Talk:Foreclosure investment
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Incorrect Info?
[edit]>>With a fresh list of foreclosures, the next step is to contact home owners in foreclosure and begin working with them directly to stop the foreclosure proceedings.
this line is inapropriate for the subject Foreclosure investing. Contacting home owners only works in preforclosure. Actually, with a fresh list of foreclosures, the next step is to attend foreclosure auctions. Once a home is in foreclosure, the homeowner can't stop the homes foreclosure auction proceeding. --Icobi 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Article in need of revision
[edit]This article requires revision for accuracy, sourcing and grammatical errors. The general composition of the article does not lend credence to the author nor the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.234 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Specifically: The first sentence of the "Introduction to the foreclosure market" makes no sense, and should be revised for clarity.
"Foreclosure investment has become more important recently in response to skyrocketing real estate costs" - this is superfluous at best and completely untrue at worst.
"The average person nowadays needs to investigate all avenues to purchase real estate at a 'reasonable' cost." - The entire article contains broad assumptions that are composed as illogical sentence fragments and non-sensical trains of thought. Why is "reasonable" in single quotes?
"...there is an awful lot to know...", "...nowadays..." - these phrases serve no purpose.
"In addition, rejection can run high as foreclosures are stopped, doors are slammed, and telephones are hung-up on you." - Um... what?
"At this point, any attempts by the homeowner to borrow from public credit sources will be met with a negative response." - This sentence is so vague, that I'm not sure what is being communicated. In broad terms, however, this statement is absolutely false and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.163.234 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)