Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-21-2008, 09:09 AM   #141
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 926
clifp,
....Tough crowd is right. Some of the folks here are VERY financially savvy. It does seem to me that you are trying to defend bank lending policies such as the approval of home loans with the home taking 40% of the family income. You seem to be making the arguement that this is how it has been done for many years and it is commonly accepted practice and so it is okay. As long as home values and the home buyers income along with it were increasing it worked fine. Recent drops in home values and slowdowns in wage growth, at least in many areas have resulted in these "common" lending practices causing serious problems in our economy. Gimmick mortages like ARMs and other "common" lending practices have hurt many buyers and now that their effects are resounding throughout the economy some of us are down right pissed that anyone would defend these practices. BTW, no sympathy is coming from me for buyers who habitually get themselves into debt trouble.
Jeff
__________________

__________________
jclarksnakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-21-2008, 09:47 AM   #142
Recycles dryer sheets
Abreutime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
As for lending now, no offense but I am glad neither you nor Abreutime are running the banks that I own. Right now is a terrific time to be in the banking business the net interest margin are very high because interest on deposits is very low, and credit spreads are wide. For the same reason it makes more sense to buy stocks after they have fallen 30%, it makes more sense to loan money on houses after the value has dropped 30-50%, than after they've doubled. My niece loan is pretty much bread and butter banking, which have been approved by most banks anytime during our lives.
I disagree with your bolded statement, but I don't dispute your assertion that there are profitable loans not being underwritten. These are not necessarily incongruent.
__________________

__________________
Abreutime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 10:09 AM   #143
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Oh gosh, I'd unsubscribed from this thread when it turned into a "nyah nyah" contest with an absolute moron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by siamamerican View Post
I'm pretty sure these dollars weren't adjusted for inflation. The loss in value would even be greater.
Besides flawed basic reading skills and an interest in making up your own word definitions, you also have no idea how inflation works.

But you did manage to unexpectedly blunder into the actual answer! Good for you!!

The Schiller data and most of rolled up Zillow "report" data is flawed in that it primarily looks at single family homes in metropolitan areas in bubble regions.

This is one of those cases where you need to stop staring at these comparable sales like a stock ticker tape and do a little prairie dogging.

The majority of homes in the US arent in suburban San Francisco, Boston or Miami. They're $110k-130k homes whose value is primarily the construction cost minus wear and tear/depreciation plus a small land value and adjustments for desirable/undesirable features.

There isnt a $250k land/location value bundled in. There was no bubble and no crash.

Building materials have gone up more than 10% since 2006. Labor costs have dropped around 3.5% since then. So your cost today to build a bog standard house in Tulsa, Grand Junction, Jacksonville NC, Champaign and Mobile has gone up around 3-4% a year, every year.

Granted theres a difference between value and current cost. In some bubble areas you're contending with a backlog of foreclosures and unsold new homes, which temporarily is depressing the cost. Until that backlog is removed.

But in most of the US, outside the bubble regions, there are no mass foreclosures. There are no empty subdivisions. So if you sell your house today it'll be worth more simply because the intrinsic cost of building one just like it on the next street over has been driven up by inflations effect on material costs.

For the rest of the country, outside of the small number of morons who paid ~2x the value of a home in some commutaburb an hour away from a bubble city and the idiots who refinanced their house to 100% value in 2004/5 with an adjustable rate partial interest only loan and builders who built 200 homes right at the end of the bubble...things are just ducky.

Either their homes have appreciated against new construction cost, or their value will be restored once the backlogs of distressed properties are resolved.

Some areas and some people screwed themselves and this is all the media wants to squawk about. The victims and the victimizers, the people losing their homes.

The reality is a little better, and its only going to improve.

Lastly, Siamamerican...if your primary purpose going forward is to continue to engage in a pissing contest with me, may I point out that this has historically not been a very rewarding activity and that you're also not very good at it?

Perhaps you'd like to reassess your strategy and try a different one?
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 02:13 PM   #144
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,020
Isn't it odd when new members wade in on threads and start battling?

Why, it's pretty much like they're not new members at all.

Not sayin', it's just a weird coincidence I've observed many times over my time on teh intarweb.
__________________
Marquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 06:04 PM   #145
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclarksnakes View Post
clifp,
....Tough crowd is right. Some of the folks here are VERY financially savvy. It does seem to me that you are trying to defend bank lending policies such as the approval of home loans with the home taking 40% of the family income. You seem to be making the arguement that this is how it has been done for many years and it is commonly accepted practice and so it is okay. A
Jeff
Let me try this again.
Common lending practices is for a person/couple to put 20% down the bank loans the remaining 80%. The maximum the bank will lend is subject to 3 criteria; no more than 80% of the appraised value of the property, the total installment debt to income ratio has been capped at around 40%, and a loan limit that varies by market set by Fannie and Freddie which is periodically raised. These loans are conventional conforming loans and have been bought and securitized by Fannie and Freddie for decades. The criteria for these loans (other than max size) has not changed significantly over at least the last 25 years. Currently 98% of these loans are being paid on time, which while worse than 99+% were being paid on time a few years ago is fraction of the double digit default rates on the sub-prime loans. My niece's loan is conforming.

So yes I am defending banking practices which have been making banks tons of money for decades. I am not defending "new" lending practices 0% down , 100% Refi, no doc loans etc. Which part of the lending criteria of a conforming loan are you critical of?

Right now is a terrific time to be in the banking business

Quote:
Abreutime I disagree with your bolded statement, but I don't dispute your assertion that there are profitable loans not being underwritten. These are not necessarily incongruent.
Glad to see somebody picked up on this. It is ugly time to be an existing bank and have to worry about all the assets on your balance sheet. But, I think if you could start a bank with clean slate and positive brand, e.g. The Micheal Phelps & Warren Buffett Olympic Bank you could make a ton of money, because the net interest margin is so large.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:05 PM   #146
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
Oh gosh, I'd unsubscribed from this thread when it turned into a "nyah nyah" contest with an absolute moron.



Besides flawed basic reading skills and an interest in making up your own word definitions, you also have no idea how inflation works.

But you did manage to unexpectedly blunder into the actual answer! Good for you!!

The Schiller data and most of rolled up Zillow "report" data is flawed in that it primarily looks at single family homes in metropolitan areas in bubble regions.

This is one of those cases where you need to stop staring at these comparable sales like a stock ticker tape and do a little prairie dogging.

The majority of homes in the US arent in suburban San Francisco, Boston or Miami. They're $110k-130k homes whose value is primarily the construction cost minus wear and tear/depreciation plus a small land value and adjustments for desirable/undesirable features.

There isnt a $250k land/location value bundled in. There was no bubble and no crash.

Building materials have gone up more than 10% since 2006. Labor costs have dropped around 3.5% since then. So your cost today to build a bog standard house in Tulsa, Grand Junction, Jacksonville NC, Champaign and Mobile has gone up around 3-4% a year, every year.

Granted theres a difference between value and current cost. In some bubble areas you're contending with a backlog of foreclosures and unsold new homes, which temporarily is depressing the cost. Until that backlog is removed.

But in most of the US, outside the bubble regions, there are no mass foreclosures. There are no empty subdivisions. So if you sell your house today it'll be worth more simply because the intrinsic cost of building one just like it on the next street over has been driven up by inflations effect on material costs.

For the rest of the country, outside of the small number of morons who paid ~2x the value of a home in some commutaburb an hour away from a bubble city and the idiots who refinanced their house to 100% value in 2004/5 with an adjustable rate partial interest only loan and builders who built 200 homes right at the end of the bubble...things are just ducky.

Either their homes have appreciated against new construction cost, or their value will be restored once the backlogs of distressed properties are resolved.

Some areas and some people screwed themselves and this is all the media wants to squawk about. The victims and the victimizers, the people losing their homes.

The reality is a little better, and its only going to improve.

Lastly, Siamamerican...if your primary purpose going forward is to continue to engage in a pissing contest with me, may I point out that this has historically not been a very rewarding activity and that you're also not very good at it?

Perhaps you'd like to reassess your strategy and try a different one?
Wow, what a rant. Take a deep breath and try to answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny
nationwide the average homeowner who bought since 2006 was actually up about 5%.


What is the source. You mentioned that you recently read an article that stated the above.

The rest of the post was just drivel with no supporting evidence. I understand, you purchasing a house in 2007, why you wish national home prices weren't freefalling, but the reality is that they are.

Also, 2008 dollars are worth less than 2006 dollars. You are adapt at using the dictionary, so take a look at the definition of inflation.

Remember, deep breaths.
__________________
siamamerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:15 PM   #147
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
I know that was a lot for you to read and attempt to comprehend all at once and I hear that complex ideas can be very difficult for a lot of people with below average intelligence levels to comprehend.

Try it a paragraph at a time, maybe with a nap in between.

By the way, while dollars are worth less today, the materials to build a home have risen at a rate faster than the rate of inflation. That means that homes cost more to build today in real dollars than they did in 2006.

I didnt need a dictionary, I just had to go to elementary school. And not be an idiot that bought a house in Stockton (the armpit of California) for twice what it was worth.

Value and todays selling price. Two very different things.

I think its become clear to everyone at this point that you're just here to troll. You have a nice life now.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:23 PM   #148
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
[quote=cute fuzzy bunny;696495]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
I know that was a lot for you to read and attempt to comprehend all at once and I hear that complex ideas can be very difficult for a lot of people with below average intelligence levels to comprehend.

Try it a paragraph at a time, maybe with a nap in between.

By the way, while dollars are worth less today, the materials to build a home have risen at a rate faster than the rate of inflation. That means that homes cost more to build today in real dollars than they did in 2006.

I didnt need a dictionary, I just had to go to elementary school. And not be an idiot that bought a house in Stockton (the armpit of California) for twice what it was worth.

Value and todays selling price. Two very different things.

I think its become clear to everyone at this point that you're just here to troll. You have a nice life now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny
nationwide the average homeowner who bought since 2006 was actually up about 5%.

Come on you can do it. What is the source. You mentioned that you recently read an article that stated the above.

Did someone fib?
__________________
siamamerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 07:30 PM   #149
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by cute fuzzy bunny View Post
By the way, while dollars are worth less today, the materials to build a home have risen at a rate faster than the rate of inflation. That means that homes cost more to build today in real dollars than they did in 2006.
If the national average was 221k in 2006 and 196k in 2008, the 221k dollars would be woth more than the 2008 dollars. You can go on about material costs, but it doesn't change facts.
__________________
siamamerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2008, 10:13 PM   #150
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 926
[quote=clifp;701498]Let me try this again.
Common lending practices is for a person/couple to put 20% down the bank loans the remaining 80%. The maximum the bank will lend is subject to 3 criteria; no more than 80% of the appraised value of the property, the total installment debt to income ratio has been capped at around 40%, and a loan limit that varies by market set by Fannie and Freddie which is periodically raised. These loans are conventional conforming loans and have been bought and securitized by Fannie and Freddie for decades. The criteria for these loans (other than max size) has not changed significantly over at least the last 25 years. Currently 98% of these loans are being paid on time, which while worse than 99+% were being paid on time a few years ago is fraction of the double digit default rates on the sub-prime loans. My niece's loan is conforming.

So yes I am defending banking practices which have been making banks tons of money for decades. I am not defending "new" lending practices 0% down , 100% Refi, no doc loans etc. Which part of the lending criteria of a conforming loan are you critical of?

clifp,
...So how is that working out for Fannie and Freddie? Seems like I heard something about them coming onto hard times. And how come I hear about so many people geting conventional mortgages with way less than 20% down? Are those conforming or not? There sure are a bunch of them. My specific problem with the conforming mortgage as you descibed it is that people can have 40% of their income going to debt service. Their company has a bad month or two and cuts back hours and they are in trouble. I appreciate that you are being a good sport here.
Jeff
__________________
jclarksnakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 01:34 AM   #151
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
[quote=jclarksnakes;701637]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
Let me try this again.
clifp,
...So how is that working out for Fannie and Freddie? Seems like I heard something about them coming onto hard times. And how come I hear about so many people geting conventional mortgages with way less than 20% down? Are those conforming or not? There sure are a bunch of them. My specific problem with the conforming mortgage as you descibed it is that people can have 40% of their income going to debt service. Their company has a bad month or two and cuts back hours and they are in trouble. I appreciate that you are being a good sport here.
Jeff
________________________________
Fannie guidelines

Cashout refi:
debt to income - 65% max
Loan to value - 90%

Rate and term refi:
debt to income - 65% max
Loan to value - 95%

Purchase:
debt to income - 65% max
Loan to value - 95%

Mortgage insurance reguired over 80% loan to value. A year ago you could get mortgage insurance with a 500 fico. Now you need a 660.

________________________________________________

If you have 660 FICO, getting a loan is rarely an issue. Most under 660 borrowers have no options outside of FHA.
__________________
siamamerican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 10:21 AM   #152
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by jclarksnakes View Post
...So how is that working out for Fannie and Freddie? Seems like I heard something about them coming onto hard times. And how come I hear about so many people geting conventional mortgages with way less than 20% down? Are those conforming or not? There sure are a bunch of them. My specific problem with the conforming mortgage as you descibed it is that people can have 40% of their income going to debt service. Their company has a bad month or two and cuts back hours and they are in trouble. I appreciate that you are being a good sport here.
Jeff
Much to my surprise -- and I inadvertently blabbered wrong information in another thread -- Fannie has had some exposure to subprime lending. Evidently, an article in this week's Washington Post indicated that Fannie purchased a lot of securitized subprime loans. But this exposure is not the major reason for Fannie's problems today. Oh well, a 20 percent down payment with a 40 percent debt to income ratio, strikes me as a good credit even if it might not be conforming, which I think is the definition of a Alt-A credit.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 10:34 AM   #153
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
jclark--A couple points. the 40% back end ratio isn't really the problem. 40% or 10% it doesn't matter. If the person spends everything they have left over when they suffer a financial set back they can't afford either debt. I think the bigger issue is the ARM's. If the person is doing everything correctly, except for getting an ARM they are in trouble. Invariably the rate resets higher, now instead of having a 40% back end they are up to 45, 50 or 60% back ends. That gets very tight for the average worker in the US. If they had taken out a fixed rate mortgage with a back end of 40% their payment isn't going to adjust by too much year over year and the 40% would be manageable and probably start dropping as they receive pay raises and pay off other credit accounts.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 04:03 PM   #154
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
[quote=jclarksnakes;701637]
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post

clifp,
...So how is that working out for Fannie and Freddie? Seems like I heard something about them coming onto hard times. And how come I hear about so many people geting conventional mortgages with way less than 20% down? Are those conforming or not? There sure are a bunch of them. My specific problem with the conforming mortgage as you descibed it is that people can have 40% of their income going to debt service. Their company has a bad month or two and cuts back hours and they are in trouble. I appreciate that you are being a good sport here.
Jeff
As others have pointed Freddie and Fannie problems for the most part don't stem from conventional mortgages (20% down, fixed back end ratio <40%). Even ARMs per-se don't cause a major problem since the rates have been pretty stable. (Depending on the index and when the ARM was taken the interest rate could have actually dropped) The problem was
all the creative and in hindsight crazy ways lenders stretched the safety limits of conventional lending practices, teaser rates, Option ARMs... Yes Freddie and Fannie were complicit in helping out, by securitizing increasingly dodgy debt.

It seems to me there is "holy trinity" of lending; sufficient collateral, ability to repay, and propensity to repay. Banks can be can be flexible on one of the criteria so for example requiring less than 20% down, providing teaser interest rates, or lending to people with less than perfect credit history.
The problem was that all too often lenders eased up on all three criteria simultaneously, leading to nuttier loans, like 95% LTV, Option ARMs to people with 500 FICO scores.

The good news with housing pricing coming back to earth is that people with modest income can now afford houses with traditional mortgages. Which was the point of my original post about my niece.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2008, 11:20 PM   #155
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ladelfina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,713
Quote:
people with modest income can now afford houses
clif, am I gonna hafta smack your knuckles with a ruler?

Listen to Mr. Snakes:
Quote:
My specific problem with the conforming mortgage as you descibed it is that people can have 40% of their income going to debt service.
I still think 40% is a big number as well. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree..
__________________
ladelfina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 05:24 AM   #156
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
"I still think 40% is a big number as well. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.."

Probably depends on what of the country (or what country) you are from (where did you live in the states). Living almost my entire life in LA, Silicon Valley, and Honolulu, virtually every homeowner I knew (including everybody in my family) at one point or another had mortgage payments ~40% of their income, in fact I knew and know several single mom who's debt to income exceeds 50%. All but one person pulled it off, and the one person who didn't could have afforded it but he wanted to quit being an engineer and become a photographer, so he mailed the keys to his upside down house to the bank and left town. This was almost 20 years ago.

I will agree that 65% debt to income level that fannie allows is too high. I am glad they will probably lower it to 50%.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 11:24 AM   #157
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ladelfina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,713
I was born and lived 40+ years in the Northeast. Started out in a frugal zone and spent 1/2 my time there.. moved to a somewhat "zoomier" zone but still with a healthy contingent grounded in reality. I guess if I'd grown up in LA or similar reality would just be a state of mind. Not so where I was raised. Frugal Yankees + people from "the old country" = don't stick your neck out.

40-50% raises my hackles. For most people this is almost entirely interest they are paying. It takes years to even begin to make any kind of noticeable dent in the principal/real equity.
__________________
ladelfina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 11:27 AM   #158
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladelfina View Post
For most people this is almost entirely interest they are paying. It takes years to even begin to make any kind of noticeable dent in the principal/real equity.
Finance a 30 yr mortgage and this is a true statement regardless of debt to income ratio.
__________________
Marquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 11:31 AM   #159
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladelfina View Post
I was born and lived 40+ years in the Northeast. Started out in a frugal zone and spent 1/2 my time there.. moved to a somewhat "zoomier" zone but still with a healthy contingent grounded in reality. I guess if I'd grown up in LA or similar reality would just be a state of mind. Not so where I was raised. Frugal Yankees + people from "the old country" = don't stick your neck out.

40-50% raises my hackles. For most people this is almost entirely interest they are paying. It takes years to even begin to make any kind of noticeable dent in the principal/real equity.
The idea of paying 40%-50% of my salary just for a house freaks me out, too. My house payments (including tax and insurance) were 20% of my gross income when I first bought it, and due to salary increases only 16% by the time I paid it off four years later. To people in California this must sound like a mortgage fairyland.

It is amazing how much extra payments to the principle decrease the time left on the mortgage, when done early. I don't see how someone paying 50% could make extra payments very often. I probably paid a greater percentage than they did, in order to pay my house off quickly, but it was voluntary and in four years I was DONE.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2008, 12:09 PM   #160
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ladelfina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,713
Quote:
Finance a 30 yr mortgage and this is a true statement regardless of debt to income ratio.
and your point is? Yankees and people from the old country tend to want to stay put and would never put themselves in hock for 40%. People in LA/Silicon Valley/Honolulu who knows?

If my debt/income ratio is under 30% (maybe it's 20% like W2R, or even 10%!) then I can also more easily bear the situation of not making equity headway right away. At 40% or more I have far greater obligations and far less flexibility. Feh.
__________________

__________________
ladelfina is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AE: The Next Stock Market Wave retire@40 FIRE and Money 66 06-28-2008 09:05 PM
That Wave of Retirees? Not So Big lightwaves Other topics 4 05-23-2008 06:03 AM
brain wave technology windsurf Health and Early Retirement 0 11-20-2006 09:04 AM
Ride the wave.... Tommy_Dolitte Young Dreamers 0 10-09-2004 12:38 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.