Rates Fall to 5% Range as Big Investor “Ban” Gains Support

Dave:
We are only a single week into 2026, and there is already so much news about the housing market. We’re talking about mortgage-backed security buying, a potential ban on institutional investors, and much more. We’re getting into all that on today’s episode of On the Market. Hey, everyone. I’m Dave Meyer here with Kathy Fettke, Henry Washington, and James Dainard for today’s episode of On the Market. Kathy, good to see you. Thanks for being here.

Kathy:
Good to see you. And congrats to Henry. Woo-hoo.

Dave:
Why are you congratulating Henry? You have to tell everyone.

Kathy:
Well, I’m sure they know, but Henry has been chosen to be your co-host on the big show and no one is more deserving. Henry’s just the best human in all ways. I mean, when we go out, I feel bad about myself because he gives the biggest tips to people and he just, oh, just the biggest heart.

Dave:
He does.

Kathy:
Yes.

Dave:
And yes, Henry, congratulations. Now you have to spend even more time with me, unfortunately. Thank you very

Henry:
Much. It’s very kind, Kathy.

James:
You’re the perfect pick, Henry.

Dave:
Yeah.

James:
That’s what we were just talking about before you hopped on. Thank you so much.

Dave:
Yeah. We’re very excited to have Henry, but nothing is changing, by the way, on this show. We’re all going to be here rambling in your ear very often here on the market. So nothing is changing with that, but you will be seeing Henry Moore on the BiggerPockets Real Estate Show, which we are all delighted about. But we’re here to talk about some news today. And man, there’s some slow weeks in news. There are times when we’re preparing for the show, there’s not that much to talk about. But man, there is a lot to talk about this week already in the first week of 2026. So let’s just jump right into it. Henry, you’re the man of the day, so you have to go first. Tell us what your news story is.

Henry:
Well, my news story is one of the hot button issues that’s been coming up over the past two days. It’s from CNN and it basically says that Trump says he wants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy 200 billion of mortgage bonds. And essentially, it sounds like what he’s trying to do is to get interest rates down. He’s talked about he wants them down for a long time now. And now I think we’re starting to see a little bit of what he might think is a plan to do that. So this would make them one of the largest buyers in the market overnight. And it should, should air quotes, increase demand for mortgage bonds immediately. More demand should essentially push yields down, lower yields, puts downward pressure on mortgage rates, and then hopefully that helps the consumer have lower monthly payments. The real question is, is that really going to work?

Dave:
It worked today. Mortgage rates went down. It’s the lowest since 2023. We got rates at 5.99 today. We have fives. Yeah. We’re in the fives, man. I know. There’s something psychological about it that feels a little good.

Kathy:
And we’re recording this on January 9th. So who knows where things will be?

Dave:
Yeah, because the market’s moving in anticipation of this coming true. We don’t know if it’s actually going to come true, but the market seems to think so. And so they went down 20 basis points. I read some analysis of this today where experts were saying this amount, $200 billion of buying would bring down rates 0.25. So we may have already seen all the benefit, just so everyone

Kathy:
Knows.

Dave:
It might not keep going down unless there’s more bond buying, but I’ll explain in a minute that there are limitations to the way they’re doing it right now.

Kathy:
So get your mortgage now. Yeah. Seriously get

Dave:
Lock in. It’s a good day to lock in a mortgage right now.

Kathy:
You can only manipulate the markets for so long. So take advantage now. I mean, I don’t know if you guys saw the GDP now with the Atlanta Fed, but it is showing over 5% GDP for Q4. Wow. Who knows? The GDP now is kind of a way to gauge the gross domestic product rather than having to wait every quarter. They keep up with it every week. And it is showing, I don’t know why, but a very robust Q4. And if that is true, then you wouldn’t see mortgage rates down. So take advantage now, man. This is just a brief manipulation of the market.

Henry:
Yeah. I mean, I don’t know if it sticks because this isn’t the only factors tied to mortgage rates going down. They’re still tied to inflation expectations. They’re still tied to the investor confidence in the housing risk and it’s tied to supply. And technically there’s still a shortage in supply. So I think if you factor in everything, if it works, doesn’t mean we’re going to see something with a two or three in front of it anymore. I think five is pretty stink, stinking good. So I agree with you. Get to shopping.

James:
Well, I think that is the important thing because I was talking to somebody yesterday and they’re like, oh my gosh, rates are going to drop rapidly if this goes … Like Dave said, what is a quarter point and that might be the most movement it gets. And so every quarter point helps, but it’s not going to be COVID appreciation during that time.

Dave:
No, there’s an important technical difference between how this is being done versus how it was done during COVID. So this is going to be nerdy, but basically during COVID, what they were doing was something called quantitative easing. They’re basically essentially printing money to buy mortgage-backed securities and treasury bonds. That has a very inflationationary effect as we all saw. It helps push up prices. What’s going on now is kind of similar in that the government is still, or government-backed entities at least are still buying these mortgage-backed securities, which does the same thing, but they are apparently, we don’t know exactly how this is working, it’s apparently being bought with profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So they’re not inventing money to buy it with, that’s not quantitative easing. So that’s an important distinction. It still has the same effect, but I think what everyone needs to know is that it would be a different policy and I think a much riskier policy to go beyond this.
Because if you’re going to do more of this, like if the Trump team or people just say, “Hey, that worked. We’ve got rates down a quarter point. We want them down a full point. We’re going to buy a trillion dollars in mortgage-backed securities.” The way they would have to do that is through quantitative easing, which has a much bigger risk of inflation attached to it. And so we might not see that. We might see that with a new Fed share or new Fed governors. We don’t know, but I just want to say it would need to be a different policy to keep doing this well into the future.

Kathy:
So I know we’re not supposed to get political here, but I think we’re going to see a lot of this type of thing this year-

Dave:
I agree.

Kathy:
… with midterms coming. Certain people want to be popular to the public.This is just my thought because it is very temporary. And my concern is that whenever we see rates go down, prices go up. And so if that happens, then it doesn’t actually make the market more affordable. No,

Dave:
I totally agree. I think this is a bandaid, like a lot of things in the housing market where you’re just anytime you do demand side support, whether it’s this or helping people with their down payments. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but all it does is temporarily improve affordability, then prices adjust to this new affordability and you still have the same affordability problem. I’m not opposed to short-term solutions if they are paired with long-term solutions. If you’re doing this and you’re making more supply, great, that’s a long-term solution paired with a short-term solution, everyone wins. But when you have just these short-term things that make the long-term problem worse without implementing anything that makes the long-term problem better, I just think it’s like we’re going to be back in the same place six months from now where things are unaffordable and then the solution becomes even harder.
So I’m not sure I’m in favor of this. It’s not so big that it’s going to, I think, create a crazy appreciation in housing prices, but I have concerns about using this as a tool to solve affordability.

James:
I agree too. Capitalism, you’re supposed to let it do what it does and there’s too much manipulation of it now. Let it grow, let it shrink, let it expand and contract. When you manipulate it too much for the wrong reasons, our sandwiches that are now 20 bucks are going to turn into 30 bucks real fast.

Kathy:
It just gets wonky faster when you start manipulating things. Yeah.

Dave:
Yeah. I don’t know. I’m not blaming one side or the other, but I guess it’s just become politically untouchable now for either party to have a recession or a decline in the stock market or decline in the housing market. And they’ll do whatever they have do. Both sides do this. We’ll do whatever they have to to keep things going, but that’s not healthy. There’s a normal business cycle. When there’s too much debt, when their affordability reaches these low levels, it’s got to reset and it stinks for a little while, but then it can recover. Whereas now you do … I’m not saying because of this one move, a quarter point’s not going to do it. But if you keep doing this, then the bubble risk becomes real.That’s when bubble crash risk really starts to accelerate. I’m not saying that’s happening right now, but if we do this once with money that’s not being printed, real profits, maybe this is fine.
But I do worry, like Kathy said, you see this works. It’s the first thing that’s really moved mortgage rates. It’s going to be tempting to do again. And so it’ll be interesting to see if this happens more.

Henry:
Yeah.

Dave:
Well, that’s a big story. Something we’re definitely going to keep an eye out for. My hypothesis is this will happen, and then we’ll hear a lot about this again in May when Jerome Powell almost certainly gets replaced by someone new. Just to everyone knows, Jerome Powell does not unilaterally make these decisions. The Fed board votes on these and not all of them are getting replaced, so certain votes will change. But I do think if the makeup of the Fed changes significantly, we’ll hear more about this over the summer. All right. That was our first story. Thank you, Henry. A very timely one I’m sure everyone will want to be hearing about. We got to take a quick break, but when we come back, we’ll talk about this week’s other huge story about a potential ban on institutional investors. We’ll be right back. Welcome back to On the Market.
I’m here with Henry, James, and Kathy going over this week’s news. We just talked about the Trump administration buying mortgage-backed securities. Kathy, tell us your story.

Kathy:
Well, this is breaking news this week, but again, by the time people hear this, it’ll be old news, but we still need to talk about it.

Dave:
We do.

Kathy:
Yeah. So I’ll just read the CNN version of this. It’s Trump threatens to ban institutional investors from buying single family homes. And this was what he wrote on True Social, that people don’t live in corporations, and so homeowners should be the ones buying and not institutional investors. So many people have different opinions. Again, my opinion is this is a midterm election thing that people just want to hate the institutional investors. And in fact, when you look at the data, the institutional investors only own about 2%, 2.5% of property out there. But I think why some people get more upset about it than others is because it really depends on where you live. Institutions own 25% of rental properties in Atlanta, 18% in Charlotte,
Tampa and Jacksonville, it’s really high. So in those markets, yeah, there could be a huge impact if those institutions get out. However, Logan Motashami at HousingWire kind of mentions this. What about the people who live in those rental properties? It’s kind of a question of the buyer or owner of real estate versus the renter of real estate. Who should get priority? And oftentimes institutional investors are building it. They’re bringing on new inventory. They love the build to rent. Communities, because they’re brand new, they’re easier to manage. They’re built specifically for rental, so they’re bringing on new supply. So my guess is that Trump knows that. Yeah,

Dave:
I don’t think they’re

Kathy:
Banning that. I mean,

Dave:
It’s very unspecified. It’s

Kathy:
A tweet. We don’t know. But they do buy from builders. So my guess is that there will be some kind of clause there that if it’s … I don’t know, maybe new builds or something like that would be exempt, or if it’s specifically built to bring on new supply for renters. But if it’s to not compete with the home buyer who’s trying to buy existing inventory, the hedge funds, the Wall Street buyers aren’t really that active there anymore. I

James:
Actually, I don’t think this is a bad thing at all if it goes through. I agree. I actually agree. I don’t think single family homes should be bought in swarms. We don’t have a lot of that in Washington. There’s definitely some submarkets. But if you look at, as I think things get more and more expensive and it’s not going to slow down over the next 10 years, people are going to be moving into these areas where the hedge funds do own a lot of these properties. And I think we do need to protect that supply and just let it be single family. They’re not buying now, but I know they will, especially when they see the opportunity, but I think there’s a time and a place.

Dave:
I think as a preventative measure, it kind of makes sense. It’s not that bad now. On a national level, it is not what’s causing the problem with inventory. It’s just not. There’s much bigger structural issues.

Henry:
But

Dave:
In those neighborhoods, it does matter in markets where it matters. The other thing I was thinking about is that right now it’s unaffordable for people to buy homes. These large institutions, they can self-insure, they get better mortgage rates than everyone else. And so they have a structural advantage in buying single family homes. And so it could get way worse.That’s the thing that worries me is that if housing remains unaffordable, who else is going to buy homes other than private equity?

Henry:
I think it’s the practices. It’s what they can do and are allowed to do when they buy these homes in bulk that really cause a problem. On a national scale, it doesn’t move the needle that much, but you’re right. In certain neighborhoods, yes, it’s a big deal. I also agree with this to a point. My concern comes like, what is the actual language going to look like if this becomes real? It’s a slippery slope to me. For sure. A corporation is an LLC owning one property. It’s technically a corporation that affects you and I and other mom and pop landlords. And what’s the difference between this and Airbnb owners? They’re also taking away housing stock from people who should own homes. What does that mean? I think there’s a lot here that needs to be flushed out and done in a way that makes sense and is truly done to solve the problem and the actual problem and not creating a bigger problem because investors play a strong role in a real estate market.
Of course. We put inventory back into the market in a lot of cases. And so it’s just, I think it can be … With the limited information we have from a tweet rant, it just could be a slippery slope.

Kathy:
Well, in California, what was floated I thought was a really good idea, which was to give a homeowner or a buyer first stab at it, basically. So
An investor couldn’t buy a house until it’s been on the market like 45 days. Because if you’re a first time buyer, an FHA buyer, it’s a pain for the seller. It takes a long time, but this is really the first time buyer is the FHA buyer. It’s a difficult loan. It may not go through. And if you’re a seller and you’ve got institutional hedge fund wanting to pay cash for your property versus a first time home buyer, you don’t know if they’re going to close. You’re going to do what’s best for you as this seller. But if there was regulations saying, nope, just first time home buyers or any home buyers get first stab at it, 45 days, 60 days, whatever it is, after that, free game, anyone can have it. What do you guys think about something like that?

James:
I think it has to be tangible because 45 days on market, what if someone’s priced too high and then they just take a low offer from a hedge fund?

Kathy:
Yeah.

James:
I mean, the one thing I do know is when … I remember when this became a thing, it was like 2010- ish and 11 when Blackstone came to the market and everyone looked at me and they go, “You’re going out of business. Blackstone’s coming to market.” And they started buying everything. But then what they found out is they don’t want to buy everything. They want to buy something that’s very lightly used and doesn’t need a lot of renovation. And so I don’t think the mom and pops investor, to Henry’s point, or the investors out there buying and actually creating value, they aren’t the same thing. They’re completely different investors. They don’t buy the same things. The hedge funds do take inventory from first time home buyers.

Kathy:
Yeah,

James:
They do. That is the track homes that they buy. And I do think there should be some restrictions like in Australia, and the reason I knew this because I wanted to move there so bad, they don’t allow any foreign entity to buy used homes. They can buy new construction to help with the economy. So they can only buy this product to help builders and help move those things- That’s interesting. … but they can’t buy used. And so even when they’re selling them, they have to sell it to an actual citizen.

Dave:
I like that. That brings inventory online.

James:
Yeah. And it also could bring in more single family production getting made. If they can bring this cheaper money to builders and they can build and rent these out for a while, and then they do sell them after a while because that’s how they’re really making the return. It’s not the cash flow. I think those kind of restrictions need to be put in, but it has to be a tangible. It can’t be 45 days. It’s got to be, is it new or is it not? Is it multifamily? There just needs to be classed out. And I think it could be a very positive things for homeowners and also our economy if they balance it outright.

Kathy:
Yeah, because I think some of these policies are kind of, I don’t know how to say this, but unfair to the renter. It’s kind of like, well, what about the renter who would like to live in a nice home and they don’t want to own it. They want to be in a certain neighborhood. They love the institutional landlords because they’re professional. So what about the renter?

Dave:
That’s a good question. I’ve never heard someone say they love institutional landlords though. I would take a bet that the BiggerPockets audience are better landlords than the institutional investors, or I’d like to believe that.

James:
I would agree with that for sure.

Dave:
Yeah. I don’t know. I don’t have personal experience with that, so I couldn’t say. But I’ll just say, I do think I obviously believe that real estate investors play a necessary role in the United States. I think this talk that we’re a renter nation is not true. If you look at the home ownership rate in the United States, it’s remained the same. There is just for the last 60 years, about one third of people for one reason or another, whether because of preference or circumstance, needs to rent. And I don’t think that those people should be only forced to rent multifamily. I do think there should be single family supply. I’d just rather small real estate entrepreneurs own those properties if it was up to me. Now I’m just manipulating market in my own favor, but I think it’s better for the local economy and for the renters personally that small entrepreneurs own it rather than large institutions.

Henry:
And I think what you’re really saying, and I could be putting words in your mouth, but I think what you’re really saying is similar to the point James was making. The small entrepreneur, us, are buying a different product. We’re taking things that either aren’t lived in or shouldn’t be lived in typically and providing that inventory to the market and the bigger players are not doing that. And if they were, then they would be more a benefit to society than a detriment.

Kathy:
Yeah. I mean, I almost feel kind of like I’m in the category of the institutional because the number that’s been pulled out of the air is 1,000. If you own a thousand properties, you’re considered big. Well, I have a build to rent community. I have two single family rental funds. We plan to do more and I think we’re doing great work. I think we’re great landlords. We did exactly what Henry said. We bought old properties that no first time home buyer could buy because there wasn’t a kitchen, it was moldy, whatever. We had to fix it up and then we put it back on the market as really safe, clean housing, affordable housing. So again, more to discuss here. We’re not at a thousand units, so we’re still under the radar. I do wonder if there’s workarounds where all of … I’ve got three funds, so there’s three different LLCs, so would that be considered three different-

Dave:
Oh, there’s definitely going to be scams about this. There’s 100% going to be shell companies and people getting around this, but I guess we don’t know. We’ll see if they’ve even put forward a bill. We don’t even know.

Kathy:
Yeah, they will.

Dave:
Yeah. I think it’s a really interesting thing. So we will obviously let you know if anything develops here, but as of right now, just a potential thing. We do have to take a quick break, but we have two more stories when we come back. Stick with us. Welcome back to On The Market. I’m here with James, Kathy, and Henry. We have shared two big stories, Trump announcements this week about buying mortgage-backed securities and then a potential ban on institutional investors. James and I actually had the same story, but we can’t do that. So we’re going to let James take this one away. And if we have time, I’ll get into mine.

James:
Oh, I love this story. I had a different one and then I saw this. I was like, I got to talk about this.

Dave:
Well, I brought it because I was just going to make you answer all the questions. So we just got to this faster.

James:
Yeah. Well, the article by Housing Wires is why the fix and flip sector is poised for a breakout in 2026 and- Boom, baby. We’re back. It’s back. Because I will say anybody flipping properties in 2025 knows how bad it sucked. It was not the year for flipping. And it wasn’t detrimental by any means, but it wasn’t great, the overall returns. And we saw this because there was a market shift. Honestly, once the tariffs got announced, the market paralyzed for a while and we started seeing more inventory, less buyer activity and flippers had got squeezed on all sides. They got squeezed on their debt cost. Lending was at higher rates than they’ve been the last couple years. Your typical average fix and flip loan is going to be 10 to 11%, where some people were getting nine before. Your construction costs rose at least 20% over a 12-month period based on tariffs, labor costs, and then the debt times were strangling deals.
We went from an average market time in our market for around 14 days to 20 days to where it was taking us 60, 90. I mean, Dave, how long did it take us to sell our flip?

Dave:
Oh, it was like 180, about

James:
80 days. We almost had it for sale for as long as we renovated it. So those are not normal things, and that’s what really squeezed all the margins across the board. And so this article, I like this because the one thing I love about investing is there’s always that shock factor where things are going great and then it pulls back and everyone’s like, “That’s a terrible thing. Don’t do that anymore.” But that’s where all the opportunity is. So we’ve actually bought more houses in the last three weeks than we bought.

Kathy:
Really?

James:
Oh yeah, I bought three this week and I just bought four and five.

Kathy:
Oh my goodness.

James:
And it’s also because the numbers are normalizing out. When you go through a bad year, the numbers do normalize out and that’s where you can get this rebound effect. And that’s how you can get a spike in your profit. And so what this article talks about is there is going to be more access to cheaper capital, which is true. Hard money rates are slowly starting to come down and there’s more lending options out there for them, whereas they were spiked up before. Inventory is starting to loosen. I know in Washington, I went to list a house or we listed one on Wednesday. There is no homes for sale in a three-quarter mile radius, zero.

Kathy:
Oh my goodness.

James:
Whereas five months ago, we were seeing probably four months of inventory in that little area. So we’re seeing inventory shake up in the certain areas. The renovation costs are starting to level out construction costs. I think I read on construction, they anticipate a 2% inflation on materials this year, which is more normalized than last year. And so we’re not going to see the sudden spike in your rehab cost that takes away from your profit. And it’s all about, I think, Flippers being able to find a good buy too. We’re able to buy on normal numbers. We’re not like buying home runs, but we’re not having to overpay to get these houses that just need a ton of work. The stuff we buy needs everything and it’s a lot of work, it’s a lot of costs, and there’s definitely less competition on them because it’s just too much work for people.
So I don’t know. I’m feeling pretty good about fix and flip. Henry, I know you fix some flips. I want to know, are you loading up? Because I’m putting everything in the bank right now.

Henry:
Yeah, absolutely. We’re just getting better deals right now. I’m finding more opportunities and the margins are so good again. You can truly get a good deal. I’m getting my renovations done reasonably priced. It’s not 2022 amazing, but the opportunity is out there. There are people letting go. And I think there’s just more opportunity coming in 2026, especially from, I think there’s going to be a lot of investor turnover in 2026 of people who bought stuff that they just need or want out of that they overpaid for, that they’re struggling with in the past couple of years. So I’m very optimistic.

James:
Yeah. And I think this last 12 months also allows us to reset how we underwrite deals. Our whole times are longer now. Our construction cost budgets are higher. As you get to go through the data sample and you get to go through experiences, you get to change your underwriting. And so going in, there’s less competition, cheaper money, and you go in with the right numbers, and that’s where you really can have a boom out year.

Dave:
I do have a question. So my story, and I’m going to just combine them, was about how … It’s a headline from Redfin that said there are now 37% more home sellers than buyers. And when I read that, I think as a buy and hold investor, I’m like, yes, that’s good. Finally, you’re getting a little bit better inventory. How do you square that with what you’re talking about with fix and flip? Because that makes better buying conditions, but it also, I would imagine, maybe not in Seattle, but generally speaking, makes the disposition harder. So does that complicate your thinking about 2026 flipping?

James:
Well, and what the article I brought in also talks about is there’s tools that underwriting now as well. And this is really important because I don’t think Redfin’s wrong. There is a lot of inventory. I mean, right outside where I’m at right now, Phoenix, Arizona, there’s a lot of homes for sale out that way.

Dave:
Oh, yeah.

James:
And so you have to still look at the data. There may be 37% more homes for sale than buyers, but where are the buyers? And use those analytic tools. So we’re looking at where’s the velocity, what’s selling and what’s not selling. In one neighborhood, maybe 500 is the sweet spot. That’s where all the activity is. Because even when it was slow throughout, there was things moving and selling, there’s just this affordability cap. And so for everyone listening, talk to your real estate brokers, have them run reports. All MLSs, you can run a sales report of what’s going on in the zip codes and what’s selling and what’s the inventory. And so you got to get a little bit more granule in your underwriting. And that’s not uncommon. I just feel like in the pandemic years, you could go so wide because there was just nothing for sale and it was all going to work out.
Now you have to be very disciplined. What zip code are you in? What price point are you selling on? What’s the days on market for that? And also, what is the velocity of those buyers? And then really focus on those price points. I’m not playing in areas where it’s no man’s land. There’s not a lot of transactions going on. I will go to the areas where we’re seeing the most amount of sales and every zip code and state is different. And that’s why you really want to get, go in the bigger pockets agent finder, find the right broker that can explain where the velocity is. And that’s how you get around that risk.

Henry:
Yeah. And the way we’re doing it is, yes, paying attention to where people are buying, but also paying attention to what people want to buy and then offering value at a discount. So we listed one two days ago and we’re about to get our first offer already. This was a property that was a three bed, one and a half bath, 1,500 square foot house. And we underwrote it as a three bed, one and a half bath, 1,500 square foot house. So I bought it where it would make money if I just renovated it in place and sold it. But what we ended up doing was adding a little bit of square footage. So we stole a little bit of square footage from the garage because it had an oversized garage and we created another bedroom and bathroom, and then we turned the half bath into a full bath by stealing some space from a closet.
And then we took the laundry room, relocated it to the additional square footage and turned the existing laundry room into a bedroom. So now people get a four bed, three bath, 1,800 square foot house, and it’s on an acre and a half. Half, but we’re still selling it at the price point we underwrote it at as the three bed, one and a half bath. So now people are getting a whole lot more value for their dollar, which means I can sell my house faster. It’s just you have to be a smarter investor to tackle the risks, both in where you’re buying, who you’re selling to, and what you’re offering them.

Dave:
I mean, that sounds like a great approach. Maybe I’ll buy it. That sounds like a great house. Yeah. Just to live there. I’m moving in, Henry.You’re more than welcome.

James:
Well, and what Henry’s talking about is just be disciplined with your data. Look at what you’re trying to sell and what it’s selling for, because you may want to cut back or spend a little bit more and give them value, or you want to lean into it. Right now, I have one expensive luxury flip going on and I do not want to mess around. I’m throwing probably an extra 10% budget, a couple hundred grand at this thing, just to make sure I lock that price in. And we’re spending a lot of time touring properties, looking at what’s their expectations. Don’t cut corners, deliver what you’re supposed to at the pricing.

Dave:
All right. Well, thank you guys so much. Any last thoughts before we get out of here?

Henry:
I’m excited for 26, guys. I’m excited.

Dave:
It’s going to be a great year. It’s a good start. So this will be a lot of fun. We obviously have a lot more great shows planned for you here on On The Market with James, Kathy, and Henry. Thank you all so much for being here and thank everyone for listening as well. We’ll see you next time.