Josh Barker Real Estate Podcast #29

Find Rent Data - 💵🏘❓

Transcription of the Podcast Episode #29

The transcription is auto-generated by a program and may not be accurate to the conversation. To ensure you get all the information from the video properly, you must watch the video.

Joey: Alright. Okay. So, it's the day after tax day.

Josh: It is the day after tax day.

Joey: It's April 16th, 2024. So last month we met, the big buzz was that the National Association of Realtors had a $418 million settlement from a lawsuit out of Missouri. There were some pretty big changes, stuff that had been in the works, we knew the lawsuits were there, and there were multiple settlements. But the big one was NAR, and we discussed how that would change real estate. You had some strong opinions. You said, Hey, it will be better for the consumer.

Josh: I think so.

Joey: And a lot of the things that came out of that settlement were like, well, they're already in place in California because this is a national level settlement. And it's like, different states are different, but a lot of the stuff that they said, Hey, moving forward, you have to do, they already did many of these disclosures in California. So there were two big pieces. The listing commission was published on the MLS. And there was the, Hey, if you want to see a house, you must have a buyer's agency agreement. I had a question we never got to address, and I wanted your opinion on what about open houses. So I'm going to pull up to an open house. Oh, you want to see this house? By law, we now have to have some type of contract.

Josh: In order to show the property. Yeah.

Joey: Yeah. How will that affect that?

Josh: That's a good question. I don't have the answer to that one.

Joey: Got it.

Josh: Yeah, you did. We're waiting for guidance from the California Association of Realtors on that one to give us an idea because it's their policy. So for our listeners, again, well, why do we real estate agents have to pay attention? There is a distinct difference between the California Association of Realtors/The National Association of Realtors. There's a big difference between that organization and the California Department of Real Estate. California Department of Real Estate is someone other than the one that's setting these rules. They have other rules that they deal with, of course, that relate to real estate law. But there's a. The National Association of Realtors is a trade organization. The California Association of Realtors is a subset of that. And they issue us as realtors, and to get the name realtor, you have to be a member of this organization. They gave us a list of bylaws that we had to follow. And it's been like that forever.

Josh: I think it's a hundred years now or something. So, like we talked about in our previous podcast, there's been some issues going on for a long time. The Department of Justice has been trying to challenge the Association of Realtors regarding commissions and how things are structured. They've been working on that for several years now, I think three to five years minimum, and they never really got any big traction on it, but this settlement, this lawsuit that came out of Missouri, there was a collection of sellers that were suing the National Association of Realtors, local MLSs, a handful of large brokers, national brokers, and saying that all these entities were colluding to cause inflated commissions, and really what it was about is that there's this regulation and rules within the National Association of Realtors that even though they don't tell you you have to charge a certain amount. They certainly don't force that. The perception is bad.

Josh: And a lot of agents follow some guidelines that they issue, us included. We list properties at either 5% or 6%, depending on the price point. And then we'd typically. The seller would offer half of that commission to a cooperating broker to incentivize them to show the home. We'd advertise that commission on the multiple listing service so the other agent would know automatically that they would be paid, and then, as a result, that helped keep the whole process moving. And so, they've changed two significant rules that will take effect sometime in July. One of them is that a broker can no longer advertise their commission on the multiple listing service to the buyer broker. You can't do it. The second one is that before showing a home, an agent must sign a buyer-broker agreement with the buyer before going out and showing the house. In that buyer-broker agreement, you'll discuss the scope of services you're offering, what your fee is that you're charging, and who will be paying that fee, so there will be more transparency on that side as well.

Joey: It has to be super clear. I remember reading, and it was that you could not be ambiguous. It's not like it has to stay either a flat rate or a percentage, but a buyer has to know precisely what they're about to do.

Josh: Without question.

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: Without question. And I've taken a bit of heat from this because we're so pro this policy, we think it's a really good thing, and we have a lot of agents that are like? Is that a good thing? And I'm like, I do. I wonder why sellers are in a position where they're carrying the full burden of the fee involved with selling the property, considering there is a whole other side of the transaction: the buyer. So they're carrying the burden of that cost, or at least it is perceived that way. They're the ones that typically negotiate the fees involved in the transaction, which means normally, the buyer still needs to get the opportunity to negotiate it, even though they probably knew that their agent was getting paid somehow from the seller. They may only sometimes know how much, and they may need to learn the scope of the service. From the buyer's perspective, it will get good because now a buyer can participate in how much their agent will receive in terms of compensation for the services they're offering.

Joey: I think I talked about it. Did I address it the way I wanted to last month? I was on a radio show about a week ago that talked about lending and stuff. I was clearer in that it was perfect for consumers and agents. Buyer agents all have these horror stories of working with people and putting a lot of time and effort into helping them. And then the person's like, oh, I bumped in. I went into an open house, and the person told me I wouldn't get the house if I didn't offer. And I just. That is it. I don't know how to put this, but it breeds a lack of professionalism.

Joey: I don't think it was right. It was legally right. But I don't think it was. It is not morally or ethically right for those agents in the open house to say, oh, well, if you don't put an offer in right now, I can see that you like this house. And it starts to breed a non-professionalism because now you have buyer's agents that they're. It builds desperation because, like, you've got to, suddenly someone calls you at 9:30 on a Sunday night, and I need you to show me a house. Right? Okay. Like, come on, let's keep this. Let's be respectful of everybody's time. Let's keep this at a professional level. And this buyer's agency agreement, this enforcing of it, will do that.

Josh: I think it'll contribute to it, but I don't know what percentage. If everybody's going to follow it initially, it's going to be the Wild West for a while.

Joey: Oh, okay.

Josh: We're already gravitating in that direction right now because we think, and again, we believe it's a good thing for the seller. It's a good thing for the buyer, and an example I would give you is that if you look at attorneys, for example. So if I go in and I need an attorney to work with us on something, you'll normally have one. If he still needs to, or she's not already your company's attorney, I must sign a letter of engagement with that attorney.

Joey: And usually give a retainer.

Josh: Correct. Then, a scope of services of what's going to be provided will be provided. That way, you can establish an official relationship. There's some fiduciary that's a part of that.

Joey: Agreed.

Josh: Same thing with a CPA. I've got a great CPA with whom I work. I sign an engagement letter with my CPA that says, here's a scope of services that I'm providing. Here are the fees I'm charging. And again, a strong fiduciary is established as a result of that. This will be similar to that where when you want to go out, search for a home, great, sit down, and talk about what that process looks like. Let's talk about the scope of services that you can expect to receive. I will have you sign a document, essentially an engagement letter with us that talks about those scopes of services, the fees we'll charge, how we get paid, and then everybody's on the same page. And now there's this high level of fiduciary, right?

Joey: Agreed.

Josh: And so I see the professional services that'll be rendered through our trade, if you will, I see them improving.

Joey: That's what I'm getting at. I see an improvement, too. And some agents aren't seeing the long term because they're like, what? Now, you have to have that agreement. But that's a good thing, and it's good for the consumer and the agent.

Josh: Well, where they're primarily concerned, and this is where I push back really hard, is that they're worried about commission compression. The bottom line is that there's a high likelihood that commissions will compress overall in the industry. It's a reason why the Department of Justice is still involved. They just recently opened up their case again. Although I'm not. I don't have any inside information on it, but again, I said at the beginning of the podcast that they were already pursuing it several years ago. What this case is doing is, they're sitting there going, hold on, we still have some unresolved issues too. We want to see behind the curtain as well. We want to get involved enough to ensure we're satisfied with everything involved in the settlement. Still, I need to see how the Department of Justice would be disappointed that the seller, at this point, would have no commission communicated on the MLS and that there's a buyer agency agreement signed. They will review that and say they agree. This is likely to resolve the issue.

Josh: But my previous point, I think that agents are concerned about the commission compression, and we can argue about where it's coming from, the buyer or the seller, who's going to benefit the most. But everybody could agree that it's coming from the agents. Their fees are going down as they should. I mean, if I only show you one home, and then you write on a contract on that one home, and then you close on that one home, I don't think you should be paying the same amount as somebody you show 15 homes to, for example. You know what I'm saying?

Joey: And maybe put three in escrow and have two of them fall out. And yet, like, yeah.

Josh: I mean, it's a different scope of service.

Joey: I wonder if it's almost like billable hours, like with an attorney. I would like to know where this is going to go.

Josh: Well, that'd be a hard thing to track. Hopefully, we'll go there. Because there's one good thing about how the commission piece works, I think consumers know precisely what they'll be paying. You know what I mean? An agent might benefit from that agreement; sometimes, the buyer might help depending on how much work was exchanged. But one thing is there is some transparency about what you'll pay because some people take a while to make a decision.

Joey: No, absolutely.

Josh: On the seller side, too, and this is going to get controversial, I also think there's too much overpaying on that. Not only is the buyer broker portion of the commission being negotiated right now upfront and without the buyer's participation, but there's another bigger issue. The more significant problem is, what's the difference if I sell a home for a million dollars? Why am I paying, or I'm sorry, for $1.5 million, let's say, why am I paying more than the guy for a million? The service is the same. You know what I'm saying?

Joey: Yeah. And you're paying what, $15,000 more?

Josh: Yeah, $15,000 more. And what was the difference in the scope of services provided?

Joey: Probably nothing.

Josh: I think that there should be a cap on fees. I do. I believe that, and if it's not set up by the government, which I wouldn't recommend that it is, we as companies should sit there and say, you know what? We're going to take a stand on this, too. And we believe that this is the point where we say no more. You know what I'm saying? For example, for a luxury home right now, you should not be paying the fees you're paying. There should be a cap there. In our company, we will be pushing back on that hard this year.

Joey: Oh, wow.

Josh: Because we see this as an opportunity. Essentially, the gloves are coming off, and no longer will there be this good old boy network that's made it hard for companies to be innovative, which is why NAR probably got sued. The big reason why the Justice Department is involved is that it is trying to protect the way it has always been. And it's like, no, it's time to change. Pivot.

Joey: When you were saying earlier that the thing that was going through my head was peer pressure when you said, it's like, Hey, there's been this. It's not written in NAR, but it's like if you come to market and say, Hey, I'm only going to give this commission because this is a higher-end home. And it's not commensurate. The commission starts to get crazy. There is an, as you said, good old boy network or peer pressure where it's like professionally they're like, oh, don't work with him. He has reduced commission.

Josh: That's how it should always be, and I'm constantly, when I hear agents pushing back on it, they're like, I mean, I've heard things like, oh, well we're going to find our way to communicate commissions. I'm like, you guys are price fixing. You're colluding, and you can get in trouble about that now. That is wrong. Stop doing it. Now, the gloves are off. They've been evident in the direction they want this to go. They want the seller not to be in a position where they're forced in some way, even whether it was intentional or not, and they won't be forced to pay a buyer-broker commission. A buyer should be able to be involved in the negotiation of what their agents receive for services. Right?

Joey: Yes.

Josh: And ultimately, we need to start looking at the fees that are involved in this transaction. They're just too high. Now, in Shasta County, because of where we live, our average sales price is not in the Bay Area.

Joey: No.

Josh: And so for our fee for services, with the exception until you get into the luxury market, our fee for services is probably in line with the service.

Joey: Yeah, totally.

Josh: You know what I mean? It's totally in line with what you get if you have a professional agent with a lot of experience and can solve a lot of problems, and a good project manager can anticipate things that need to be addressed. If you have that experience with an agent, then Shasta County, the fees align with the service. You get down into the Bay Area. It's a different game.

Joey: Yeah. $3 million apartment, you know, two-and-a-half million dollar condo. I mean, forget like huge houses or anything. It's pretty crazy.

Josh: Well, I had a friend of mine that called me up down there. He's been a successful agent down there for 25 and 30 years, and we discussed the coming changes. And he's asking me, what do you think? And I'm telling you what I'm telling you. And he said, well, I wonder if it'll work that way in the Bay area. And I said, no, it will. You will now have companies that will start offering a much lower cost or compensation to the buying broker, and you will be signing buyer-broker agreements at lower fees. Within a week, he called me back and said, Hey, I got a client that called me up. The client wanted to see a $4 million property, and the buyer's broker commission was $20,000. Most people listening to this now think that sounds good, except for down there.

Joey: I don't get out of bed for less than $25,000. You understand? Wow.

Josh: Down there, that would've. Usually, it would've been a $120,000 fee.

Joey: That's crazy.

Josh: And so the agent's asking me, he says, how am I supposed to tell my buyer they're going to have to pay me the difference? I'm like, that's not going to be an easy conversation to have.

Joey: I'd love to watch that conversation. That sounds. That would be.

Josh: You gotta be a master sales person.

Joey: Master.

Josh: But, so that's an example of down there, I don't know if their fees for services are in line at the same extent as here, and again, here I think they pretty much are, except for the luxury market, we're going to heavily go into the luxury market right now and see if we can bring those fees down.

Joey: Oh, awesome. Does Redding have a big luxury market?

Josh: No, it doesn't.

Joey: It doesn't, right.

Josh: But it doesn't matter that it doesn't. The fact is, they're being overcharged for what they do. You could pay more, but why?

Joey: Yeah. 3%, and you break over a million dollars. Like, explain to me exactly what you're doing for my house that you didn't do for the $700,000 house, like almost is it, not the same thing, but yet I'm going to pay $20,000, $30,000 more than that guy?

Josh: Well, I think a luxury broker would try to give you a list of reasons why it. But they're objection handlers. They're not accurate. The truth is that some of the more challenging transactions, and most agents that listen to this podcast agree that some of our hardest transactions are not million-dollar properties.

Joey: No.

Josh: They're the $250,000 properties.

Joey: That have a hundred things wrong with them.

Josh: That's right.

Joey: That need like.

Josh: Inexperienced buyer, property that's in poor condition. A lender is trying to make everything work and is on a shoestring budget. It's tough. When problems pop up, there are massive challenges with solutions. So, it should be. You're getting your value out of the fees for services on the low end because there's a lot of work involved. But, so we'll see, the Department of Justice, some people have asked me, well, are they going to change the direction of what's happening in July? I am like, probably not. This is already a significant policy shift.

Joey: I don't know what else they would want. It's been addressed well. If their concerns were really what they stated, the things they came up with were like that, okay? Now, the next piece would be enforcement, like you said. There'll still be some people trying to break the rules now. That's the next piece, though.

Josh: Well, I think that's. Well, that's a good reason why the DOJ is involved.

Joey: There you go. That might be. So they define it like, oh, you get caught.

Josh: There's two things there. So, one of them. Make sure we only go over a little bit of time. Let me double-check my phone here really quickly. Alright. One thing is that the Department of Justice is probably upset that they didn't get to this outcome themselves. You know what I mean? Think about it.

Joey: Yeah. The government's efficient. I would've expected them to get there sooner.

Josh: Yeah. Well, they didn't. It took a lawsuit out of Missouri to get it done.

Joey: That was sarcasm.

Josh: I know. I gotcha. So that's a small piece: Hold on a second here. We need our victory lap as well. But the second one is the one that I'm more concerned with, and I think that it's a good thing as long as they don't overstep, which is typically not the case, but is that there needs to be some strong policy legally speaking in place, beyond just.

Joey: Repercussions if you break the rules.

Josh: That's right. Beyond what the settlement agreement says, where they're going to say in general, agents can't do these things. For example, as I said earlier, Some of these companies are saying, well, we will find another way to communicate buyer-broker commissions secretly. You know what? You guys are going to get busted for that. Knock it off.

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: And I have a feeling they'll pivot away from it. It's just those initial reactions.

Joey: Knee-jerk react. I'm upset. Yeah.

Josh: Yeah, but I think they'll probably come to light to them that, hey, that's not the right thing to do.

Joey: Play ball. Play by the rules, guys.

Josh: And agents are actually, I think agents do have the best of intentions. It's just when you have something the way it's been for so long, and now you're expected to pivot and change. Only some people can shift to a professional services environment; there will be some transitioning that everybody will have to go through.

Joey: I look forward to seeing how it plays out. We have our opinions, and I've read a lot. Our opinions are molded by what we're reading, but it's like an echo chamber where we're all like, agree, agree, agree. Do you concur? I concur.

Joey: So maybe we'll see how it plays out. We're on point. Based on our time today, I would like to talk about something else because, at the beginning of the year, I can't remember. I'm at that age where it all muddies together. Was it six months ago or three months ago? But we were talking about the feds and might have three rate reductions in 2024. And isn't that good? Things have shifted a little bit. And they're like, wait a second. Inflation's bigger than we thought.

Josh: Oh, it's a challenge, man.

Joey: So what's. Yeah, what's going to happen?

Josh: Well, the last couple of weeks started, and the economy is continuing to produce at a level that exceeds what the expectations were. As a result, the feds discussed reducing the interest rate by a quarter point in June. Now, I'm beginning to hear that they may not do that if the economy continues to heat up more than expected. And that means there would be something that they'd have to look at in late summer or early fall and going into the election. I wonder if they want to touch that. So we, you know, we still will see at least one rate cut between now and the end of the year. But to see those three, that's already too late for that. I don't see that happening. But here's something interesting, Joey, that I can't get this thought out of my mind.

Joey: Oh, here we go.

Josh: Over the last three years, we've had how much immigration into the country?

Joey: It depends on what channel you watch, but they all agree a lot.

Josh: Okay. Okay. So yeah, depending on the channel. So one channel might say 10 million, and the other will say 13 million. Do you want us to average out 11.5 million?

Joey: It's your podcast, Josh. We get to do what we want.

Josh: Well, and the majority of those.

Joey: A lot.

Josh: I think the median age of those people is over 18. And so, working age, right?

Joey: Yeah, yeah.

Josh: And so, and do they need money?

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: Do they need services?

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: Do they buy stuff while they're here?

Joey: Yes.

Josh: So does that have an impact at all?

Joey: I would think so.

Josh: Are we accounting for that? Because that's one thing I don't hear in all the reports that I'm reading, nobody's saying that the median person coming into the country in the last three years is over 18 years old and that there's, you know, 11.5 million, let's say, on average. Where's the accounting for that? Of course, the economy shows stronger signs of purchasing, GDP up, and everything else. How could it not be when you add many people who need to purchase stuff immediately? We didn't scale for that over 18 or 19 years to grow an 18-year-old. We did it immediately, like in three years.

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: But nobody's talking about it. So I'm sitting there going. The policy should not be any different. I'm just saying that it would be nice if you added that to the conversation so that I know you're accommodating. You know what I mean? I want Jerome Powell to say from the podium, I want him to say, due to the amount of immigration we're having in the country, whether legal or illegal, I don't care. Just say it. As a result, our demand for products and services is increasing, showing up in our numbers. Because the problem is, is that if let's say that, you know, the political environment shifts in 12 months, and all of a sudden all those people stop coming in, if we don't accommodate for that plan, understanding what could happen, which is a significant fall-off in demand as a result of this, you know, the reduction, right?

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: The economy has to be prepared for that. But nobody's talking about it.

Joey: No, no, they're not.

Josh: I haven't heard anybody talk about that.

Joey: Yeah, well.

Josh: Can you tell I'm passionate about it?

Joey: Yeah, I am too. And I always have to hold my tongue because this is the Josh Barker podcast, not the Joey Gartin podcast. And you know me, I would go into certain veins, but I agree with you. It's a very impacting, large variable that no one's talking about. And everyone's like, I just don't understand what's driving. Why is there inflation still going? I was like, there's consumption. More consumers in the market need things.

Josh: Way more. And these aren't babies.

Joey: You know what's funny is it reminds me, I was listening to, man, I'm going to butcher his name, but Chamath Palihapitiya. Sorry, Chamath. He's a billionaire. He's like, Joey, you blew it. But it was great. I listened to him talk the other day, and they talked about how the stock market is still going up despite inflation. Certain factors shouldn't be going up. And he said, here, let me show you something. He said, here are the assets that are purchasable, I.e. Stocks. And he goes, and then here's the money still at play. He's like, money managers still have to buy things because they're like, why are these stocks still going up? Why are these PE ratios going up? It's like because you have a supply of money that exceeds the number of assets. This is what drives inflation, right? This is, demand is higher than supply. And we're still there. And so back to what you were talking about, when they go, hey, man, we thought inflation was coming down. Are you considering that you have 3% more consumers than you thought?

Josh: Yeah.

Joey: So it was, 11.5 million would be what? 3% of the American population 3% may not sound like a lot. It is.

Josh: Well, and it's sitting in that age bracket where, you know, it's, they're consuming. I mean, an 18 to 35-year-old, a massive consumer. You know what I mean? Versus as you start to get a little older, you begin to be a bit more conservative in your purchases because you start thinking about, well, I have to have a retirement plan, right?

Joey: Yeah.

Josh: Well, these folks aren't doing that right now. They're coming in for the American dream. They're going to be spending money.

Joey: And I think that they're going to consume it at that first tier of consumption, and that first tier of consumption is like food and gasoline and things, they're not yachts, you know what I mean? They need to come in and get Learjets. They're not coming in and buying million-dollar homes. They're at entry-level homes. It's like that report where Redding was at the top of all the US cities based on Core Logic for appreciation, which was about 7.4%. And we talked about how, okay, if you look at the Redding market, why? Because there's very little supply, replacing supply is a very long process. It's something you can only correct slowly. On top of that, though, you have segments, meaning that under $400,000 on average will likely carry, the $800,000 home will probably not appreciate 7.4%, and the $250,000 home will probably appreciate more than 7.4%. It's going to average out. And when you look at it, I don't know if you know the number, but what is the average sales price in Redding? Was it?

Josh: 375.

Joey: I was going to say mid to high threes. So that's going to be affected even more. For younger people in their twenties, those are the homes. They need to look at the $750,000 home.

Josh: No, but you know, that brings up a more significant point. I read the report from the Department of Real Estate over the weekend. I'm sorry, the California Association of Realtors puts out a magazine. So I was reading the magazine over the weekend, and one of the articles in there, I was like, what the, they stated, and you know, for all of us to check, right? But if this is true, wow, this is a problem. It stated that the state of California pulled an equal amount of new home permits last year as the city of Houston, Texas.

Josh: You know what I mean? And I'm sure it wasn't the same, but let's say within.

Joey: Roughly.

Josh: Yeah, roughly the same. So I'm just, and it sounds believable because when I think about, how many were pulled last year in Redding, it was super low, half of what it was the year before.

Joey: I think it was one third. It went from 220-something down to like 73.

Josh: Yeah. It was super low. And you know, and it's just, the reality is, is that you know, builders right now are having a hard time acquiring property, getting all the entitlements, developing the property, building the property, and then, of course, having a property that people can afford to purchase. It's super hard to do right now. And, you know, the state continues to come up with these wonderful ideas for all these different rules and regulations and codes and everything else just to drive, and it just drives up the cost of a home. And then they sit there and say, we need to help make housing affordable. It's like, well, then back off. I've said this, and you've heard me say it before. If we were to go back to the building standards of 1991 for homes up to about 1600 square feet, let's say.

Joey: They're not falling apart.

Josh: No, they're not falling apart.

Joey: So the building standards must be decent.

Josh: Go back to 1991 building standards and do that for three years for homes up to 1600 square feet and see for yourself, you know, because it's going to bring down the cost overall. You're going to see some buyers who were there after being able to get into the market. And, you know, small streams run into large rivers. These are the types of solutions that are out of the box. It's not popular, and considering our governor's trying to negotiate a deal with Norway or something right now, I am still determining what the deal is, but they have some green energy plan. And I'm like, give me a break. You guys, we need to figure out how to run the state more efficiently before we start to solve the world's problems.

Joey: Oh wow, Josh. Man, do we have another half hour to talk about stuff? But, yeah, this was years ago. I was on a podcast. And one of the guys was on the podcast, you know, we were talking about various social things, and he says, you know, it's not rocket science, and I said, you're right, rocket science is easy. You know what I mean? Thus, we've put people on the moon, and there are robots on Mars. Human science, social science, understanding how, this is insanely difficult because the variables, unlike with rocket science, with physics, you know, things like that that they don't just change based on the emotional state of the universe that day, anything to do with humans, all variables can just change with the wind, and so these things are not easy. You know what I mean? They are not easy at all.

Josh: Yeah. They're not. Human behavior is much easier to predict than you would think. The challenge is that people don't want to accept what humans want to do and their natural tendencies, and as long as you want to ignore that reality, you have to have what's called a cause and effect, right? I often use this saying when I influence employees; for example, I may be unable to herd cats. But I can move their food.

Joey: Love that saying.

Josh: Yeah. And for me, I look at it, and I go, all right, well, how, you know, what is that relationship between what I need and what they need and what's that tool or that instrument or that lever that we're going to pull to make sure that we get there? People are easier to encourage in certain directions. The IRS does it all the time. If they want you to do something, they create a tax incentive.

Joey: There you go.

Josh: You know, so I think they are a bit more predictable than people give them credit for. But it's going to be an exciting thing going forward. The housing issue is enormous. It's vast, and it's getting bigger every day.

Joey: Well, I mean, something's going to happen, right? It's whatever it looks like, and I don't have a crystal. I wouldn't be here right now if I had a crystal ball. I'd be on my private island with a couple of yachts parked. So, I am a bystander. What is it? I'll watch. I'll sit on the sidelines and watch and try to adapt. So, hey, Josh, thanks again. Today's the day after tax day. So you guys did your taxes.

Josh: Yes.

Joey: But thank you.

Josh: You too.

Joey: And I'll see you in a month, and we'll see how this plays out. Okay?

Josh: Sounds great. Thank you, buddy.

Joey: Thanks, Josh.

Post a Comment