September 28, 2011

Loan Limits Set To Fall From $729,750 To $625,000 In San Francisco

As we reported two weeks ago:

While industry groups furiously lobby, it’s now t-minus two weeks until the super/jumbo conforming loan limits that provide for federally backed mortgages up to $729,750 in high cost areas like San Francisco are set to expire on September 30.
As we first reported two weeks ago, it would appear as though Obama’s administration has changed its position and would now support a two-year extension despite the Treasury Department’s recommendation to let the limits reset lower.
Co-sponsored by California Senator Diane Feinstein, the Homeownership Affordability Act of 2011 which would extend the higher loan limits through the end of 2013 has been referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs but hasn't made much progress since being introduced at the beginning of August.

With two days to go, we’re calling it 99 percent certain that super conforming loan limits are dead in the water and the upper limit for qualifying loans in San Francisco will officially drop from $729,750 to $625,500, having effectively been in place for a month.

While we don’t expect the change to have a radical impact on the market, we do expect to see an impact on liquidity and values in the $650,000 to million dollar segment due to potentially higher down payment requirements and rates.

T-Minus Two Weeks Until Higher Loan Limits Set To Expire [SocketSite]
If Lowering Rates Isn’t Working, Perhaps Increasing Limits Will [SocketSite]
Conforming Loan Limit Extension Gains Obama's Support [SocketSite]
Homeownership Affordability Act of 2011 [loc.gov]

First Published: September 28, 2011 12:30 PM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

they already fell - banks haven't been offering these in anticipation of this. the only question was whether or not they would be reinstated.

[Editor’s Note: As we wrote above, “the upper limit for qualifying loans in San Francisco will officially drop from $729,750 to $625,500 in two days, having effectively been in place for a month." That being said, keep in mind that the failure to extend the higher limits still might have caught some people by surprise...]

Posted by: hangemhi at September 28, 2011 1:20 PM

I would say this is the first time the US Gov hasn't heeded to industry (financial/real estate/builder) pressure.

Trying to make housing more affordable in terms monthly payments has resulted into making it more expensive in real dollars purchasing value, which is counter-productive in the long run and ends up costing the US tax payer billions in bailout money.

Better let the Government out of the RE financing business altogether, though we do not have much choice today as the private sector is essentially moribund.

Posted by: lol at September 28, 2011 1:21 PM

One thing to note about this is that it will affect more counties than just the ones who currently have limit between $625K and $729K.

The reduction will only affect loans between $625K & $729K in SF, but the reduced loan limits will affect 669 counties nationwide.

For example in Worcester County, Massachusetts the current FHA loan limit is $385,000. Starting October 1st it will go down to $285,200: a $99,800 drop. Full article.

Posted by: lyqwyd at September 28, 2011 1:22 PM

Thank god. There is zero reason or rationale for the government backing private mortgages of houses for rich people.

Especially given that this has done little but inflate a giant housing bubble, I'm delighted that the money will become that much more difficult to obtain.

Finally, intelligent use of economic signals.

Posted by: Embarcadero at September 28, 2011 1:27 PM

I'm curious what % of real estate transactions in this city are under $1MM in price? With a city median of $618K, it's probably the majority of volume mathematically. I know the D7 supremists have already dismissed this as a non-event (unlikely to affect the price of either of the $10MM mansions that sell this year, you see) but I think this moves the needle in the rest of SF and bay area, i.e. the real world. Guess we'll see over the next month or two.

Posted by: Legacy Dude at September 28, 2011 1:29 PM

"I would say this is the first time the US Gov hasn't heeded to industry (financial/real estate/builder) pressure."

I agree with you here that looking at these sorts of things is useful to gage the political winds. But given that this affected only a small fraction of the US limits how much I'd extrapolate from this to measures of nationwide impact. For a congressman, If this didn't affect a significant number of voters in your district it would seem like a no brainer to vote against the extension in the current climate.

Posted by: tc_sf at September 28, 2011 1:32 PM

"I'm curious what % of real estate transactions in this city are under $1MM in price? "

Not exactly what you asked, but I just read this post that claims that for San Jose about 9% of mortgages would be impacted by this change. They claim between 3-7% for unspecified "other areas". I'd assume that within a few days the chronicle or some other source will estimate something for SF.

http://www.housingwire.com/2011/09/27/do-no-harm-on-conforming-loan-limits

Posted by: tc_sf at September 28, 2011 1:37 PM

I agree with you here that looking at these sorts of things is useful to gage the political winds.

agreed. As we've discussed for some time, local RE around the country, although affected by ineependent variables, is to large part influenced by D.C. politics.

DC is all about (feigned) austerity these days, and thus these sorts of programs will all go on the chopping block.

part of the issue here is that the unconstitutional Gang of 12 haven't yet released their proposed austerity measures... nothing of substance will get done in DC until that fiasco plays itself out.

Posted by: ex SF-er at September 28, 2011 2:14 PM

The impact will come not from any specific issue, but more from the change in attitude.

Last year they were paying people to buy homes. This year, they couldn't even get the votes to keep up the loan limits.

Does that mean there will soon be an attempt to end the deductability of mortgage interest? A year ago, no way. Now? It's possible.

Look at Greece: the income tax wasn't enough and raising taxes could really tank an economy, so they enacted a national property tax to tax assets.

The great thing about houses is that many are leveraged. You can assess a 1% tax, but someone may only have $5000 in equity on a $500K home. So you essentially take the entire value of the home: thanks -- we'll take that now. 100% tax wrapped up in a 1% package. You have to take money from the people who have it: property owners are the next victims.

Posted by: tipster at September 28, 2011 2:25 PM

Per redfin (which uses the MLS and public databases), in the last 6 months there were 3,092 total sales of SFRs and condos/TICs in SF. 2,465 (80%) were for $1mm or less. 622 (20%) were for between 800k and 1.25mm, which is the sweet spot as far as being affected by this reduction goes. We can all debate what that effect will be.

By the way, only 288 (9.3%) were for $1.5mm or more. This is the type of home often featured on SS, but it is not even close to representative of SF as a whole.

Posted by: A.T. at September 28, 2011 2:28 PM

good point tipster (did i just say that?)

Editor - it's been a lot longer than 1 month that lenders like Wells Fargo haven't been offering the higher loan limits. 3 to 6 months is more like it for most loans and lenders

Posted by: hangemhi at September 28, 2011 2:44 PM

@tipster: that is correct; if the housing bubble ever popped the local governments would be crushed.

Greece knows that property owners own a captive asset; my bet is that that tax will not go away even after Greece defaults (December/January);

@AT: that's why I come here - to see how the rich live!

Posted by: wrath at September 28, 2011 2:47 PM

tipster - I agree - property owners are the next victims. In fact didn't SF just increase property tax rates a little bit. Likely only the beginning.

Posted by: ts364 at September 28, 2011 3:37 PM

This was expected and it is part of the grand plan to soft land real estate. Interest rates are pinned to the floor for the foreseeable future. It is a sign to me that the fed and govt see some stability in the market that they don't need every trick in the bag to prop up a market that is deflating in a somewhat controlled manner. Anyone that needed a refi and needed these extended limits got them; and housing stock has dropped to a decent level.

Eliminating the mortgage deduction will happen as soon as Prop 13 is repealed. At best they would phase it out over time by income levels. There are way too many people that are at the margins and reply on that deduction to make their finances work. This is as true at the $1M level as it is at the 100k level. So, they are not repealing this anytime soon.

Posted by: eddy at September 28, 2011 3:39 PM

"This was expected and it is part of the grand plan to soft land real estate."

Interesting that just a month ago when talking about Obama's support you wrote.

"I don't think this really matters one way or another in SF prime for SFHs. But it is certainly not a surprise; except for those that think we should must let the whole system collapse.

Posted by: Eddy at August 30, 2011 9:09 PM"

and hangemi

"i'm surprised this is a surprise to anyone... of course they are going to extend this.... who is going to complain? in the scheme of things this means nothing. we can use it here in SF, but this doesn't effect the majority of the country.

i also don't see the value in a free falling real estate market -"

Free faiilng market, whole system collapse?
Obama's support not a surprise?

Posted by: tc_sf at September 28, 2011 3:55 PM

the relevance of the mortgage deduction to high end real estate is probably about the same as of the superjumbo limit discussed here; prop 13 is probably far more important;

Posted by: wrath at September 28, 2011 3:56 PM

rates are so low now
jumbos are around 5%
will this make much of a difference?

Posted by: meep at September 28, 2011 4:23 PM

I asked a question about how this would impact rates at a recent finance. seminar. They said that if a loan fell out of conforming status, you would like see a rate rise of about .25%, possibly a little less. So a $700K loan @ 4.5% goes to 4.75%.

Anybody else have any other insight on this?

Posted by: Longtime-Lurker at September 28, 2011 4:35 PM

"I asked a question about how this would impact rates at a recent finance"

I'd guess that down payments and underwriting requirements will have a larger impact here then rates.

Posted by: tc_sf at September 28, 2011 4:45 PM

Ts364 wrote:

> tipster - I agree - property owners are the
> next victims. In fact didn't SF just increase
> property tax rates a little bit. Likely only
> the beginning.

Then wrath wrote:

> the relevance of the mortgage deduction to
> high end real estate is probably about the
> same as of the superjumbo limit discussed
> here; prop 13 is probably far more important

I keep waiting for prop 13 to go away for investment property (this is going to be a big tax increase for my parents that bought rental homes in Burlingame and San Mateo for under $40K and rental apartments in Burlingame and San Mateo for under $20K/unit). I am surprised it has lasted so long, but since unions give more to elected officials than property owners I'm sure that taxes will go up before $100K/year union pay goes down...

Posted by: FormerAptBroker at September 28, 2011 5:07 PM

I am surprised that they let this expire. One more uncertainty removed.

I agree with tc_sf that its the down payment and underwriting requirements that would impact the sales rather then rates.

Going ahead another headwind is the Mortgage deductions. Clarity on that would help define future sales.

Irrespective of all these regulations, local economy will be a big factor. Its booming now (don't know how long it will last).

Posted by: SFwatcher at September 28, 2011 5:13 PM

Thanks for re-posting my quote. I don't see how there is any conflict and in fact, seem quite consistent. I really don't think the loan limits make much a difference for Prime SF and I don't think this was a surprise at all. Obama is a pawn, bordering on lame duck status, here. He does not control fed policy and his support for anything right now is of dubious value. He's in a tough situation.

Posted by: eddy at September 28, 2011 5:32 PM

The thing with getting rid of the mortgage deduction is it only affects the middle and upper middle classes. The deduction is only available for the first $1 million of a loan, so for the rich it's of little value.

On one hand I will be shocked if they get rid of it, as there are just too many people who rely on it and will vote out their reps if it's eliminated. On the other hand since I believe the middle class is being targeted I wouldn't be surprised at all if the deduction is ended.

Posted by: lyqwyd at September 28, 2011 5:37 PM

From what I've read, looks like instead of outright ending of the mortgage tax deduction, there might be an overall cap of deductions, so some people might still get it and some (with investment properties) might not. Seems to me that the net result of that would be a complicated calculation for everyone to do before they buy a home, and a temptation for some in the business to reassure that the deduction will hold when it might not. In other words, less clarity about the most leveraged investment many will ever make which can't be a good thing.

Posted by: matlaw at September 28, 2011 6:50 PM

lyqwyd wrote:

> The thing with getting rid of the mortgage
> deduction is it only affects the middle and
> upper middle classes. The deduction is only
> available for the first $1 million of a loan,
> so for the rich it's of little value.

I just read something that says real rich people end up paying around a 20% federal tax rate, so for all the people with $1mm of debt on their home(s) it will mean they pay about $10K a year more in federal taxes (not enough to get most people on the Forbes 400 to start writing campaign checks and hiring lobbyists).
I just did a Google search and found a NAR report from 2010 that had the median price of a home in the US at $166K. If all the people with houses worth $166K and less had 100% financing at 5% the most interest they would pay (the people with $166K homes and home loans) would be $8,300. The 2011 Head of household standard deduction in $8,500 (higher if you are married), so it is safe to say that half of America is not real worried about the deduction ending.
The census reports that about 30% of the homes in America don’t have a mortgage so those people won’t be real upset if the deduction goes away. I’m guessing that it is less than 20% of America (with loans $250K to $999K) range that will care about the mortgage interest deduction ending. It may be “about 20% of America” but it is probably close to “about 80% of the people we know in the Bay Area”. One other reason it might go is that about 80% of people that take the mortgage interest deduction live in CA, NY, FL and CT (and it is hard to get Congress interested in something that does not help many of the people that vote for them.
I just looked for the state by state data on the MID but couldn’t find it. I did find this that some might find interesting:
http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/09/27/loan-limits-are-falling-but-does-it-matter/

Then matlaw wrote:

> From what I've read, looks like instead of
> outright ending of the mortgage tax deduction,
> there might be an overall cap of deductions,
> so some people might still get it and some
> (with investment properties) might not.

I have never heard (or read) any talk about taking away the mortgage interest deduction for investment properties since it is a business expense (in most cases the largest expense for investment property owners). There are a few examples I know of on income before expenses (like the gross rents tax they have in Davis, CA) but the federal government almost always taxes a business on income they keep after paying expenses.

Posted by: FormerAptBroker at September 28, 2011 8:19 PM

@ FormerAptBroker -- Consistant with your estimate a recent poll showed that support for the deduction is waning.

"Forty-nine percent of respondents in a Bloomberg National Poll said they were willing to give up the ability to deduct mortgage interest from their personal income taxes if it meant lower overall tax rates. Only 45 percent opposed the switch. That’s a sharp contrast with polling patterns of prior years, when the public showed 2-to-1 support for keeping the mortgage deduction. "

While it does seem that the deduction is no longer untouchable, 45% of the electorate is still a large chunk of voters to potentially alienate. Additionally, were I a politician I'd fear that even if eliminating the deduction didn't cause a further drop in housing, any such drop would be tied to my vote by opponents. Once housing bottoms and starts rising again seems like the safest time to vote for something like this.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/bloomberg-view-07012011.html

MID by state: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/26341.html

"I have never heard (or read) any talk about taking away the mortgage interest deduction for investment properties "

Perhaps matlaw meant second homes rather then investment properties.

Posted by: tc_sf at September 29, 2011 8:30 AM

ex-sfer: "unconstitutional Gang of 12"

In what way is the super committee unconstitutional? It just seems like so many people throw out the accusation that something is 'unconstitutional' just cause they think it is a bad idea.

Posted by: Rillion at September 29, 2011 9:28 AM

Tipster - re: Greece and taxes, there is a long history in Greece of people avoiding taxes by using cash for transactions, not just for goods but for services. Part of the reason for the new property tax is to create a tax system that is harder to avoid. I heard that the primary collection method of the new tax is going to be through utility bills.

Posted by: Rillion at September 29, 2011 10:10 AM

"part of the issue here is that the unconstitutional Gang of 12 haven't yet released their proposed austerity measures..."

I don't really understand when people call something they don't like "unconstitutional" (like Teabaggers usually do). Have you read the law? There's nothing unconstitutional about it -- it still requires a full vote by Congress and the whole "supercommittee" stuff has been overblown. Your comments are usually better than this, ex SF-er.

Posted by: sfrenegade at September 29, 2011 11:48 AM

Well, we're far from any recovery in the housing market.

REad this article: Mainstream Media Spins Real Estate Recovery:
http://usawatchdog.com/mainstream-media-spins-real-estate-recovery/

And the chart for San Francisco prices b/w 1987 and 2011, it's easy to see how we've entered a heavy correction, where 2009-2010 was a mini-rebound as you always expect them to happen, but now the new wave of recession hitting europe, the US, and part of Asia is going to take this lower. We have another 5 years of decreasing prices before entering into a price consolidation period:
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/san_francisco.html

Good luck selling houses!

Posted by: Jean Simenon at September 29, 2011 12:02 PM

66% of san francisco residents are renters.
most can't afford to by a house or condo anyway and this won't affect the folks buying homes in noe valley, forest hill and presidio hts.

Posted by: meep at September 29, 2011 2:45 PM

"most can't afford to by a house or condo anyway"

Very true. However, now, with higher interest rates, stricter underwriting, and higher down payment requirements for loans above $625k, some greater number of people will be unable to afford to buy a house or condo (unless prices fall further). How many more is the question.

Posted by: A.T. at September 29, 2011 3:15 PM

I just refi'd a $700k mortgage with 80% LTV at 4% for 30 years. As in, yesterday. I would say this change is likely to have little to no impact on the market. Underwriting and LTVs are unchanged from last year.

Posted by: Jimmy (No Longer Bitter) at September 29, 2011 4:40 PM

"I just refi'd a $700k mortgage with 80% LTV at 4% for 30 years. As in, yesterday. I would say this change is likely to have little to no impact on the market."

But do you think your lender would have allowed a 96.5% LTV like the FHA would?

I think the jump from 3.5% FHA to 20-30% down is significant for a great deal of people. In general, I don't think people have a great deal of cash or home equity to tap. My main question is how many people will step in to replace the people knocked out by this. i.e folks falling down from higher price points, coming in from out of area, newfound tech money....

Unlike the "millions of millionaires" sometimes tossed about, I think it becomes much more common for tech households to accumulate the six figure amount needed to make the jump above via options, grant, private market cash-outs and bonuses.

Posted by: tc_sf at September 29, 2011 5:41 PM

Thanks Jimmy. That's what I'm seeing too. The mortgage market baked this in a while ago. Also jumbos remain cheaper than they were during bubble years, and according to the guy who speaks to us every Wednesday morning about the lending market, bank interest in jumbos is increasing, not decreasing.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at September 29, 2011 5:44 PM

as far as FHA loans if buyers only have $26,5000 for a down payment maybe they should reconsider a $750,000 home

Posted by: meep at September 29, 2011 9:34 PM

NY times table today indicates 30-yr conforming rates are at 4.07% while 30-yr jumbo rates are at 4.82%. So jumbos are still low by historical standards (although not in real terms where they are quite high) but substantially higher than conforming rates. 3/4% on a $700,000 loan, coupled with a higher down payment requirement and tighter underwriting, is not insignificant.

If this lowering of the conforming limits were a non-event, you would not have seen furious lobbying by the real estate industry to stop it.

Posted by: A.T. at September 30, 2011 7:53 AM

"as far as FHA loans if buyers only have $26,5000 for a down payment maybe they should reconsider a $750,000 home"

I agree here. I was just guessing that many more people will be blocked by the down payment needed then the increase in rates.

With ~5% selling costs and as noted above ~1%/year property tax putting people in loans with 3.5% down seems more like leading them into a debt trap then actually helping them or adding stability to the housing market.

Note also that per this WSJ article, the FHA limit drop will affect 59% of the national housing stock vs 25% for the Fannie/Fredie drop.

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/09/30/six-questions-on-lower-loan-limits/

Posted by: tc_sf at September 30, 2011 9:25 AM

I think this is the most interesting part of that article:

--------
Can banks handle the uptick in loan volume? A Federal Reserve study released last week showed that just 1.3% of loans backed by Fannie and Freddie last year wouldn’t be eligible under the lower limits. Banks will certainly take on the new business, but the real question is, at what price?

The same paper showed that had the lower limits been in place last year, banks would have had to increase by 50% the amount of jumbo loans they made last year. That would mean banks would have increased by 20% the volume of all loans held on their books. The report concluded that those numbers are “substantial and suggest that at least some of these loans would not have been originated or would have been originated only at higher prices.”
--------

One thing to note about the 59% & 25% numbers is that while that is the percentage of housing in those combined counties, only a portion of the housing in those counties will be affected by the changes.

Overall I think the reduced limits is a good thing as it's a step closer to a sane housing market, but it will certainly put downward pressure on prices. It's just that nobody knows how much of an affect there will be.

Posted by: lyqwyd at September 30, 2011 11:11 AM

anon.ed said....."mortgage market baked this in"

Huh? The mortgage market is not a free market. It is controlled/manipulated by the gov't and the GSEs. The Gov't is the market! Their latest manipulation is Operation Twist. It is currently not a free market that "bakes in" or discounts events such as these. Is this what you tell your clients? Don't pretend like you know markets.

Fluj, I suggest you Google "POMO"

Posted by: guppy at September 30, 2011 4:55 PM

Dow in the 10,000s, oil in the 70s, gold in the 1600s, it sure feels like another recession brewing.

Tech spring 3.0 is stopped dead in its tracks with the market dying, and IPOs are now off the table.

Loan limits are down, but interest rate drops have almost negated any real impact from that in the short term.

Congress is paralyzed and the fed is running out of ammunition. Incomes are at 19961996 levels, adjusted for inflation, but heading down.

Hold on: looks like another wild ride ahead of us.

Posted by: tipster at September 30, 2011 7:33 PM

If the property is <$1M, who cares? If you need to borrow THAT much money, you probably can't afford and shouldn't be buying the place anyway.

Posted by: Pfffft at October 1, 2011 12:56 AM

"anon.ed said....."mortgage market baked this in"

Huh? The mortgage market is not a free market. It is controlled/manipulated by the gov't and the GSEs. The Gov't is the market! Their latest manipulation is Operation Twist. It is currently not a free market that "bakes in" or discounts events such as these. Is this what you tell your clients? Don't pretend like you know markets.

, I suggest you Google "POMO"

I don't understand why people like yourself think that I don't understand precisely what is going on in mortgage markets. Do you fancy yourself a peer? Talking at me in such a manner? Do you know what is and is not possible in lending, at any given moment in time? I find it humorous, and odd, that this site is always so "Teach me teach me show me (whomp) ouch, my feeding hand was just bitten"

Beg your pardon? What you have to say about things here, online, and what is and is not possible in the current lending market aren't synonymous.

"Baked in." -- Lending stopped doing superconforming 60 days ago. Jumbo continues to grow, and at relatively low rates. So yes, baked in.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 1, 2011 11:29 AM

In the last three months, the number of sales from $750K to $1M were 16.9% of the total. As of right now, the pending transactions in that range are only 13.7% of the total.

So, as a first, very rough cut, estimate, it knocked out about 19% of the buyers in that range.

Posted by: tipster at October 1, 2011 3:31 PM

More tellingly:

The number of listings in the $750K to $1M range is 18.5% of the total. Therefore, that is a disproportionate share of the market that just got 19% of its buyers eliminated.

Are the sellers getting the message that they are completely screwed? It appears they are. The percentage of price reductions in the last thirty days that are currently listed in the $650K to $950K range (and were therefore formerly in the 750-1M range or got pushed lower because of the competition from above) is 28%! Nearly a third of all price reductions were in this narrow band once the sellers knew the buyers would not be able to get loans.

That's quite a hit any way you slice it.

Posted by: tipster at October 1, 2011 3:54 PM

i think you are baked....nothing you said makes sense.

Posted by: guppy at October 3, 2011 4:28 PM

"So, as a first, very rough cut, estimate, it knocked out about 19% of the buyers in that range."

I'd posit that the impending limit drop caused some demand to be pulled forward. So I'd guess that you won't see a steady state for a few months.

As implied by guppy I'd also guess that the demand curve banks see for money is mostly flat so any increased demand for private loan money will most likely not result in a significantly increased spread over conforming rates.

Posted by: tc_sf at October 3, 2011 5:09 PM

"I'd assume that within a few days the chronicle or some other source will estimate something for SF."

Look's like Redfin stepped up.
They only analysed assuming GSE loans not FHA, which as they point out probably understated their numbers. But they provide a breakdown by neighborhood (and even an interactive map).

SF is the most affected city they looked at with 11% of sales affected. Castro & Bernal are at about 24%. Noe 17%. Mission 11%

http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2011/10/which_areas_will_be_most_affected_by_lending_policy_changes.html

Posted by: tc_sf at October 5, 2011 9:52 AM

I'm late to this, but just had to fire up the wayback machine once again and return to 2009 to see what certain knowledgeable folks on this site said.
From the thread on 214 Arguello:

If you think Barney Frank and crew are going to pull Jumbo Conforming any time soon you're either kidding yourself or trying to kid others…they'll quietly slip legislation speaking to another extension or permanence along with a concession to the GOP.
Posted by: anonn at December 29, 2009 9:47 AM
By now we all know what happened. The all-powerful Barney Frank was only Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee for just a bit over twelve more months after this comment was posted, and here we are a bit less than two years later and Jumbo Conforming has indeed "been pulled."

Guess I should recalibrate my personal idea of what constitutes "any time soon" now.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at October 14, 2011 6:27 PM

And it's all over, right? It's a wrap, first, and secondly, that was a bad guess given what government tends to do? That's your story? Yay. OK. Ya got me, Dr. Gotcha. Two mistakes on here so far. How are the rest of ya doing in comparison?

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 15, 2011 8:42 AM

Not to mention that there actually was an extension in between that post and yours

Posted by: [anon.ed] at October 15, 2011 10:57 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Before, After And "Appreciation" At (Or At Least For) The Heublein | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »