years old sexy teenager with 1500 friends.

- Apple will have gone bad. The lack of Jobs will finally catch up in the release of iPad4. Same as iPad3 but with new colors and a cigarette lighter attachment. Apple valuation gets to 700B before the fall back to 200B. It'll happen quick and painfully at the benefit of Microsoft and Intel.

That's all folks.

There's no law that says there has to be a "bottom" is average RE prices. Prices could stay relatively constant for a long time.

Or worse (better, if you want to buy) prices could slowly erode for a long time. Japan had a huge asset bubble in the late 80's and early 90's. Average prices are still not back to the levels they were then.

RE prices are a reflection of what people can pay. For average REAL (not nominal) prices to rise, Americans' REAL (not nominal) incomes must also rise. I'm not betting on the latter.

wthrfrk80 says

incomes must also rise

The only thing I'm confident will rise in this country over the next decade will be taxes and liabilities. Jobs? Income? It doesn't look good.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

The only think I'm confident will rise in this country over the next decade will be taxes and liabilities. Jobs? Income? It doesn't look good.

I wish you were wrong. But I don't think you are.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

The only think I'm confident will rise in this country over the next decade will be taxes and liabilities. Jobs? Income? It doesn't look good.

Quite a summary there. Where are we gonna get the bucks to raise the home prices? Banks should be really stupid to give away loans at current prices,or we need all the black money from third world flown here. We'd be extremely lucky if prices hold.

RentingForHalfTheCost says

- I'll still be renting for half the price in the BA

- House prices will have dropped another 10-12% from todays dollar amount. Because of real inflation (you know the one with energy and food included) being 4-6% that will mean a 14-18% drop in inflation terms.

So basically, your rent will also be reduced the same amount house prices loose, otherwise if home prices fall...how would you still be renting at half price? :)

Good luck with that rent deduction.

My prediction:

- The big fall has ended. We are stabilizing around here...maybe a little lower but nothing that would make it worth the wait if you hate your rental and want to move on and start paying into your own pocket.

That was my prediction last year (when we bought) and when I look at actual sales in my neighborhood - I was wrong.

To my surprise prices actually came up slightly (Probably due to the 1 point drop in interest rates).

Now, that the predictions are in - See ya in 2013

SubOink says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

- I'll still be renting for half the price in the BA

- House prices will have dropped another 10-12% from todays dollar amount. Because of real inflation (you know the one with energy and food included) being 4-6% that will mean a 14-18% drop in inflation terms.

So basically, your rent will also be reduced the same amount house prices loose, otherwise if home prices fall...how would you still be renting at half price? :)

Good luck with that rent deduction.

Rents are set by the current economy (jobs, income, demand, etc.). They are really a supply/demand market. Home ownership has not been that for the last 20 years. Owning is highly subsidized by the fed, gov't, Fanny/Freddie, etc. Keeping interest rates artificially low is part of the racket. Having no accountability for the buyers risk of default has got us in a whole heap of trouble. It will take us at least another decade to work through the greed and manipulation.

Part of that working through, will make the cost of homes come back closer to a supply/demand market. This will mean the cost of owning will close in on the cost of renting. We are no where near it yet, hence why I can rent for half. However, as you said, and you will be correct, the cost of ownership will drop. There will be a point where they will be even. Imagine that. That means when I run the numbers I might actually decide to buy along with many other people on this site. Running the numbers now, and listening to the hairbrain reason people are buying just increases my resolve that it makes no sense today.

All the people who rely on real estate for a living will not agree with me. Most home owners will not agree. I expect that and it doesn't change my view. I have been proven right to sell in 2009 and I am continued to be proven right. I have yet to see any positive sign in this downward market. The smartest people don't even talk about housing anymore, they are on to better prospects.

Good luck to all.

SubOink says

To my surprise prices actually came up slightly (Probably due to the 1 point drop in interest rates).

I predict it would be wise for you to sell into the manipulation. Oh wait, when all said and done you would lose money because of the 6% transaction costs, inflation, etc. Hmmm. Yah, you are better off being trapped.

At the risk of looking like a complete jackwagon - seems that I was pretty well dead on with my assessment.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Just my two cents.

You called it wrong. We are at a peak, not a bottom.

adarmiento says

You called it wrong. We are at a peak, not a bottom.

You're crazy.

Congrats ECBB. How's the new house working out for your family so far? Tell us how it feels to be living in a house you mortgaged compared to the rented one?

E-man says

Tell us how it feels to be living in a house you mortgaged compared to the rented one?

It feels like your balls are in a different pocket than the last one they were in.

So far so good. I keep telling my friends that I don't own - I just rent from the bank. That said, as with most things there are pros and cons and I do my best to be objective.

I'll freely admit, there was a bit of selective bias going into this. If anything in the weeks leading up to my offer, I kept coming here to talk myself out of it – but for my situation, the writing was on the wall.

For some perspective the principle, interest, and insurance that I pay now is LESS than what my rent was. Taxes were (and always has been) the bugaboo. Taxes put any house (be it the one we bought or a comparable one) on the "rent" side of the buy vs. rent ledger unless you plan on staying put for seven years (or more). Which (Lord willing) we do.

That said, we felt as if were running out of space in our apartment, and larger places - even a rental, meant more money. Using the metric of $/ft2 as my guide, it was surprisingly a wash - even when you account for the tax burden. It's amazing what sub-4% interest rates can do to increase "relative" affordability. A

More so than that, we were continually outbid on anything "reasonably" priced - and since our metric of reasonable were not in line with the prices the market was bearing (hence our being outbid) we figured being first bid in and getting aggressive would be better than being an also-ran. Hence we ended up in a house, purchased directly form the seller, with no middle men (Less the lawyers).

Anyhow the house is nice. We had a few people over for the holiday weekend, and it didn't feel like we were elbow to elbow - plus I could actually put a few friends up, rather than having them stay at the "no tell motel" nearby. My family loves going on hikes on our property – and I’ve actually lost weight since we bought.

Having to fix minor stuff when it breaks, I must still be in the honeymoon phase, because I actually am enjoying being handy - and proving certain members of my family wrong in the processes. Let me cross my fingers now lest something major crap out tonight while I’m sleeping..

If nothing else in 23 years we'll own the place outright (my plan is to pay it off in 15 to 20 - but I couldn’t quite swing the 15 year mortgage - at least not comfortably. I went for the 30 year and simply pay a hundred bucks or so extra every month.

Best part - I don't have to worry. We over budgeted to account for the inevitable "black swan" event that will come up from time to time, and have weathered everything well so far. It's actually easier than I would have thought. I figured I'd be working to hard to even enjoy living here - but I'm sitting on my back porch as we speak - and still got my 12 hour day in at the office before the sun set.

So I must thank Patrick, and the rest of you regulars for your advice, council and lambasting as I went through this process. All's well that ends well. I do truly hope that some of you who haven't yet been able to buy eventually have good fortune come your way. Persistence, persistence and perseverance is the only way I got to where I am right now. A little bit of luck never hurts either. If nothing else, the failures and false starts we had along the way led us to a better place.

Some final perspective for the evening. While cleaning out some papers prior to my company, I found a copy of and offer for a different house in our area. It was dated 2009 if I’m not mistaken. The purchase price was less than what we paid for the place we are now but 1) the going rate was 6% and 2) the offer was contingent on an FHA 203(k) rehab loan (the previous owner ripped out the kitten and tore out the plumbing on his way out) which put the total cost almost 15% MORE than what we ultimately paid. All that and the place only needed (and need is subjective here) a fresh coat of paint, a handful of new appliances, and a once-over on the hardwood floors. So in short a painful loss early on was a blessing in disguise. With each lost opportunity (from the originally 20 acre parcel we almost bought in 2004) we learned a little more and adapted our strategy accordingly.

I’ll never forget what my High School English Teacher told me.

:”You may not like the rules of the game, you may not think they are fair, but until you get to a point where you can change the rules, the best you can do is know the rules as they are, rather than as you want them to be, and use them to your advantage.”

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

So far so good. I keep telling my friends that I don't own - I just rent from the bank. That said, as with most things there are pros and cons and I do my best to be objective.

Maintaining an objective point of view is critical. You can never lose perspective of the big picture. If you do that, you get complacent, and then you get set up to lose everything.

I'm with you in that I tell my friends that I am renting from the bank, or that I am a debt slave now. Buying a house is not a panacea for happiness, and you can easily end up being miserable if you take the attitude that the mere act of buying one will automatically endow you with happiness. Nope, just like anything you must put work into being happy, house or not. A house gets you a different set of options, but whether you exercise those options correctly or at all is still your responsibility. It's important to know that, especially for people that are thinking about buying. I'd hate to see someone get emotionally crushed because they went into the purchase expecting to buy happiness, only to find that it was up to them all along. Fuck, I think that I just described the definition of "marketing" and the rotten backbone of America's economy lol.

:”You may not like the rules of the game, you may not think they are fair, but until you get to a point where you can change the rules, the best you can do is know the rules as they are, rather than as you want them to be, and use them to your advantage.”

Worth repeating. Your teacher is a wise individual.

Again congrats ECBB.