|
Magnetic North posted:So I know that renting is not throwing money away. But there is a part of me that looks at the rent costs on these places and says, "That has to be similar to a house payment." And whenever I drop it into a calculator, it says to buy or at least that it will be cheaper / less terrible. Is there a sort of parallel where if it costs the same, the house is always better because of the gained equity? Or is it muddled up by the additional unseen costs? Many people who say "well obviously buying is cheaper" usually haven't done a thorough accounting. poo poo like maintenance and insurance often escapes notice, and then there's the opportunity cost of having all of your money tied up in a house, and most people don't seem to attach any value to their time (how many times per year as a renter do you have to mow a lawn or clean a gutter?) The rule of thumb numbers (2.5x gross income for instance) are completely worthless, do not actually make serious financial decisions with them. Always make a budget and always make a thorough accounting of what it will cost to b a homeowner PMI only matters in terms of how well you're able to afford home ownership. You can refinance, but refinancing isn't free, and if interest rates have risen then you may not even want to refinance. PMI also goes away at 78% original LTV typically. The real problem is that if your down payment is low enough to require PMI then you're building almost no equity in those early years so your financial situation is way more precarious, so you're more likely to be worse off when you need to sell than if you had put down 20 percent or not bought a house.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
Magnetic North posted:So I know that renting is not throwing money away. But there is a part of me that looks at the rent costs on these places and says, "That has to be similar to a house payment." And whenever I drop it into a calculator, it says to buy or at least that it will be cheaper / less terrible. Is there a sort of parallel where if it costs the same, the house is always better because of the gained equity? Or is it muddled up by the additional unseen costs? QuarkJets had a great reply but I thought i'd add some info to digest about PMI- PMI cost is rated depending on risk, so you could have less cost per month in PMI depending on your scenario (ex: 740 score with 10% down has a lower cost per dollar borrowed versus 700 score, or 5% down). Also, typically PMI is tax deductible so long as your income is less than 100K/year (a plus, but this could change soon). The actual way they calculate PMI cost is rather confusing, but that's the basics. So lets say you just saved up a little bit of money but have junk credit and plan to make a bunch of money per year soon. PMI might be money in the fire (and may be a BUNCH of money in the fire if you are sub 700). When you look at a mortgage quote, the APR is calculated to include PMI in the totals, so its a good indicator of the actual cost of financing. One nice thing about having a mortgage is you have a fairly stable payment (don't have to worry about payments skyrocketing like with rents in certain areas). Anyway sorry to just jump in - hi folks
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
vanisher posted:
It may be worth pointing out even this isn't a guarantee. Unless you're in California owning in a hot market can be a bad thing if you have no desire to move, your property taxes are going to go up along with your home value. Sure the extra wealth on your theoretical balance sheet is nice but unless you actually sell it doesn't mean a thing. Annual $100/month mortgage increases when you take into account your escrow though rare are just as possible as annual $100/month rent increases. If your salary doesn't keep pace you can see yourself priced out of a home all the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
The rule of thumb is that buying and renting break even after seven years in most metro areas. You need to run the numbers for your specific situation, the rule of thumb only works for an average person with an average income in an average city. Use the N.Y. Times rent vs buy calc and use actual numbers for things like insurance and tax and interest rate and how long before you move. A lot of the time you can rent a more affordable place than you could buy if you are in a lower cost area. Like rent a one bedroom apartment in an area where condos aren't common. So even if buying a similar unit would be better, you have to look at what is available.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
I don't think any argument that "buying is actually cheaper!" has ever accounted for the costs of maintenance and repairs. Roofs, HVAC systems, plumbing systems, and weather sealing are all systems with finite lifespans that need regular maintenance. Keeping them in good working order costs, and replacing them costs more. If you can't save up 20% for a house, you probably also can't save up the as much as $10k for replacing one of these systems when they poo poo the bed. If you don't have that money on hand you likely end up borrowing it, and that is a monthly cost that just tacked onto your "cheaper than renting" line item. Basically, do never buy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:I don't think any argument that "buying is actually cheaper!" has ever accounted for the costs of maintenance and repairs. Roofs, HVAC systems, plumbing systems, and weather sealing are all systems with finite lifespans that need regular maintenance. Keeping them in good working order costs, and replacing them costs more. I think people that have never been a landlord, and therefore had to very carefully account for all maintenance both in time and cost, have trouble understanding that there is a lot more to home ownership than paying the mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Each year of ownership it becomes a little more favorable to own a house than rent, since your rent will increase annually at a much faster rate than your housing expenses do because your mortgage costs are fixed. Depending on the region the number of years can vary pretty wildly, but in a hypothetical ultra efficient rental/real estate market like a busy city I wouldn't be surprised if the 7 years that someone mentioned earlier is just about right. I also feel like almost everyone who owns a home will have a nicer living situation than the comparable rental, because they will want to make improvements and fix things in a good way instead of just the cheapest way possible. As a landlord I would buy the cheapest discount versions of a stainless steel appliances possible with no regard for energy efficiency or noise or quality, but as an owner I would pay extra for actual nice things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Droo posted:Each year of ownership it becomes a little more favorable to own a house than rent, since your rent will increase annually at a much faster rate than your housing expenses do because your mortgage costs are fixed. Mortgage costs are only fixed if you aren't including the interest tax deduction in your budgeting. Many people do that. (It's also not always fixed outside the US. In Canada mortgages are often 5 years, so you are exposed to medium-term interest rate risk.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Droo posted:Each year of ownership it becomes a little more favorable to own a house than rent, since your rent will increase annually at a much faster rate than your housing expenses do because your mortgage costs are fixed. Depending on the region the number of years can vary pretty wildly, but in a hypothetical ultra efficient rental/real estate market like a busy city I wouldn't be surprised if the 7 years that someone mentioned earlier is just about right. This is what I meant before about YOLO. Yes the most financial responsible thing to do is live in a dinghy lovely apartment, but owning a home has some really awesome highs (and costly lows) that make me enjoy life more than when I rented. It's kind of like having a kid, really. Yeah don't do it for the tax breaks, since it will end up costing you a lot more - do it for the lifestyle that you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:If you can't save up 20% for a house, you probably also can't save up the as much as $10k for replacing one of these systems when they poo poo the bed. If you don't have that money on hand you likely end up borrowing it, and that is a monthly cost that just tacked onto your "cheaper than renting" line item. 20% down is a lot more than 10K and lots of people are even in a situation where it is a smarter move to put less than 20% down so they can have that last $10k as a buffer. Most first time buyers don't put 20% down. It isn't any more of a "rule" than the 3 times income "rule".
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
We're years away from buying, but being home sick for a week lets me do all kinds of daydreaming. On the financial end, what's different about buying some land and putting a trailer/manufactured home/ building on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:20% down is a lot more than 10K and lots of people are even in a situation where it is a smarter move to put less than 20% down so they can have that last $10k as a buffer. Most first time buyers don't put 20% down. It isn't any more of a "rule" than the 3 times income "rule". It's a rule that has an actual direct correlation to a social reality, which is that as soon as you are below 20% equity mortgage lenders will not issue you a loan without PMI on top of interest. If you can find a lender who won't make you pay for PMI to get a greater than 80% loan then you should move the 20% goal post to whatever LTV ratio they'll still exempt you from PMI on. Most lenders use 20%, but really you should have enough equity to avoid PMI. Mortgage costs definitely aren't fixed, either: - As Subjunctive pointed out, the tax deduction for mortgage interest will decrease each year, meaning that your individual income tax liability will increase each year all other values being held constant. - If your home appreciates you will get a local government assessment that WILL increase your property taxes, and if you have a mortgage, this WILL increase your mortgage payments. - If your home depreciates you will likely NOT get a local government assessment that will decrease your property taxes significantly. Which isn't a constant cost, but is a constant drain on your cash flow out of proportion with your illiquid asset. - If you have a mortgage the mortgagor will demand you have homeowners insurance to insure their collateral, and the price of that insurance policy will not be constant. It will likely go up over time to account for inflation, and other factors like appreciation and demographic risk profiles can cause it to increase. By all means get a house if you plan to live in a place a long time, or if you want it and can afford it after soberly calculating costs. But don't treat it as a financial decision that strictly dominates renting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:It's a rule that has an actual direct correlation to a social reality, which is that as soon as you are below 20% equity mortgage lenders will not issue you a loan without PMI on top of interest. If you can find a lender who won't make you pay for PMI to get a greater than 80% loan then you should move the 20% goal post to whatever LTV ratio they'll still exempt you from PMI on. Most lenders use 20%, but really you should have enough equity to avoid PMI. You can get two mortgages to avoid PMI and it's very common and not a big deal. You get one 80% standard loan and one whatever% shorter term loan - this bypasses PMI without having to deal with refinancing later and you can pay off the shorter loan as soon as you like. Dwight Eisenhower posted:- As Subjunctive pointed out, the tax deduction for mortgage interest will decrease each year, meaning that your individual income tax liability will increase each year all other values being held constant. 1. This increases at like 1/3rd the rate you are increasing your home equity payments though - so for every $1 extra you pay in tax based on current rules (and who knows what the deductions will look like 10, 20 years from now) you are actually saving $3-$4 more in home equity depending on your marginal tax rate. So you might be spending $50 more a month (than year 0) in income tax, but saving $200 more a month (than year 0) in home equity. 2. Property taxes are more favorably capped for actual homeowners in a lot of states than for landlords/renters - and eventually the increased property taxes will show up in the form of increased rent, unless you don't believe that markets are eventually kind of efficient. In Nevada for example, my property tax is capped to a 3% increase as a homeowner but as a landlord the cap would be 8%. My property tax is currently capped to like 60% of the assessed value, so it will be 15 years before I get to 100% as an owner. It would only take like 6 years to get there as a landlord, and since that's true all over the state I expect rents to rise to account for it. Which has been true the last couple years here. 3. This is also true for landlords/rentals. 4. This is also true for landlords/rentals and the insurance is typically more expensive (I think) than it would be for an owner occupied dwelling. Like, there are lots of benefits to renting and there are lots of benefits to owning, and depending on your local market for each you could do a pretty nice comparison of the financial picture of each in addition to the lifestyle advantages each offers - but acting like property tax and insurance costs don't influence the lease rates seems like a weird hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Home equity doesn't affect cash flow, and doesn't benefit you unless you sell or decide to play with a HELOC (or refi, but then you're exposed to interest rate risk).
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Home equity doesn't affect cash flow, and doesn't benefit you unless you sell or decide to play with a HELOC (or refi, but then you're exposed to interest rate risk). Once you accumulate enough home equity, you won't have to pay the mortgage anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Droo posted:Once you accumulate enough home equity, you won't have to pay the mortgage anymore. Sounds great, unless you're in one of the high property tax states where your property tax and homeowners insurance were more than half of the PITI anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Droo posted:Once you accumulate enough home equity, you won't have to pay the mortgage anymore. I'm well aware. Do you think it's relevant to the comparison being made?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'm well aware. Do you think it's relevant to the comparison being made? This conversation started with me pointing out that every year you own a home, it becomes financially a little better compared to renting in a decently efficient real estate market. So I would say that a large drop off in your monthly expenses after 15 or 30 years is pretty relevant. How could it possibly not be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Droo posted:This conversation started with me pointing out that every year you own a home, it becomes financially a little better compared to renting in a decently efficient real estate market. So I would say that a large drop off in your monthly expenses after 15 or 30 years is pretty relevant. It doesn't become a little better every year from an affordability perspective. It becomes a lot better all at once after 15 or 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It doesn't become a little better every year from an affordability perspective. It becomes a lot better all at once after 15 or 30 years. Ah, I see what you are confused about now (I thought you were some kind of finance person so I couldn't figure out what you were talking about at first). For simple purposes because I don't feel like typing a lot let's say housing costs break down into (cost of house + non cost of house stuff like taxes and repair). Let's say they break down 50/50 in an average year and inflation is 2%. Each year, your rent will go up 2% because inflation, but your housing costs will only go up 1% because inflation is only affecting the second half of the expenses. In addition to that, you get a big cliff at the end of 15 or 30 years as we discussed earlier. So even though the cost of ownership likely starts you in a hole the first year, each year it gets a little less bad/better to own than rent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
RabbitMage posted:We're years away from buying, but being home sick for a week lets me do all kinds of daydreaming. Most towns will not allow you to buy land and drop a trailer on it because it looks like poo poo, and they'll often be picky about prebuilts. I don't agree with that sort of NIMBY philosophy but it is what it is. Buying an existing house I believe is almost always cheaper than a manufactured home anyway. You're buying a used house vs. a brand new built-to-order house that needs to be shipped and some assembly required. If it really saved money and was easy to OK with towns, you'd see a lot more of it, but at least here in Massachusetts I believe it's super rare and that speaks volumes for the viability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Lease rates are set in the space market, where supply and demand for space set prices, while landlord insurance and property taxes only affect the feasibility of new construction/conversion of space, iteratively affecting rental rates. It's not a case of a landlord getting a property tax increase and having the tenant reimburse them, but rather a tax increase affecting landlord profits and a knock on effect on future supply. If a landlord could raise rents, they will, regardless of what their property taxes are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Droo posted:Ah, I see what you are confused about now (I thought you were some kind of finance person so I couldn't figure out what you were talking about at first). Ah, I thought you meant absolutely decreased, rather than relative to renting. That makes sense, thanks. (I am sort of a finance person, but I don't have a mortgage on my current house and didn't consider renting so I didn't do inflation-adjusted math.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Most towns will not allow you to buy land and drop a trailer on it because it Fixed. Also, most of the costs of a house are actually in the land, services, and other infrastructure. You see all this stuff about tiny houses and poo poo that "only cost $20,000". Except the lot costs $100,000, the septic system or sewer hookup costs $30,000, the water well/water service costs $10,000, etc etc. By the time you're done, the bulk of the cost of a house in expensive markets isn't so much tied to the structure itself. When I rented in a very desirable market down near Philly, one of the houses on my street was rebuilt for like $80k, and sold for over $500,000. Real estate is hosed and for some reason I think part of the problem is way too much credit. If you look at median incomes, and average home prices in many areas, it seems like many folks way overbought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:If you look at median incomes, and average home prices in many areas, it seems like many folks way overbought. It's almost like we didn't learn from 2008! At least I'm getting a multifamily so when I overextend my credit to my last dime I can say I'm an "investor".
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Also, most of the costs of a house are actually in the land, services, and other infrastructure. You see all this stuff about tiny houses and poo poo that "only cost $20,000". Except the lot costs $100,000, the septic system or sewer hookup costs $30,000, the water well/water service costs $10,000, etc etc. I wish more people understood this. These tiny house people are the worst and all have this master plan of somehow mooching these services or just outright don't even know that and approval for septic takes months, well drilling is a totally variable cost depending on how far they have to go to get an appropriate refresh, there is nowhere to put the pressure tank and associated equipment for the well in your homebuilt RV, and that perfect rural lot you found for $5,000 doesn't have power, may not be able to be serviced with power, and if it does it will cost $5,000-25,000 to do it. It also likely doesn't have a legal easement for this power or even your own access to the property.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I wish more people understood this. These tiny house people are the worst and all have this master plan of somehow mooching these services or just outright don't even know that and approval for septic takes months, well drilling is a totally variable cost depending on how far they have to go to get an appropriate refresh, there is nowhere to put the pressure tank and associated equipment for the well in your homebuilt RV, and that perfect rural lot you found for $5,000 doesn't have power, may not be able to be serviced with power, and if it does it will cost $5,000-25,000 to do it. It also likely doesn't have a legal easement for this power or even your own access to the property. See, that's why I'm building a solar RV as a side project. It's basically a super-insulated U-Haul with a vacuum-insulated panels, a composting toilet, 5000 watts of solar panels with two slide-out rack canopies, and a shower that filters, UV sterilizes and loops the water back through it. It really is possible now to make a four-seasons RV that can go off-grid on both electric/water for indefinitely, but you gotta be willing to drop over 100k on it. The Tiny House people can sometimes be obsessed with "saving" money by building it cheap when in fact going  on insulation and energy efficiency you can cut the tethers of electrical/water hookups and really park anywhere.This guy got closer than anyone else so far, but I'm planning to top him: https://www.treehugger.com/tiny-houses/leaf-3-tiny-house-designed-seriously-cold-climates.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
I can throw another nice factor into the rent vs buy discussion: where I live, you can get a state tax credit (not a deduction) for the rent you pay throughout the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Re: buying land vs. buying a house, we would be looking for a couple of acres in a more rural space. Don't know if that makes a difference. We're not planning to put a tiny house on a city lot and jerk ourselves off over how smart we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
RabbitMage posted:Re: buying land vs. buying a house, we would be looking for a couple of acres in a more rural space. Don't know if that makes a difference. We're not planning to put a tiny house on a city lot and jerk ourselves off over how smart we are. The infrastructure parts can get dramatically more expensive in rural areas, unfortunately. Just be sure to live somewhere where you can safely drink the well water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:The infrastructure parts can get dramatically more expensive in rural areas, unfortunately. Just be sure to live somewhere where you can safely drink the well water. My entire family once got norovirus or something similar from our well, so water safety is at the forefront of my mind. Mostly I'm curious about the way loan options might differ when you're buying land and building, and what can be used toward building costs and all of that. Odds are we can find a house with land on it that we like, but this is another road I'm aware we could take and might be worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:See, that's why I'm building a solar RV as a side project. It's basically a super-insulated U-Haul with a vacuum-insulated panels, a composting toilet, 5000 watts of solar panels with two slide-out rack canopies, and a shower that filters, UV sterilizes and loops the water back through it. Even with all this, in many states you still have to deal with getting a certificate of occupancy and being able to legally live in the place. Most municipalities, even rural ones, around me have ordinances forbidding long-term occupation of "temporary structures" like RVs. And permanent structures have to meet code. Sure, you can try and get a variance but that's another hurdle. Building a traditional house nowadays on a rural lot is NOT cheap. Want a long driveway so you can live back in the woods on your nice lot? Well now you're skirting around an acre of disturbance during construction. Let me introduce you to the NPDES permit...
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Droo posted:You can get two mortgages to avoid PMI and it's very common and not a big deal. You get one 80% standard loan and one whatever% shorter term loan - this bypasses PMI without having to deal with refinancing later and you can pay off the shorter loan as soon as you like. The advantage here is almost entirely psychological though, unless you're that rare person with ridiculous income but no money and needing to buy a house right this instant. For most people it's just PMI by another name
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The advantage here is almost entirely psychological though, unless you're that rare person with ridiculous income but no money and needing to buy a house right this instant. For most people it's just PMI by another name When I bought my first house in 2004 I did an 80/15 mortgage. The first mortgage was $184k at 5.5%, the second one was $34.5k at 6% for an extra "PMI by another name" of $14.37 per month. PMI would have been $133 per month according to my closing documents from 2004. On top of the ~90% savings, once the small loan was paid off it was just gone - I didn't have to argue with my primary lender about loan to value or get a new appraisal or anything. According to the PMI analysis my mortgage broker prepared, if I had put 10% down instead of 5% the second mortgage loan would have been 5%, which was actually cheaper than the primary loan was. PMI would have apparently been a little cheaper with 10% down, but the savings was still more than $100/month to go with the split loan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
I know I'm being lazy here - I apologize. As someone whose house is currently on the market (and purposefully slightly overpriced to try and snare aggressive Chinese investors and maximize $$) I'm wondering if any of you finance-types have an opinion on how this might change things for me and the market at large. It seems like easing some of the qualification barriers might be an effort to protect the market in case of higher interest rates but I'm not an underwriter. https://www.fanniemae.com/content/release_notes/du-do-release-notes-07292017.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Here are the two PMI tables I dug up from my closing that I referenced a couple posts above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Okay, sort of unrelated to my other talk, but what is the gooncensus on USDA loans? I ask because I went to see a rental (it was super cheap, but I don't think I'll get it for reasons) and talked to the realtor for a bit. I mentioned my quest to get someone to kick me in the nuts. I knew that he wouldn't discourage home buying, but he had some thoughts, including getting a USDA loans rather than an FHA loan, because you don't need to have as much or any down payment. I read up on them and I don't think I can do it (income has not been consistent because of school / unemployement), but I am curious what you all think about them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Droo posted:When I bought my first house in 2004 I did an 80/15 mortgage. The first mortgage was $184k at 5.5%, the second one was $34.5k at 6% for an extra "PMI by another name" of $14.37 per month. PMI would have been $133 per month according to my closing documents from 2004. That's entirely YMMV; our eventual lender offered terms where the monthly payment on the 10 portion of an 80/10 was no better than paying PMI, so the only advantage would have been a tiny bit of savings from the deductible interest. We eventually threw up our hands and saved to 20% My real point though was about the pitfalls of having really high LTV, which are still there in your example
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Droo posted:When I bought my first house in 2004 I did an 80/15 mortgage. The first mortgage was $184k at 5.5%, the second one was $34.5k at 6% for an extra "PMI by another name" of $14.37 per month. PMI would have been $133 per month according to my closing documents from 2004. And how much less would the interest rate and closing costs been if you put 20% down? A 90/10 or 80/15/5, or an FHA loan or other loan with PMI will cost more in the long run than a conventional loan at 20% down because of the higher interest rate and closing costs. But you need to check the actual rates for mortgages because it all varies depending on your credit and other factors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
lampey posted:And how much less would the interest rate and closing costs been if you put 20% down? A 90/10 or 80/15/5, or an FHA loan or other loan with PMI will cost more in the long run than a conventional loan at 20% down because of the higher interest rate and closing costs. But you need to check the actual rates for mortgages because it all varies depending on your credit and other factors. I feel like "20% down" is great advice if you're a) pulling in a ton of money, b) have wealthy parents, c) are living in the 1990s. We aren't our parents, and are stuck trying to buy in the economy they created, which--from everything I can see--for most of us will involve additional cost, and additional risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 00:23
|
|
