CMHC wants to conceal foreclosure information
The CMHC tends to have some pretty rosy forecasts for the future of Canadas housing market.
But if all is well, why are they now trying to get real estate agents to hide foreclosure status from potential buyers?
After recent stories about deceptive marketing practices, it’s heartening to hear that a group of Realtors in Quebec have raised issues of an ethical breech after the CMHC asked them to conceal foreclosure status on properties for sale.
The Quebec Federation of Real Estate Boards, which oversees the 12 real estate boards in the province, says it challenged CMHC about the change requiring them not to report on a detail sheet that properties for sale were part of a foreclosure, despite the fact that information is considered mandatory when loaded by brokers onto the selling system of local boards.
“Because the repossession field is currently a mandatory field in the brokerage system you have no choice by to indicate ‘no’, which goes against ethical rules stipulating that real estate brokers are obliged to publish information that is truthful and verified,” the group said in a statement to members.
The two sides resolved the issue by making it no longer mandatory to reflect the foreclosure status of a home, based on the seller’s instructions.
So why does the CMHC not want you to know about foreclosure status? Because then you might be tempted to bid on cold logic rather than emotion.
“Look at what is going on right now in financial institutions and everybody is ratcheting up their loan-loss provisions,” said Ben Rabidoux, a Canadian analyst for California-based Hanson Advisors, a market research firm whose clients are institutional investors. “Everybody expects loan losses to rise. I can’t imagine CMHC is in the dark on that. My suspicion is they want to limit any loss on that hits their books.”
By limiting the information on whether a property is part of foreclosure, the Crown corporation would potentially avoid a situation in which a buyer knows it has to sell. In the United States, foreclosed properties have sold at huge discounts.
Read the full article here.
February 27th, 2013 at 11:57 am 1
A couple of recent westside price changes:
V980753
6399 CARNARVON ST
Nov 14/12 $849,000 (WTF?)
Nov 19/12 $3,490,000
Current Price $2,980,000 (-15%)
DOM: 105
2012 Assessment: $2,500,000
V974701
2986 21ST AVE W
Sep 26/12 $2,498,000
Dec 27/12 $2,298,000
Current Price $2,198,000 (-12%)
DOM: 154
2012 Assessment: $1,978,000
And a recent sale:
V992622
843 W 20TH AV
Feb 20/13 $1,998,900
Feb 21/13 $1,848,500
DOM: 1!
2012 Assessment: $1,840,000
The 2012 assessments seem to be the price ceiling now, versus the floor that they used to be.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 12:03 pm 2
Wow, that didn’t take long, but the CMHC response to the National Post article already released on Twitter.
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/corp/nero/2013-02-27.cfm?WT.mc_id=TWT2013_53
Friends, I think this is actually a much bigger story than the Amanda Lee caper. You will see from the letter that the CMHC admits to intervening with the Quebec real estate board to ensure that foreclosures are no longer disclosed.
This is nothing less than a cover-up of negative market news being orchestrated by an agency of the Federal Government. Who benefits? A small group of real estate insiders who can act on preferential information relevant to prices. Who loses? The general public, the specific buyers of foreclosed properties, and the market as a whole due to the continued obfuscation of important data. Heads should roll. In order of importance, the heads that should roll are: Sophie Joncas, interim Chair of the Board of Directors of CMHC; Karen Kinsley, the President of the CMHC (and noted winner of awards from various Home Building associations – no conflict there); and Diane Finlay, the Minister Responsible for CMHC.
If any of the reporters who did the Amanda Lee story want to do a story with legs, and actual significance, here’s your entree. A good follow-up might be a piece reviewing the professional backgrounds of the CMHC Board members, and highlighting the impact of their policies and how their biases might have contributed to the overbuilt, overpriced mess that we find ourselves in now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
76 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 12:19 pm 3
The CMHC board should all be fired. Transparency, honesty, reality. Is that too much to ask on what amounts to a lifetime of savings for a middle class Canadian ?!??
As I said in the last thread, we have seen false buyers. Now we have false sellers since they want to hide that it is a CMHC sale.
To do this, the board must be scared s417less.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 12:22 pm 4
@Short’em High:
CAD monthly is currently on 4-yr support, right when USD monthly is just under 2% from 10-yr resistance. Greetings. I am the other side of your short trade.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
2
February 27th, 2013 at 12:37 pm 5
#4 was me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 12:45 pm 6
Last year we were considering buying in Kits and had our eye on V982432 when it was listed for $868,000.
Today it is listed for $699,000. By my simple math we have saved about 20% by waiting. Does that make me want to buy now? Not really. Lets see how low this thing can go.
Anyone who denies that this market is in serious trouble is simply stuck in a loop.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
67 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 12:52 pm 7
@Real Life Example
Looks nice, but I have no desire to live in a townhouse. I wouldn’t buy that for more then 300K personally.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 12:53 pm 8
Just wrote to Jim Flaherty. Sick of the CMHC micky mouse board of director bu115h17.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 1:06 pm 9
Groundhog
Not to mention that it’s basically a basement suite from what I can tell.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 1:55 pm 10
@HAM Solo:
“A small group of real estate insiders who can act on preferential information relevant to prices”
Exactly. Either *NOBODY* should be allowed to know about foreclosure status (which is downright impossible) or *EVERYBODY* must be clearly told about it.
Otherwise, you have a completely uneven market where a small group of insiders have information that the general public doesn’t have, which gives the insiders huge advantages for negotiations.
How is it the CMHC is getting away with this?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 2:33 pm 11
@Crikey,
But the insiders won’t be able to purchase at their price since their information will suggest to offer a price below what an outsider will offer. Thus, as long as there is some outsider willing to pay, the insider’s information is not actionable.
That said, the outsiders are clearly being hung out to dry. One could have concerns about this …. but CMHC is clearly acting to minimize the expected losses to the taxpayer. Kudos to them for realizing that this is part of their mandate. They certainly haven’t been considering the taxpayer before. I view this as a tacit admission that their books have been cooked.
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
8
February 27th, 2013 at 2:40 pm 12
-”or worse yet these nervous buyers during their subject period who were intimidated by ‘friends’ who told them “they were crazy to buy as homes would be far less next year”
-”this rebirth of the market has begun and is gaining momentum every day….the active leaders in the market are securing property at great value and will be the envy of those who waited
-”so this is my alert for buyers waiting to buy, dust off your shoes because we are entering a blockbuster 2013″
http://www.martyhomes.com/Blog.php/team-pospischil-real-estate-winter-newsletter-and-market-update
oh Marty, i sincerely hope your clients didn’t listen to you and did listen to their ‘friends’.
The real estate industry really has to change the rules regarding what their sales people are allowed to spew. It’s unfair that they are not held accountable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 2:57 pm 13
But the insiders won’t be able to purchase at their price since their information will suggest to offer a price below what an outsider will offer. Thus, as long as there is some outsider willing to pay, the insider’s information is not actionable.
Your logic falls apart at ‘outsider willing to pay’. I’ve lived through a down market and believe me, it’s not that all offers are low, its that there aren’t very many people willing or able to pay. An insider would still know which properties are in foreclosure and not bother with the others.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 3:58 pm 14
I have found CMHC surprisingly defensive and yet responsive. The times I have written them they have come back with quite a long and detailed response. They quite strongly defend their position that “everything is fine”, there is no risk, and they are on top of things.
Time will tell!
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 4:08 pm 15
Old Larry has found reality, he now states “Serious Price reductions” funny he still has the old crack shack mansion listed for a cool 8.5 million. Seriously that place might sell for 5 million tops, likely 4 million. Jeesh its been on the market for nearly 2 yrs. maybe he could hire Amanda to hype it up!
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
2
February 27th, 2013 at 4:31 pm 16
Whether or not MLS listings are flagged as foreclosures or not doesn’t stop them from becoming foreclosures in the first place. I wonder if the intent here was to stop sites like foreclousego.com from trawling for just those listings?
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 4:41 pm 17
“Just wrote to Jim Flaherty. Sick of the CMHC micky mouse board of director bu115h17.”
It is Diane Finley who is responsible for the CHMC. She has a handy e-mail submission form on her contact page so I used that to request a change of board & no increase in the insurance limit. If you want to contact her you can get to her website through clicking my name…
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 4:44 pm 18
@ phisical
Sure. That doesn’t make the argument fall apart. Basically you are saying that an insider could purchase a place that an outsider doesn’t know about. But as soon as the offer is in, the seller (or his or her realtor) will broadcast the bid to other possible buyers. There is no incentive for the seller to keep an offer private information. This is where your argument breaks down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 4:57 pm 19
@crashcow Says: “…other side of short [CAD]…
Wait a few days… FYI, anybody doing this trade is scaling and fading the whipsaw to keep their risk level. Also, not sure what 4yr support you are talking about. Is that the “technical” method you couldn’t believe others weren’t using? CAD was lower last summer than it is now. This is a CAD trade, not a USD index trade.
When this trade is fully faded, there should be a good trade in Canadian mortgage and finance equities as Ben suggested. That’s the second leg of the 2 legged ass kicking.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 5:02 pm 20
[Sorry for the repost. I was hoping to get a reply from @VMD on the last thread, but perhaps @VMD missed my question?]
@VMD Says:
…Plus we have the ever-reliable paulB stats to do our own analysis…
Are these data accumulated somewhere on VCI?
Using each of the six standard spreadsheet functions STDDEV, AVERAGE, MIN, MAX, MEDIAN, and MODE on all “new listings” data points ever posted, what values do you get?
Those six objectively qualify the notion of a “big” listing day and a record listing day.
Obviously, many would like to know an objective answer to the question of what is a big listing day.
Thanks in advance for pointing out the cummulative data source or posting the results.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 5:03 pm 21
@shriller: who are the ‘other possible buyers’ in your scenario? How does the seller broadcast this information to them?
I’m saying the real issue in a down market with lots of foreclosures would be the lack of ‘other possible buyers’.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 5:16 pm 22
Mike Fotiou @ Calgary Real Estate Review offers his take on that Financial Post story and about CHMC ownership and foreclosure.
Here’s the link:
http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 5:22 pm 23
Just noticed that Mike has offered more info in the “Comment” section after the post – worth reading,too.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 5:23 pm 24
I found this in the comments section of Mick’s FP link:
Remaxed-Out whazzup • 5 hours ago
“I hardly feel the need to add anything to this or the CMHC story, Whazzup. As you know, my wife and I sold our house last spring, for three times what we bought it for in 1996. Having paid off our mortgage years ago, we are now renting in the same neighbourhood and have conservatively invested close to $1,000,000.00 in dividend paying stocks. While we do own another home, we felt we could not risk losing too much of our equity in real estate, so we diversified. We sleep much better at night. 2 questions for you: 1) Why is it so important for you to keep on trying to convince people that prices can only go up when they have corrected in so many other cities, countries and indeed in our cities, in our country, so many times before? And 2) Why would you encourage young couples to take on so much debt, Don’t you remember what happened in 1989? I sure do. Bidding wars, bully deals, a run up in prices… a major correction. And so many broken marriages. Why would you encourage such a thing?”
Hmmph. Wish I had $1,000,000 in dividend paying stocks. It’s interesting how comments on MSM sites are starting to resemble the ones on this site. The sheeple will be educated one way or another.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 5:53 pm 25
Real Life Example Says: “Last year we were considering buying in Kits and had our eye on V982432 when it was listed for $868,000. Today it is listed for $699,000.”
Yikes you were going to buy a basement suite for $868,000? If you want to live below grade just rent one for $900 per month.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 6:07 pm 26
Big article appearing today on Bloomberg site:
“Canada Losing Debt Halo as Property Peaks Under Carney”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-27/canada-losing-debt-halo-as-bull-market-housing-peaks-with-carney.html
Vancouver is mentioned, and be sure to read the last paragraph under “Exports Struggle” – makes you wonder what they are smoking in TO. They must love cranes in that city – or they have come to believe those pieces of metal are now their only measure of economic success.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 6:17 pm 27
I’m not sure the blame is solely with the CMHC BOD, I’d expect it goes higher, like the PMO. This smells just like Harper micromanaging and no message gets out of GoC these days without his office vetting.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
February 27th, 2013 at 6:28 pm 28
” Today it is listed for $699,000.”
Or for $31K less you can buy this SFH 2 blocks from the beach in San Francisco.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2534-46th-Ave-San-Francisco-CA-94116/15124364_zpid/
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
February 27th, 2013 at 6:48 pm 29
@19 Short’em
I believe some people on VCI have the daily sales #s from 2010 or even earlier.
I only have daily data from 2011 onwards, with gaps in data filled in via intrapolation/alternate data sources.
I’m not sure if 2 years is enough data to do the Std Dev, mean, avg etc.
Lets see if someone has a more complete set of daily stats.
Otherwise email me at greaterfoolvancouver(at)gmail.com and I’ll send you a direct link to the daily #s of the last 2 years, once I clean up the data (right now not very organized).
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 7:00 pm 30
New Listings 221
Price Changes 83
Sold Listings 102
TI:15678
http://www.paulboenisch.com
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
93 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 7:03 pm 31
Speaking of Kits townhouse, what happened to that Philip Chan’s Kitlanno townhouse featured on Vancouver housing bublbe?
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 7:03 pm 32
I think the competition bureau should have an opinion in this. They’ve gone after the CREA a few times for ‘anti-competitive’ behaviour:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/02/01/competition_bureau_sets_sights_on_industry_associations.html
I believe that this move by the CMHC creates a very anti-competitive imbalance in the property market. It would mean that it’s easy for Realtors or those directly involved in the real estate industry to find foreclosed property but it would no longer be easy for the general public to find out which properties are in foreclosure.
I also believe it introduces a real risk of a prolonged downturn. The foreclosure process is about finding market value and quickly clearing out inventory where buyers can no longer afford it. By meddling in this process they may delay the speed of price collapse, but it certainly wouldn’t prevent it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 7:22 pm 33
Wow, VCI made Garth Turner talk about CMHC today:
http://www.greaterfool.ca/
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
3
February 27th, 2013 at 7:26 pm 34
“Hoda Seraji is experiencing Vancouver’s housing slowdown firsthand. Seraji blames fading interest from foreign investors, especially in China. Changes to Canada’s mortgage rules have accelerated the sales drop, she says.”
Haha. The downturn is just beginning and the specs & pumpers are already blaming the absence of HAM and easy credit. So much for the “strong fundamentals” they kept touting during the boom!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 7:52 pm 35
Here is a little abstract form the article I wrote back in April last year. It helps understand why CMHC is so screwed and taking desperate measure to avoid what is inevitable, bankruptcy… It won’t take long for it to happen, unfortunately.
CMHC is indeed Canada’s dirty little secret. People don’t realize yet how big this issue is going to become in a year or two from now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 8:29 pm 36
@#32 Not sure if we Made Garth talk about CMHC, but one thing’s likely true, that Garth uses our data:
“the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board recorded just 1,666 sales of all properties in the first 26 days of the month, compared with 2,302 during the same time last year”
- the 1,666 number is the exact sum of paulB’s daily numbers up until yesterday. As we know, the daily sales numbers slowly add up until very end of day, which explains some discrepency between paulB’s numbers and say, Rob Chipman’s. For Garth to obtain the 1,666 sales Feb data, either him or his staffs are most likely regulars at VCI.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 8:33 pm 37
Not sure how Garth thinks it would affect the bidding process, given the court proceedings where bids are presented to the judge. But I say that having never bought a foreclosure, so perhaps he knows something I don’t.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
February 27th, 2013 at 8:35 pm 38
Relax guys, we’re different here. Canadians are more conservative than Americans. There’s no subprime, we require downpayments so our buyers are great savers, and people are really rich here. There is no one who’s stretching their finances to buy RE. Besides the Chinese will soon come and 2 bedroom condos in Coquitlam will be $1m soon.
sequel138.com
“Sequel 138′s Affordable Homeownership (AHO) Model provides the downpayment support that many home purchasers do not have.
The equity for the purchase is being provided by Sequel138. Sequel138 will register a 2nd mortgage against the property to secure the loan which will be equal to 10% of the purchase price. There will be no interest and no payments required until such time as the home is sold or the 1st mortgage is renegotiated. CMHC* has approved this form of down payment for the Sequel 138 project.”
Among the examples are a designer with $0 down payments, a service worker with $3000 and a couple with $11000. All buying 1 bed condos about 5-5.5x their income.
It seems like they have an income band restrictions (no one making above 65k), so everyone pretty much maxed out their mortgage (30% gross salary). A whole building chock full of underwater, maxed-out average Joe a short walk away from Pain and Wastings and Rennie Marketing System.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 8:38 pm 39
“So why does the CMHC not want you to know about foreclosure status? Because then you might be tempted to bid on cold logic rather than emotion.”
No, because CMHC is run by idiots. I actually think having a property advertised as a foreclosure helps market the property. There is a reason there are websites dedicated to this. Everyone wants a good deal on what they buy and a foreclosure sounds like a sale even though it will still go to the highest bidder and must meet a price acceptable to the lender the same as every other property. Having foreclosure in the listing will bring more people to look at the property thinking they can get a good deal and this may end up getting a higher price. It is the same logic realtors list ‘motivated seller’ in listings or retail stores have ‘blow out sale’ in their window every day. Having a place listed as a foreclosure is a great way to attract more potential buyers to look at the property. CMHC is just too stupid to realize it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
18 
0
February 27th, 2013 at 9:34 pm 40
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
16
February 27th, 2013 at 9:51 pm 41
But these are the high-sale spring months. MOI will almost definitely trend upwards from the end of spring onwards. And this snowball will continue to grow heavier and faster as it rolls ever farther down the hill.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
3
February 28th, 2013 at 2:24 am 42
“It helps understand why CMHC is so screwed and taking desperate measure to avoid what is inevitable, bankruptcy…”
Bailout, not bankruptcy. CMHC’s obligations are guaranteed by the taxpayer.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
3
February 28th, 2013 at 6:16 am 43
CMHC Control to Major MAC
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Brenda?
Can you hear me, Major Cam?
Can you hear me, Major Muir?
Can you….
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
February 28th, 2013 at 8:33 am 44
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
13
February 28th, 2013 at 9:45 am 45
“No crash last spring. No crash this spring. Wait till next year again?”
So you were the guy saying the same thing in the USA in years one and two of their crash.
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
1
February 28th, 2013 at 9:48 am 46
There is no need to feel like a victim by the CMHC, instead…
I filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau of Canada today against the CMHC. This can be done easily online
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/home
I encourage you all to do so:
I listed Karen Kinsley, CEO of CMHC as the person I was filing a complaint against.
My letter:
To the relevant individuals in your organization,
A home sale in Canada is effectively a business transaction in which each home seller and each home buyer strive for a fair competitive price. Tampering of such systems should fall under your jurisdiction and should be enforceable by your agency.
A reminder: The Competition Act is a federal law aimed at preventing anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. This has been taken from your website.
If the above is true, then why is the CMHC allowed to mask seller information, effectively creating an asymmetric market place? The actions of the CMHC that I am referring to are chronicled in the following Financial Post article:
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/27/cmhc-seeking-to-hide-foreclosure-information-from-home-buyers/?__lsa=3e89-42d0
I expect an explanation of the actions that you will undertake to rectify this matter. Unfortunately, I also expect you to state that this matter is not in your jurisdiction, please prove me wrong.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
1
February 28th, 2013 at 10:15 am 47
…..This smells just like Harper micromanaging and no message gets out of GoC these days without his office vetting….
Especially true given the the uptick in cattle mutilations and the increase in importation of tin foil chapeaus.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
February 28th, 2013 at 10:41 am 48
@real_professional: filed a complaint as well. thanks for the instructions.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
February 28th, 2013 at 4:28 pm 49
Welcome back, Vancouver Condo Info! You’re missing the fun over at Whispers from the Edge of the Rainforest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
February 28th, 2013 at 8:01 pm 50
Why so many problems with the site?
Some ruffled feathers?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
February 28th, 2013 at 10:09 pm 51
from paulB (who just posted his first post at the forum!):
New Listings 174
Price Changes 102
Sold Listings 70
TI:15738
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
February 28th, 2013 at 11:02 pm 52
Who was the Sr. Manager who resigned?
Seriously, no one quit. Just more lies and deceit
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
February 28th, 2013 at 11:11 pm 53
Larry posted Vancouver West SFH Feb 1-28 Sold prices. 71 units, not sure if these are all the SFH that sold in Van West though.
http://www.yattermatters.com/2013/02/hair-cut/
He’ll probably post Feb average price graph tomorrow. As YVR2ZRH pointed out, we shouldn’t be surprised if Avg price goes up due to skewed sale-mix in the low sample-size environment.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
March 1st, 2013 at 8:22 am 54
Hello and goodbye to the 2012 RRSP contribution deadline. This survey from BMO about RRSP contribution habits is making the rounds in the news today:
Such a wild variation in intentions to contribute reeks to me of bad survey methodology. Looking at the report,
For starters, it just lumped “people who intend to contribute” with “people who actually did contribute” (both in terms of numbers and dollars). Reading closely, it seems that this (bad) methodology was consistent with last year, but with language that vague it’s hard to know.
Once again we have pseudo-statistics being used to push out barely concealed advertising, this time for BMO’s mutual funds. Just in case you were under the impression that the real estate industry is alone in this…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
March 1st, 2013 at 9:50 am 55
Since I’m talking to myself –
The other hilarious thing about the whole Laura McLaren debacle is the reception that the fictional design is getting. This design was done by FX40 Building Design Corporation. They are quick to point out that they are not architects but have a background instead in interior design — so presumably the interior design would be well conceived, even if the building isn’t expected to remain free-standing as designed?
The UK Daily Mail was one of the outlets mistaking the renderings for an actual building, and their commentary dug a pretty deep hole for FX40′s visionary expertise to climb out of:
Other descriptors include “monstrous” and “interior disaster”.
Journalistic mistakes or not, FX40′s images feature pretty heavily in the article and I doubt it’s the reaction FX40 intended to provoke.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
March 1st, 2013 at 12:29 pm 56
Yeah, I really don’t know what poor ol’ Laura was thinking. Probably acting under the (mistaken) impression that any news coverage is good coverage, she went ahead with the sky-high $38,000,000 asking price and fake palace pics just to drum up some media attention for the property.
Well, mission accomplished…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0