For those of you blasting me, here are the inspection reports http://www.defectivehomes.info/Inspections
As for a position in Lennar. I have no position in Lennar stock. Why am I exposing this? It's the right thing to do. There are a few of us knuckleheads left. I am now facing a massive lawsuit from Lennar. I could have kept my mouth shut and walked away with hundreds of thousands in commissions. C'est la vie. I can sleep nights.
I guess you haven't looked at the inspection reports he posted on his website http://www.lennarhomes.info Seems like Morgan is one realtor with a conscience and a pocket full of ethics. Do your due dilgence before blasting him. Read some of the buyer comments and spend 5 minutes on the website. Not to say Lennar is the only builder doing this, but you would think Lennar would have shut him up long ago with a few bucks if they could have. Seems to me Morgan is not in it for the money. His website is first class and very detailed. I'd say Lennar has some problems ahead with someone like this whether he is just pissed off or whether he is doing it for ethics. Either way it must be costing Lennar millions. Visit the website because I could not find any negative commentary from this guy. He has posted facts. By the way. If you do a little research you will see that he was the guy that forced Lennar to return deposits on 125 homes in Martin County. I don't think Lennar would have tossed out tens of milliosn of dollars in contracts if Morgan is blowing smoke. Morgan, I for one say - go get 'em. You've got a banger of a website and I wish you the best.
onca1257 writes:<<Lennar also has a contract that just about precludes legal action, as they force each buyer to address the issues with mediation and arbitration. But like with Ryland and their 6000 home class action certified by the Arbitrator, we hope to assist buyers in the process to make sure their new homes are truly up to code.>>
Nothing potentially criminal, here? No crossing the RICO line? No such thing as economic terrorism? Nothing against picking and choosing aspects of contractural obligations to suit one's needs while ignoring aspects somewhat in the interest of the new house buyer and still having a valid contract? Just some questions.
PBernhardt writes:<<Revealing the shoddy workmanship of recently built homes is evidence of a housing market at the top of its cycle -- slack quality control and a fatal bottom line mentality.>>
Recently built homes is a misconception. This type of behavior has been occuring since the mid 1990's, if not earlier. My personal experience attests to this.
I have no problem with you pursuing your gratuitious gripe with Morgan, interestedposted. Personally, I don't have enough time in my day to monitor companies in which I have no position -- unless, of course, they are on my watch list. You obviously have a lot of free time on your hands, or have made a peculiar choice in hobbies.
And I'll repeat again, one last time with feeling: my short position in LEN has NOTHING to do with Morgan's dispute with Lennar. It has everything to do with the price movement of cyclical stocks and the fundamental economic forces that drive them. Revealing the shoddy workmanship of recently built homes is evidence of a housing market at the top of its cycle -- slack quality control and a fatal bottom line mentality.
The home builders worth buying in the future will be those who have resisted this as they will be in a better position to profit when buyers return to this market. And Lennar ain't one of them.
Bernhardt, I have no financial interest in Lennar at this time, have held homebuilders in my portfolio in the past and still watch them. Does that satisfy you, not that I really care. But one does not have to actively hold a position to have an interest in a company, past, present, or future.
Raising questions of Morgan is not trying to discredit him, but it is fair to ask of him why after doing business he is now squawking. Maybe that is what the law firms who have refused to take his case have seen as well.
You just take one mans word and pictures taken during construction, YES, during construction as proof of "code violations" and defects. One mans words and postings on a message board is proof enough for you, and since it could adversely affect the company, you would stand to gain. That is clear. So you have no interest in seeing anything other than that one mans words.
Regarding Morgan having the evidence, I am sure the 2 law firms who gave Morgan the boot would disagree with you. Now Morgan will have to start shopping the bottom of the pot for a law firm that will take his case. I would bet he started with the more reputable firms, and they turned him down. I realize for you that doesnt mean anything. But do me a favor, continue being the lemming that you are and blindly follow people like Morgan. Continue never questioning anything. Continue taking one persons word as absolute proof. Continue throwing up questions that are irrelevant to the topic. In the end, in MY opinion, Morgan will be shown to have an axe to grind with the company, and his inflammatory accusations will come back to bite him in the ass. I find it funny how now he has links to these "new" websites/blogs supposedly created by homeowners of Lennar communites, and these blogs/websites, are littered with the same trash as he has on his hate filled website. I bet it will be proven that Morgan is behind every one of these "new" blogs and websites. That type of behavior will help do him in. Very unethical for a licensed realtor.
PBernhardt writes:<<I find it puzzling, to say the least, that you continue to post here in a fruitless attempt to discredit Morgan. I could understand if there was actual evidence that Lennar is the injured party in this dispute. It is not. It's their customers. And Mike Morgan has the evidence.>>
From my personal experience with an esteemed member of the corporate/public new house building industry, the name of the game is deny, delay, do-nothing, stonewall, etc. Blame the picky new house buyer for not being willing to accept a shoddy or even defective product. This is an issue which needs maximum public exposure. Exposure which was easily controlled and concealed in the past.
<< You obviously dont care if there is merit or not to his unfounded claim, you only want the stock to react negatively so you can gain from that. That is not very ethical standards now is it, but you dont really care. >>
I have taken the time to read the reports Morgan has posted and know that his claims have merit. But that has nothing to do with why I am short Lennar and other home builders. I am short these stocks because they are at the peak of their cylce and will continue to go down.
A first principle of stock trading is to seperate the company from the stock. In fact, I'll be ready to buy home builder stocks when the cycle turns again. I don't expect to do that for quite awhile, however. And in any case, based on what I've learned about the quality of Lennar's homes and the character of its management, LEN will not be on my buy list.
Why do I question management? Because Lennar has short changed home buyers to bolster their bottom line in a vain, short-sighted effort to prop up their earnings. The stock price will continue to go down because of the market forces driving the housing market, not because of this sideshow.
Speaking of ethics, you have yet to explain your interest in Lennar's dispute with Morgan other than to say you are not affiliated with Lennar, its PR firm or lawyers. I don't know anyone who posts to stock message boards who doesn't have some financial interest in the subject company and I find it puzzling, to say the least, that you continue to post here in a fruitless attempt to discredit Morgan. I could understand if there was actual evidence that Lennar is the injured party in this dispute. It is not. It's their customers. And Mike Morgan has the evidence.
bernhardt, I really dont expect you to think differently, and I am not really concerned what you think. You, being the short trader that you are, have a obvious financial stake in Morgan trashing the company. Your desire is that it trash the stock, therefore, your financial gain. You obviously dont care if there is merit or not to his unfounded claim, you only want the stock to react negatively so you can gain from that. That is not very ethical standards now is it, but you dont really care.