All Encompassing Mortgage and Real Estate Thread

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

I need to check on what the policies in my agency are when an intermediary agent is assigned to a deal when there is no buyers agent. I have no idea what they do on the commission split. 

I know in this case her daughter is one of her agents.  A few years ago we were looking to move to a house with a view in the neighborhood so I reached out to her and she said she had one coming soon but it wasn't on MLS yet.  She took the wife and I to look at this house but we never contracted with her.  I am pretty sure her goal was to have me as the buyer already to go when the house went live.  We didn't care for the house so never went forward but I am pretty sure her goal was to get the full compensation as the buyer and seller agent.  I think she offers some deal that if she does both she only takes 5% not 6% or something like that.

[Dbeasy 15527]

Follow up to the earlier discussion. The seller’s agent will typically work up a side deal with the assigned intermediary. So in the case of an agent using her daughter, you can bet that she’s getting very little of that 6%, or she’s using the assignment of an intermediary to funnel more dollars to her daughter. 

If you are a buyer, and feel like you want representation, I would find my own realtor rather than have one assigned from the brokerage.

[Gil Bang 26177]

4 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Shit, we have a realtor in our neighborhood who lived here at the very beginning like me so she has become the "realtor of choice" for the neighborhood.  She does lots of stuff like sponsoring hot chocolate during Xmas or shit for the spring festival in my hood.  Sounds like a great person, right?  That being said, my hood is now thousands of homes versus the 10 homes back when I moved in 13 years ago and she sells 5-6 homes a month out here many that are over a million in sale price or close to it. She also does that "pocket listing" thing where she barely lets her homes go live on the MLS because she already has someone ready to buy it.  Other realtors in the neighborhood tell me she is doing that so she guarantees she gets both ends of the 6% as opposed to having another realtor get it by bringing a buyer to one of her houses  I will give you an example from just last week.  A house on my street that was her listing went live on a Saturday and was listed as pending before the open house started at noon.  She took $40K over asking and she had the buyer in her pocket.  I am not sure that was in the best interest of the seller as they could have waited 24 hours and gotten a dozen offers in this market (like other neighbors have gotten) possibly for more money and yes I get that the seller has to agree to this but something just seems wrong about the situation where the realtor represents both the buyer and seller.  There is zero way they can do what is best for both parties as one should want the most money for their house and the other should want to buy the house for the lowest price possible.

Dual agency is legal out here, but, our MLS has outlawed the practice of doing the pocket listing thing.  The listing has to go on the MLS the day the listing contract is signed.  You put a sign up without the listing being on the MLS, you're getting fined $5,000.  

[Gil Bang 26177]

4 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

 

This is exactly what this realtor does in my neighborhood.  We have a lot of people in my neighborhood that move from a cheaper home to a more expensive home within the neighborhood so they just want to get out of their house quick so they can get the nicer house and she flips em quick which helps her but hurts the home values of everyone still living here.  A lot of people are pissed at her about this and others don't realize what she does.  At the end of the day in ten years she went from a new realtor to worth millions with multiple agents on her team.  I wonder if she uses the agents on her team to get around that dual agency rule.  

Dual Agency applies to the broker, not the agent(s) working under the broker.   So, if CA were to do away with Dual Agency, you'd see all the large brokerages (like mine with 5000 agents) go away overnight.    

[Dbeasy 15527]

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Dual agency is legal out here, but, our MLS has outlawed the practice of doing the pocket listing thing.  The listing has to go on the MLS the day the listing contract is signed.  You put a sign up without the listing being on the MLS, you're getting fined $5,000.  

Texas just announced they are cracking down on this too. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Dual agency is legal out here, but, our MLS has outlawed the practice of doing the pocket listing thing.  The listing has to go on the MLS the day the listing contract is signed.  You put a sign up without the listing being on the MLS, you're getting fined $5,000.  

I think the lady I am talking about puts it on MLS and then puts the sign up but she has someone ready to buy it already "in her pocket" so it is all for show really.  Like I said, the people selling need to agree to the price they are getting even though they could get more from a better realtor.  Here in DFW we are in a hot market the likes I have never seen before in this area.  I have friends that have sold in the last few months and gotten 10 plus offers on their houses in the first 24-48 hours (one went for $140K over asking which was stupid) so I think it is strange to accept the first offer within an hour of going live on MLS versus waiting say a day and seeing what other crazy offers may come in.

[Dbeasy 15527]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Dual Agency applies to the broker, not the agent(s) working under the broker.   So, if CA were to do away with Dual Agency, you'd see all the large brokerages (like mine with 5000 agents) go away overnight.    

Texas achieves very similar to dual agency by the concept of intermediary, where both agents can work foe the same broker. 

[Dbeasy 15527]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I think the lady I am talking about puts it on MLS and then puts the sign up but she has someone ready to buy it already "in her pocket" so it is all for show really.  Like I said, the people selling need to agree to the price they are getting even though they could get more from a better realtor.  Here in DFW we are in a hot market the likes I have never seen before in this area.  I have friends that have sold in the last few months and gotten 10 plus offers on their houses in the first 24-48 hours (one went for $140K over asking which was stupid) so I think it is strange to accept the first offer within an hour of going live on MLS versus waiting say a day and seeing what other crazy offers may come in.

It most definitely is not working in the best interests of the seller. I would never ever do that in a market full of desperate buyers. 

[Gil Bang 26177]

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I think the lady I am talking about puts it on MLS and then puts the sign up but she has someone ready to buy it already "in her pocket" so it is all for show really.  Like I said, the people selling need to agree to the price they are getting even though they could get more from a better realtor.  Here in DFW we are in a hot market the likes I have never seen before in this area.  I have friends that have sold in the last few months and gotten 10 plus offers on their houses in the first 24-48 hours (one went for $140K over asking which was stupid) so I think it is strange to accept the first offer within an hour of going live on MLS versus waiting say a day and seeing what other crazy offers may come in.

I agree.   As was discussed above, I like to let a listing soak for a few days, particularly through a weekend.  

[Chewbacca 7827]

On 6/19/2021 at 2:32 PM, Gil Bang said:

It won't help.  Their only hope is that market appreciation covers some of the carrying costs.    And out here, for example, it does.   

Until it doesn't.

[Guest Lobo]

3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Texas achieves very similar to dual agency by the concept of intermediary, where both agents can work foe the same broker. 

Serious question---did you mean to type "can work for the same broker" or did you use "foe" on purpose? 

[TKthunder2 5058]

Good read on title insurance lunacy in Texas.

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-title-insurance-is-a-total-scam/

[Hornlover 8919]

9 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good read on title insurance lunacy in Texas.

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-title-insurance-is-a-total-scam/

So Title insurance is a scam, too. Not surprised. I've refinanced my house a couple times, and the fact that I had to re-up a title policy for a property that didn't change hands was infuriating. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

21 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good read on title insurance lunacy in Texas.

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-title-insurance-is-a-total-scam/

One of the things that obscures the scam of title insurance is that other states, where it's cheaper, require attorneys to do closings.  That article implies that the value of the services that title companies supply in that area are negligible, but they're $1000 or more in states that require attorney involvement.

[hornian 5281]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Good read on title insurance lunacy in Texas.

https://www.texasobserver.org/entitled-to-profit-in-texas-title-insurance-is-a-total-scam/

Who else read this and wants to get into the title insurance business. Let’s get together and rake in the dough!

[hornian 5281]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the things that obscures the scam of title insurance is that other states, where it's cheaper, require attorneys to do closings.  That article implies that the value of the services that title companies supply in that area are negligible, but they're $1000 or more in states that require attorney involvement.

I do agree with this. I’ve done plenty of title searches for divorce cases. It cost my client a lot more than $288. Time is money and title searches take time. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Every lender requires title insurance to protect the lender. The question is why does the borrower have to pay for it?

I did a title search of my home for fun. It didn’t take long. it wasn’t difficult. 

Iowa has a state run insurance company that charges $110 up to $500K home. That’s badass. 

[TwiceHorn 31994]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I did a title search of my home for fun. It didn’t take long. it wasn’t difficult. 

 

Well, title searching is relatively easy if it is a relatively new home in a relatively new development.  Most of that is online or can be accessed digitally.

When the neighborhood is old, say developed before WWII, it can be much more of a hassle, depending on the county and the state of their records.

It has been mentioned that there are a fair number of title and boundary disputes in the Heights in H-town.  And if it is an area that has been "poverty stricken" for lack of a better term, where people don't probate their estates and title gets really mucked up, it can be quite a disaster.

All of that said, the loss rates of title insurance companies speak for themselves.

Edited June 22, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[South Austin 53156]

I represent one of the largest title companies in the state, and I can't dispute much in that article.  Apart from procuring title policies, title companies do provide other services such as escrow and title document services.  But they usually charge separate fees associated with those services.

At the end of the day, a $1,800 title policy premium isn't much for me to get worked up over when I'm making a house purchase that's anywhere north of $500,000.  But I can understand why people ask, "So what am I getting for that?  What's the risk factor I'm purchasing against?"

[Guest Lobo]

What's puzzling to me is a KB Homes or Lennar master-titles 100 acres to develop into single-family homes.  Then you go and buy one of the new homes right after they complete it.  Why do you still have to pay title insurance?  I mean, if they just had some line item on your sale where they just passed along $500 in charges to you (out of the tens of thousands they paid to have the original work done at title), that'd be one thing.  But you have to go through your own and pay a varying cost in the thousands to title a house that's already under a master title.  Like why would lot #37 in the dead center of all these 100 acres be the one patch of land that could have a title issue?  

I do know that I'd want to pay for good title work in some places in Texas where mineral rights might still be a lingering issue.  But that's about it.  I was skeptical about how blockchain would/could disrupt the title insurance cartels.  But when the biggest title guy in Austin invested in a title blockchain company, I knew the writing was on the wall...just a matter of time.  Once an incorruptible ledger is established on a parcel of land and clear chain of title is proven going back however far, future title insurance won't be needed.  

Okay, game is on....let's get a drink.

[jimmyjazz 46984]

44 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Like why would lot #37 in the dead center of all these 100 acres be the one patch of land that could have a title issue?  

Beyond the implicit grift, maybe it's not that lot #37 has an unusual title issue, it's that the entire development might have title issues?

[Guest Lobo]

right, but doesn't that master title by the developer/builder probably still cover that?  

[Gil Bang 26177]

57 minutes ago, Lobo said:

What's puzzling to me is a KB Homes or Lennar master-titles 100 acres to develop into single-family homes.  Then you go and buy one of the new homes right after they complete it.  Why do you still have to pay title insurance?  I mean, if they just had some line item on your sale where they just passed along $500 in charges to you (out of the tens of thousands they paid to have the original work done at title), that'd be one thing.  But you have to go through your own and pay a varying cost in the thousands to title a house that's already under a master title.  Like why would lot #37 in the dead center of all these 100 acres be the one patch of land that could have a title issue?  

I do know that I'd want to pay for good title work in some places in Texas where mineral rights might still be a lingering issue.  But that's about it.  I was skeptical about how blockchain would/could disrupt the title insurance cartels.  But when the biggest title guy in Austin invested in a title blockchain company, I knew the writing was on the wall...just a matter of time.  Once an incorruptible ledger is established on a parcel of land and clear chain of title is proven going back however far, future title insurance won't be needed.  

Okay, game is on....let's get a drink.

Because title is mucked the fuck up as soon as the first shovel goes into the ground.   New construction is much, much more likely to have a title issue than an older home.   

[Guest Lobo]

Why is that?  I'm genuinely trying to learn here.  We've done multiple CRE and multi-family closes over the years and I've never got into the weeds on title because I knew I couldn't do anything about it and it would just make me angry.  But I am determined to learn more because it is going to change.  Finally.  

[tokamak 6685]

I consider myself a fairly well-educated consumer and I have no idea what "title issues" even means. Has anyone here ever heard of a situation where the average homeowner had to use their title insurance?

[Chewbacca 7827]

3 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Why is that?  I'm genuinely trying to learn here.  We've done multiple CRE and multi-family closes over the years and I've never got into the weeds on title because I knew I couldn't do anything about it and it would just make me angry.  But I am determined to learn more because it is going to change.  Finally.  

Liens from construction happen regularly.  

[South Austin 53156]

2 hours ago, tokamak said:

I consider myself a fairly well-educated consumer and I have no idea what "title issues" even means. Has anyone here ever heard of a situation where the average homeowner had to use their title insurance?

Access easement claims are one example. 

This might not be the average homeowner in suburbia, but let's say you buy large acreage property out in the Hill Country.  There are no recorded easements of record other than your typical utility easements.  Unbeknownst to you, other folks in the area had been driving across the property for several years to get from Point A to Point B.  After you occupy the property, you notice those folks driving through your property, and when you politely ask them to refrain from trespassing in the future, they file suit against you claiming a prescriptive easement.  That's where title insurance comes in to defend the claim.  Either the attorney appointed by the title company wins and defeats the easement claim, or if the degree of prior use rises to the level of burdening your ranch with a prescriptive easement that you never knew about when you purchased, the title policy should pay for some diminution in value caused by the access easement running through the property. 

I'm actually defending one of those claims right now in the Hill Country.  They've also arisen in the Lake Austin area when people claim easements for lake access.

Sure, those types of claims are far less frequent if you live in a place like Rosedale or Circle C.   

[Blotto 23975]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, title searching is relatively easy if it is a relatively new home in a relatively new development.  Most of that is online or can be accessed digitally.

When the neighborhood is old, say developed before WWII, it can be much more of a hassle, depending on the county and the state of their records.

It has been mentioned that there are a fair number of title and boundary disputes in the Heights in H-town.  And if it is an area that has been "poverty stricken" for lack of a better term, where people don't probate their estates and title gets really mucked up, it can be quite a disaster.

All of that said, the loss rates of title insurance companies speak for themselves.

So this sounds like an incredibly profitable industry. What prevents new entrants to the market  from offering similar services /products at lower prices? oh I see

Quote

But Texas doesn’t have a system that allows price competition, like Oregon, where title insurance usually costs between $300 and $600. Nor does it have a socialized system, like in Iowa, where it’s even cheaper. Texas has the worst of both worlds: a state-mandated system that forbids competition and sets rates higher than anywhere else in the country, with all the profit flowing into private pockets. 

I have to believe the kickbacks outta this industry have to be f'n sweet. lulz at fucking dipshits like Abbot/Perry arguing against unnecessary  gov't regulations, meanwhile shit like this is SOP in Texas.  

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

Why is that?  I'm genuinely trying to learn here.  We've done multiple CRE and multi-family closes over the years and I've never got into the weeds on title because I knew I couldn't do anything about it and it would just make me angry.  But I am determined to learn more because it is going to change.  Finally.  

Example 

Lennar buys a 100 acre ranch to build homes. When Lennar purchase the 100 acres, they purchase the title to said property, or a legal right recognized by the law that they own said property. Now, let’s say Lennar buys the ranch from two siblings, who inherited the property from their parents. Did mom and pop have a will? You have to search the probate records to see if mom and dad actually devised said rights to their kids in their will. What if Dad and mom were super sketchy and sold the ranch before they died and the kids didn’t own it, or they willed the estate to their favorite pastor, so Lennar doesn’t own shit? That would be a big title issue. A smaller title issue would be like if one of the kids is married and their spouse didn’t sign the WD to Lennar. 

Another issue is liens. Let’s say Lennar contracted Big Tex roads to pave the neighborhood road and never paid them. Big Tex files a lien on the property, which encumbers the title. Lenders want priority on being paid back and don’t want any liens on the property. 

Change is coming, but it won’t be overnight. And people will still sue each other over the meaning of words in a deed when enough money is involved. 

[Dbeasy 15527]

Can someone comment on those land sale event brochures you get in the mail, where they say they are going to sell x lots of a new rural ranch development on a particular date?

Usually they are either lake waterfront or 5-10 acre lots in a brand new development that hasn’t even really begun development. 

I realize they are using high pressure sales tactics to sell the lots the first time you go see it, but are they actually scams? Has anyone ever bought one of those and how did it work out? I’m interested to understand their angle. 

[Gil Bang 26177]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

Why is that?  I'm genuinely trying to learn here.  We've done multiple CRE and multi-family closes over the years and I've never got into the weeds on title because I knew I couldn't do anything about it and it would just make me angry.  But I am determined to learn more because it is going to change.  Finally.  

 

6 hours ago, tokamak said:

I consider myself a fairly well-educated consumer and I have no idea what "title issues" even means. Has anyone here ever heard of a situation where the average homeowner had to use their title insurance?

Yeah, the guys above did a good job explaining where I was going.    

 

But it's more complicated than that, even. @Neonmoongave a hypothetical of "Big Tex Paving" being stiffed on their bill.   Not sure about Texas law because I'm from CA, but let's make it "Big Cal Paving" on a project out here.   Big Cal doesn't need to be stiffed by Lennar...Pedro Martinez, a guy on the paving crew could be stiffed by Big Cal for his overtime on that Lennar project.  Pedro has lien rights...and because Pedro's feet touched the ground before @UTPhil2006's company made the purchase money loan, Pedro is now IN FRONT of Phil's company in terms of title priority.  So, Mr. and Mrs. Jones are gonna get foreclosed the fuck out of their McMansion that they just bought because Pedro is owed his money.  

There are a shitload of moving parts here.  

I do a "net sheet" for every client I have, had, or will have.   The sellers see every dime that they will spend, and what they will walk with.  Of course, it's an estimate, but it's my BEST estimate.  Same for the buyer.   I show them every nickel that they will spend to close a deal.  

Plenty of folks question the commission.   Nobody says jack shit about the title costs. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

12 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Can someone comment on those land sale event brochures you get in the mail, where they say they are going to sell x lots of a new rural ranch development on a particular date?

Usually they are either lake waterfront or 5-10 acre lots in a brand new development that hasn’t even really begun development. 

I realize they are using high pressure sales tactics to sell the lots the first time you go see it, but are they actually scams? Has anyone ever bought one of those and how did it work out? I’m interested to understand their angle. 

They are buying in bulk. They get a million dollar loan to buy 100 acre ranch. They split it up. All the lots are priced to add up to more than their loan. Profit. 

[UT_OB1 2262]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:08 PM, Assman said:

Lumber is below $900 for the first time since March 19th.

 

Looking like we’re down to ~870 now. At this rate, I might be able to replace those 3 boards in my fence by January without giving up our first born 

[troph 25098]

14 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They are buying in bulk. They get a million dollar loan to buy 100 acre ranch. They split it up. All the lots are priced to add up to more than their loan. Profit. 

I’ve got clients that do this. It’s profitable I think there are easier ways to make money though. It can take a long long time to clear them out.

[TKthunder2 5058]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

I’ve got clients that do this. It’s profitable I think there are easier ways to make money though. It can take a long long time to clear them out.

This one of your clients?

https://www.utsystem.edu/news/2018/04/20/university-texas-system-ready-sell-300-acre-houston-property

[troph 25098]

Lol, uh no. I’m a big deal… as Lyle Lovett would sing… in my own mind.  That’s about it.

[CHIEF 5203]

On 6/22/2021 at 6:47 PM, Dbeasy said:

Can someone comment on those land sale event brochures you get in the mail, where they say they are going to sell x lots of a new rural ranch development on a particular date?

Usually they are either lake waterfront or 5-10 acre lots in a brand new development that hasn’t even really begun development. 

I realize they are using high pressure sales tactics to sell the lots the first time you go see it, but are they actually scams? Has anyone ever bought one of those and how did it work out? I’m interested to understand their angle. 

Have a guy that we tailgate with that does this in the outlying counties around Austin and Belton. They buy 200-600 acre ranches and divide them up. They usually by at $7000-8000/acre, and divide it up in 10-50 acre tracts. They go ahead and survey it, and fence the tracts. They put gravel roads to all of the properties, and clean out from under the big oaks, then sell it for $10k-12/acre.

Theses were pre-pandemic prices, I'm sure the pricing structure is different now.

CHIEF

[jimmyjazz 46984]

7 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

Have a guy that we tailgate with that does this in the outlying counties around Austin and Belton. They buy 200-600 acre ranches and divide them up. They usually by at $7000-8000/acre, and divide it up in 10-50 acre tracts. They go ahead and survey it, and fence the tracts. They put gravel roads to all of the properties, and clean out from under the big oaks, then sell it for $10k-12/acre.

Sounds like pretty thin margins.  Are they on the hook for utility access?

[CHIEF 5203]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sounds like pretty thin margins.  Are they on the hook for utility access?

I'm not sure about the utilities. They have their own dozer and fencing guys. Those were decent margins pre-pandemic. I haven't talked to him since, they may have crazy margins now. They were using their own money, and sold all of the tracts relatively quick. It was a decent return for not having a crazy amount of exposure in the stock market. The good thing about land, they aren't making any more of it. If it is still ginning along this year, I may throw some cash into the pot, or I may do the same thing in our area. A few  years ago there was 950 acres for sale, down the road, for $2900/acre. I tried to talk my Dad into buying it and cutting it up. Tracts in this area go routinely for about $8k to 12k/acre.

CHIEF 

[ballrific 220]

I've had an idea that title insurance is a scam in Texas for while, based on the high cost and kick myself for not starting a titling business 10+ years ago...who knew

Edited June 24, 2021 by ballrific

[Pato del Muerto 53339]

Not that title insurance would cover it, but title search would reveal if someone got cute at any point and retained the mineral rights to a piece of land and only conferred surface rights. 

[Catpfish 618]

I've never seen mineral rights involved in a title commitment. It's always required a landman to do that research.

[Gil Bang 26177]

I get that it’s a thing out there, but nobody in CA has ever heard of a landman

[Pato del Muerto 53339]

1 hour ago, Catpfish said:

I've never seen mineral rights involved in a title commitment. It's always required a landman to do that research.

I want to say schedule B but it’s been a long time 

[Catpfish 618]

Sometimes it's there in schedule B (and sometimes they show percentage ownership) , but it's almost always followed by

Title to said interest has not been researched subsequent to the date of the
above referenced instrument and the Company makes no representation as to the
ownership or holder of such interest(s).

I've always heard from closers that the title company doesn't really do any determination of actual ownership, and to get the true ownership, a separate minerals search should be done. Of course, it's probably just ass covering.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

I get that it’s a thing out there, but nobody in CA has ever heard of a landman

How else do y'all find out who drank your CA milkshake?  

[Upgrayedd 5861]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I want to say schedule B but it’s been a long time 

Out west, it’s normally 1 or 2 in Schedule B. Connected with land patents I think 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Meh, most home tracts aren’t that big, unless it’s outside the city in rural areas. Even if you don’t own the minerals, 0.42 minerals isn’t getting the owner shit for money and while the mineral right is the dominant estate, E&P aren’t tearing down your house, ask the Barnett. That shit isn’t economic anymore anyway. So unless you think there is a Diamond mine under you house, I wouldn’t be concerned about mineral rights in the city. If it’s rural, the yeah, make sure your title attorney finds out the answer. 

[Chewbacca 7827]

On 6/23/2021 at 8:29 PM, troph said:

I’ve got clients that do this. It’s profitable I think there are easier ways to make money though. It can take a long long time to clear them out.

Yeah, land banking can be profitable, but you better be prepared to sit on the land for several years if they cycle turns.  And lenders hate land loans.  I don't know if I've ever run into a single bank that will go above 50% on one of those.  Hard money guys will, but then you're paying 12% plus one or two points and even they won't go above 65% or so.

[UT_OB1 2262]

On 6/23/2021 at 7:38 PM, UT_OB1 said:

Looking like we’re down to ~870 now. At this rate, I might be able to replace those 3 boards in my fence by January without giving up our first born 

Unless I’m reading something wrong, I think futures just dropped 100. I’m seeing numbers in the 700s. Free fall?!  Please?