The World in 2020

I recently ran a survey on my website, Those Answers, in which I intended to gain some insight into how people view various World issues and their potential status in the year 2020. The survey asked people about some of the most significant threats affecting the World, issues and people, the evolution of energy, corporate impact, and how to make a difference. I found the results extremely interesting.

The survey was taken by 47 individuals who ranged in age from 18 to 63. The average age of a respondent was 22.51 with a median of 21. Of those 47 individuals who chose to report their gender, 22 were male and 20 were female.

The rest of this post will be a graphical display of the results that I found, in addition to some of my thoughts as to why the results may appear as they are. I hope you enjoy.

• Results

What is the greatest threat to humanity?

According to the results, Nuclear Weapons and Biological Warfare is the greatest threat to humanity and as we get closer to the year 2020, it will become a bigger problem. It was the only one of the choices available that had a higher percentage of respondents (40% vs. 49%) agreeing that it would be a greater threat in the year 2020.

I think that this choice is a rational one and most definitely something that needs to be addressed. Nuclear proliferation means that countries have the capacity to retaliate with weapons of mass destruction. At the push of a button cities can be destroyed.

Other threats to humanity that several respondents agreed upon were Poverty and Natural Disasters. Both of these issues show declining trends as the primary threat to humanity in the year 2020, which indicates an optimistic view of resolving the issues as well as confidence in the current measures in place.

Drugs and Alcoholism and Random Acts of Violence received a very small percentage of the total respondents primary threat to humanity. Additionally, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's) was only seen as the greatest threat to humanity by approximately 10% of respondents. STD's like HIV/AIDS, herpes, or gonorrhea affect millions of people around the World, and I found it surprising that people didn't consider this a very big threat, even when compared to Nuclear Weapons, because it impacts so many people already, whereas, the use of Nuclear Weapons is not even a reality aside from the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the conclusion of World War II.

63.8% of respondents maintained their choices from the year 2008 to 2020. This implies that some of the greatest challenges already facing the World today will still be of primary concern in the year 2020.

Who/What is the most dangerous force on the planet?

The most dangerous force on the planet was determined to be the US President. This was a surprising find in my opinion, and I can't really determine one thing in particular that would make this the case. I suppose the US president has enormous power militarily due to his (or her) ability to attack other countries and a massive collection of nuclear warheads. In many ways, the US President dictates World policy.

I was further suprised to see the low percentage of respondents that believed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian President) was the most dangerous force (18%). Further, the percentage of people who believe Osama Bin Laden (14%) and Kim Jong-Il (7%) combined was less than the percentage of people who believed the President of China was the most dangerous person in the World (23%).

What resource will be most depleted by 2020?

According to the results of this survey, the most depleted resource by 2020 will be Clean Air. This is by an overwhelming margin as well. Its closest competitor was Drinkable Water which lagged behind by 23%. This was followed by Arable land with 20% of the respondents votes and finally Agricultural Produce with 9%.

Clean air is becoming an enormous problem, especially as the World population continues to grow at an exponential rate and as cities around the World become more densely populated. A McKinsey Global Institute report on China in 2025 indicated that the air quality in several Chinese cities could become noxious and unbearable due to pollution.

According to the McIlvaine Company, the air pollution reduction market will grow by an approximate rate of 17% compounded annually through 2015, becoming a $20+ billion per year industry.

I think that our respondents are spot on with their assessment of this particular issue.

Between 2008 and 2020, what energy resource will be most utilized?

The energy resource most utilized by 2020 was spread out and indicates the uncertainty of the alternative energy market as it stands currently. There are several alternatives and based on the even spread by respondents, it appears as though there is no clear sign of which alternative energy resource will be used most.

Leading the charge was Solar Energy, Ethanol, and Coal. I think that all of these show significant benefit and means to channeling resources away from Petroleum. Coal will most definitely be used in greater excess, as the United States has the most significant World share at 27.1% (Source).

I was surprised about the low amount of respondents who chose Environmentally Friendly Biofuels, as I am a huge proponent of them. I think that this type of fuel uses resources most effectively while also being least harmful to the environment overall.

Which country will have the highest per capita GDP by 2020?

The country that is projected to have the highest per capita GDP by the year 2020 was China. They received 49% of the votes. China was followed by the United States with 28% and Japan with 15%.

The question asked was about per capita GDP, which gives an idea as to the personal wealth of an average individual in a particular country. This does not necessarily relate to total GDP, which can be massive for a country, but when looked at through the scope of each person, may become very small.

That is why the choice of China by such an overwhelming percentage is surprising. Accordining to the Wikipedia article of Per Capita GDP, China currently ranks 99th according to the IMF, and 105 according to the CIA. This essentially means that an individual in China compared to the rest of the World is poorer than around 100 nations. While China will probably have the highest overall GDP by the year 2020, their per capita results are dismal.

The United States is currently ranked 6th by the IMF and 8th by the CIA. This makes sense when you think about a common person in the United States versus a common person in China. The standard of living is far higher for the average individual in the United States.

Small percentages went to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates even though they are both ranked far higher than China (Saudi Arabia = 37 & UAE = 15).

What industry shows the greatest potential for growth through 2020?

By an overwhelming margin, the industry that shows the greatest potential for growth through 2020 was determined by the respondents to be Alternative Energy with 67% of respondents agreeing. This was followed next by Information Technology, 19%, and Financial Services and Energy tied at 6% each.

Even though it is the dawn of the information age, people are overwhelmingly agreeing with the fact that alternative energy will trump technologies rise in the coming decade. These results may be skewed by the current situation with oil prices, yet, they are not unfounded as these issues need to be addressed.

The need to seek out Alternative Energy goes hand-in-hand with the fact that people are conscientious about the environment.

Which of the following corporations will have the greatest impact through 2020?

There are two prominent corporations that were chosen by the respondents that will have the greatest impact through 2020, and the results relate to the emerging industries over the next decade. The highest percentage was given to Exxon, 40%, but was closely followed by Microsoft with 36%.

These two companies are metaphors for energy and information technology, and it makes sense that they would be most prominently chosen.

There were several companies that received no votes by respondents at all. McKinsey & Company received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about the value of service industries. Caterpiller received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about the value of construction, and 3M received 0% of the votes, which raises questions about innovation and development of newer technologies not only related to information.

How do you tackle complex World issues?

Finally, respondents were asked how to tackle complex World issues. This was intended to give insight into how people think some of the problems that were discussed in the survey are best dealt with. Most people, 36%, believe that tackling complex World issues are done by use of Grassroots Movements. This essentially means that things are started locally and expand from there. This was in stark contrast to Governmental Intervention that received 17% of the votes by respondents.

Following Grassroots Movements, respondents also believed that a Societal Paradigm Shift, 30%, was the most effective way of tackling complex World issues. This means thinking in a new way about issues, and in this context, it means an entire society agreeing to think a new way about something.

For instance, I can see this beginning with LED (light emitting diode) lights versus incandescent lights. People are all starting to change their light bulbs due to energy and environmental concerns. It just takes a long time, but it is very effective.

Thoughts?

There was a final area where respondents could write down their thoughts if they wanted. Some people wrote that they enjoyed the survey, which was very nice feedback. A lot of people made reference to how the survey was vague or too general, or that I left out certain "issues."

The fact is that I was just trying to take the temperature of perspectives on the year 2020, not necessarily make a full blown diagnosis. Additionally, the year 2020 is very far away, and it's hard to be specific about something that is so distant.

• Conclusion

The results of the survey are compelling and interesting. I think one of the most interesting things to note about the first couple of questions asked relating to threats, both issues and individuals, is that most people worry about problems that aren't even a reality, and forget about those already afflicting us.

While Nuclear Weapons are scary, poverty, sexually transmitted diseases, and random acts of violence affect people every day, and impact most likely 2/3 of the World's population.

We need to keep perspective on issues that are already needing our resolve.

Alternative energies are springing off in so many directions at the moment that it is hard to tell which will be most utilized. The varied choices by respondents indicate the lack of direction.

While most people believed China to have the greatest per capita GDP by 2020, they will probably be alarmed to realize that China ranks 99th in the World when it comes to per capita GDP. Just because a country as a whole makes a lot of money by volume doesn't necessarily mean that its average inhabitant is reaping those benefits. With 1.3 billion people it would make sense for China to have the highest total GDP, but we have to remember how that wealth is spread amongst that enormous amount of people.

Finally, of the respondents surveyed, 23 of them believed that "The World will be a 'better' place than it is in 2020 than 2008." This represents exactly 50% of the responses for this question, revealing that the other 50% of respondents do not believe the world will be a "better" place in 2020.

This is unfortunate split, as most respondents were in their early 20's, and at the start of their independent lives. One would hope that the younger generation remains idealistic and optmisitc about the future, because in the year 2020, it is a majority of this survey's respondents who will be combatting and trying to contribute solutions to the various issues raised in this survey. There are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with over the coming decade; that is for certain.

Ocean's 14?

About a week ago, I had the chance to go to the Arlington Park Racetrack, which is a venue quite close to where I live, in which you can watch and bet a little bit of money on the ponies. It was my first time I had ever been to a horse racing track, and I have to say it was quite a lot of fun to put down some money. I can see how a lot of people can get addicted to it and gambling in general.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to come away the big winner for the day. I probably ended up losing around $20 or $30, but over a stretch of about 5 or 6 hours, I don't think thats too bad. Either way, I had a lot of fun.

I was with some of my friends and I'll tell you the story of one guy in particular. I have to admit that this is one of the most improbable scenarios I've ever seen, and I guess it part of the motivation for my most recent idea.

A friend of mine was betting some money before a race. He was putting $10 down on various types of bets. He put down a show, in which he had to pick a particular horse who will come first, second, or third, a win, in which he had to pick the horse who is going to win in order to succeed, but after this had about $1 left to put down on a bet. He didn't really know anything about the horses or the race in general, so he decided to go with this particular type of bet called a superfecta.

I came to learn that a superfecta is a particular type of bet in which you have to correctly predict the first four horses that come in. That is, you have to pick the first, second, third, and fourth horses in the exact order in order to make any return on your wager. This is by far and away one of the most ludicrous, outrageous, and downright improbable things to ever occur in my opinion.

I had hard enough trouble correctly predicting a horse to come in the top three, a show, and now here was this most ridiculous bet called the superfecta. Regardless, my friend decided to make the minimum $1 wager (and in my opinion, it's pretty much throwing away that $1). So, we were revved up and looking forward to the next race. I had a couple bucks on the race and was hoping to see my combinations come in.

And then, before you knew it, the race had finished. It's a quick burst of excitement, and then it's over. Yet again, none of my horses came in the order I would have liked to see them. However, my friend sitting right next to me was looking over his betting receipts and was frantically looking up at the television screen with the results and then back again at his receipts. I asked if any of his combinations came in.

Apparently, after needing further verification from about three other people, my friend had correctly predicted the superfecta. We were all speechless. How is it possible that my friend who knew absolutely nothing about betting on horses came through with the mother of them all?

The superfecta ended up paying out huge. The payout is dependent on the odds of the four horses that you predict, but due to the severe unlikely nature of this actually occurring, the payout is typically always a large amount. In this case my friend made a quick $125 by simply making a $1 bet. Not a bad day at the races.

The first thing that this got me thinking about, and I'm a little embarrassed to say it, is how on earth it would be possible to fix such an event such as horse racing? I was just thinking that with such an immense payoff, figuring out a way to fix one event could make a bundle of cash very quickly. However, very soon into my thought process, I started to think of more effective, and legal, ways in which to capitalize on the coolness of horse racing.

This is what led me to my idea of Ocean's 14. The Ocean's series has all revolved around very slick, cool, and fun ways of stealing money from Las Vegas or valuables from museums. Each movie has been really entertaining and has a blockbuster cast to go along with it. I thought what might be interesting is if they altered the theme slightly and entered the realm of horse racing.

In all of the Ocean Movies, there is always some ingenious plan that works flawlessly. Half of the time, you think they're all about to get busted, and even when they do get busted, it was all seemingly part of the plan. It would be really cool to see what sort of awesome strategy they could come up with to fix a crazily unpredictable event such as horse racing. They have already exhibited quite a competency in fixing Vegas, so why not move into a new realm, the realm of horse racing?

Yet, I also realized that there wouldn't be a good enough reason to make a fourth movie in a series if it wasn't necessarily going to be profitable. This led me to investigate the benefits of actually creating a fourth Ocean's movie.

• Explanation

My sample was made up of movies that have a minimum of four in the series. My results include 9 movies that have had four parts in their series. This list includes:

1. Harry Potter
2. Rocky
3. Indiana Jones
4. Star Wars
5. Star Trek
6. Rambo
7. Superman
8. Saw
9. Die Hard

For each of the 9 movies, I gathered information relating to the Gross Box Office Revenue each part in the series brought in, the Budget for each movie in the series, and then, based on this information, evaluated the Net Box Office Revenue for each movie in the series. For all of the movies, I made sure to adjust for inflation. In order to accomplish this, I used WestEgg.com, which is an inflation calculator that dates back to 1800. All the figures are therefore based upon 2007 dollars.

After compiling all of my data, I then made a determination about each movie in the series return on investment (ROI), which is easily calculated by taking the gain from an investment and subtracting the cost of an investment and dividing this difference by the cost of investment.

In our scenario, the mathematical equation is depicted as:
ROI = ((Net Box Office Revenue - Budget)/Budget)

I thought ROI would be a good measure to evaluate going forward with a fourth Ocean's movie, because it represents the benefit and rate of return that the large investment for the movie would necessitate.

Finally, at the end, I averaged my data from the 9 different movies with a minimum of four parts in the series to determine whether the intent of creating a fourth movie truly had any merit.

• Results

The data that I gathered can be summarized in the following chart:

First, let us take a look at some of the data. The highest grossing film in this sample of movies was the original Star Wars from 1977. When you adjust for inflation, the film grossed over 1.163 Billion dollars. That came from a measly investment of just 46.86 Million dollars. On the opposite spectrum of that, the lowest grossing movie was the fourth sequence in the Superman series. I am personally a big fan of Superman, and am unsure as to why this film did so poorly in 1987.

According to Imdb.com, the Internet Movie Database, the tagline for this movie was, "Nuclear Power. In the best hands, it is dangerous. In the hands of Lex Luthor, it is pure evil. This is Superman's greatest battle. And it is for all of us." It only grossed 29.32 Million dollars, and actually ended up losing 2.43 Million.

These two movies help contrast the impact of the first movie in a series and the fourth movie in a series. The highest grossing movie, Star Wars, was the first in the series, whereas, the lowest grossing movie was the fourth in the series. This is a general trend, as the average gross for the first movie in a series was 308 Million, and the average gross for the fourth movie in a series was 167 Million (a reduction of %).

However, in order to truly get to our desired valuation of ROI, it was important to seek out information regarding to the budget of each movie as well.

As you may notice, there is a wide array of budgets used on movies. However, to try and organize some of this data, it is best to look at what the overall average of budgets do as another movie is made in a series. My data leads me to the following deduction: the more movies one makes in a particular series the larger the budget gets. On average, I found that the first movie's budget was around 69 million, while the budget of the fourth movie was typically around 89 million (or an increase of 29%).

The largest budget was used in the original Superman movie. It had a budget of 186 million. The smallest budget was used on the original Saw movie. It cost a mere 1.35 million. The Saw series has consistently had the lowest budget in the group and thus has helped their ROI tremendously.

Next, it would be helpful to look at the Net Revenue that is associated with movies in a series with a minimum of four movies. To find net revenue, you just take the gross revenue and subtract the budget requirement for the movie. This will also be helpful in determining ROI.

Our chart of Net Revenues for these 9 movies reveal that as another movie is added to the series, the variance in the net revenue becomes less substantial. For instance, in the net revenue amongst the first movie in the series, the net revenue varies by 94% (1163.33M to 60.78M). However, by the time the movie gets to the fourth in the series, this variation decreases tremendously. The upper and lower bounds of Net Revenue have shrunk from 400.3M to -7.3M, a far tighter space. This ultimately means that there is far less uncertainty when it comes to how well the movie should fare.

On average, the Net Revenue from these 9 movies varied from 333M, for the first movie in a series, to 119M for the fourth movie in a series, or a decline of 64%.

The final piece of the puzzle was to determine whether or not going ahead with producing and investing in the fourth film in a series was indeed profitable. The mechanism through which this was evaluated was based on our model of return on investment (ROI).

The results of this are well summarized in the following graph:

Your attention may first be drawn to the extreme spike in the ROI for the first movie in the series of Rocky. This is valid observation. The first Rocky movie was unbelievably successful, but only needed a budget of 4.2 million to produce a net box office revenue of 442.81 million. This is a ROI of 10,443%. The following Rocky movies were successful, but not nearly in the same stratosphere.

As a general trend, I was able to determine that on average, the first film in a series of a minimum of four returns 1,782%, the second, 403%, the third, 175%, and the fourth, 35%. These are significant declines, but the ROI is still quite decent even in the fourth movie.

Additionally, it is important to add that just because the overall average shows a positive ROI, this is certainly not always the case. For instance, Die Hard, Superman, Rambo, Indiana Jones, and Harry Potter have all had instances in which they have had negative ROI.

• Ocean's Movie Recommendation

Based on my analysis, I have the following recommendation for the potential creation of a fourth movie in this series.

According to Imdb.com, Ocean's Thirteen (the most recent movie in the Ocean's series), grossed 117.2M, had a budget of 85M, and therefore netted 32.2M. The ROI on Ocean's Thirteen was dismal, -62%. According to Those Answers Inc. estimates on the change in average gross, average budget, and average net revenue earned between the third and fourth movies in a series, Ocean's 14 can expect the following results:

• An 11.2% decline in Gross Revenue
• A 16.3% increase in budget spending
• A 21.4% decline in Net Revenue

Therefore, Ocean's 14 should expect to gross 104.1M, have a budget of 98.9M, and therefore net 5.2M. This predicts a ROI of -94.7%. Additionally, both Ocean's 12 (2nd in the series) and Ocean's 13 (3rd in the series) had negative ROI's which does not predict any more favorably for a positive ROI in the 4th movie in the series.

The series of Harry Potter, Rambo, Superman, and Die Hard have not achieved positive ROI since falling into negative territory. There is no direct evidence to support the possibility of Ocean's 14 having this capability.

Therefore, although it would be a really fun movie and very entertaining to watch, Those Answers Inc. does not recommend a fourth motion picture in the Ocean's series.

Housing Foreclosures

There's an old maxim that I believe generally rings true, and that is, "buy low and sell high." It makes sense, and to be honest, sounds very easy to do. However, that isn't always the case. Understanding markets is an unbelievably challenging thing to do. Just ask most of the Institutional investors on Wall Street. I'm not naming any names, but one company in particular has had their stock plummet from over $100 to just about $2 in the span of weeks resulting from the recent calamity known as the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

To put it another way, the market is currently in the midst of repricing risk. What this means to me is that there is a lot more uncertainty than there used to be. What is the value of your home or investment property in the wake of the sub-prime lending debacle? What is the value of a barrel of oil or an ounce of gold as investors search for alternative opportunities? People and institutions that were supposed to know these answers just don't know anymore, and that makes everyone's financial life miserable.

But it doesn't have to be. Uncertainty can be a beautiful thing if you are willing and able to manage that uncertain risk properly. There is a goldmine out there that is just waiting for people to pounce on it, but it takes guts, and it won't just fall in your lap.

The opportunity that I'm alluding to is the current housing market and foreclosures in particular. According to InvestWords.com, a foreclosure is, "The legal process by which an owner's right to a property is terminated, usually due to default. Typically involves a forced sale of the property at public auction, with the proceeds being applied to the mortgage debt." Wow, thats an awful lot of jargon for one sentence. Let's break it down so that we understand what's going on here.

A legal process: I suppose that means that there is some law that governs the property of sale. Now, there are a tons of laws, and I'd probably have to go and study for the Bar before I could give you a proper understanding. However, I suppose that foreclosures involve legal matters. Got it.

Right to property terminated: This sucks if you're the one being foreclosed on. This pretty much means that you don't have the right to own this home anymore.

Usually due to default: This means that the owner was unable to make required debt payments, most likely in the form of a mortgage. This then means that authorities have to step in and take your home away.

Forced sale of the property [...] proceeds applied to public mortgage: This is the sweet part of the deal. This means that the bank, who technically owns the home (they are being repaid by the owners), wants to offload their debt (risk) for the house to another entity. This is the part of the process where you can make some serious cash, real fast.

So now that we understand exactly what foreclosure is, how can we capitalize on it to make a huge killing so that we can buy our Porsche, Ferrari, or Playstation 3? The process isn't all that complex, but it requires a lot of "dotting of I's and crossing of T's." You have to have enormous attention to detail and be quite bold in your actions. As I started out by saying, this is an uncertain time in which risk is hard to measure. However, there is opportunity out there, so don't just watch others, get out there with them and enjoy the fruits of capitalism.

• Process

When I discuss the purchase and sale of foreclosed homes, I will do so generally. Of course there are a lot more details to it than I could ever possibly express here, but ultimately I see it as a three step process.

1. Find Location
2. Price and Purchase
3. Renovate and Sell

I'm going to discuss these three aspects generally.

• Find Location

All over America, people are being struck by the sub-prime mortgage crisis and this is leading to extensive numbers of foreclosed homes. According to Forbes Magazine, in 2007 there were 79% more foreclosures than there were in 2006, and in the same article they cite Congress's Joint Economic Committee who have projected that 2 million Americans will lose their homes in the next 2 years. This is very unfortunate. However, I'm an optimist and I believe that there is a silver lining to every cloud.

Foreclosures have hit Michigan (Wayne County), Nevada (Clark County), Arizona (Maricopa County), and California (Riverside and Los Angeles Counties) hardest. There are thousands of foreclosed homes in these areas that are just waiting to be bought up at a premium. Once you find an acceptable location, we go onto the next step.

• Price and Purchase

This is probably the most critical part of the whole process, because as most financially literate people would concur, your profit is made when you purchase the item, not when you sell it. Anyway, the pricing of a foreclosed home can be a tricky task. I would therefore advise getting a Realtor or some sort of pricing expert to come in and price the home you're looking at. Paying $500 for their services will be well worth it in the long run. They are trained professionals that can advise you based on the quality of the home, location, and comparable houses in the area.

Another tricky part about purchasing a foreclosed home is the fact that in today's market, the market of uncertainty, it is critical to have a fantastic credit rating and probably have enough cash on hand to make the down payment on the home. The nice thing about making a down payment on a foreclosed home is that it is typically at a huge premium from the original price, because it is in the bank's best interest to offload the property, because it is substantial risk to them. Finding a buyer alleviates a small part of the banks risk in the short run.

Therefore, a home that would ordinarily be sold for $100,000 can now be bought for $70,000. Consider the following graph provided by Yahoo! Real Estate that shows the average price of a home in California over the past 12 months. It has declined from $516,000 to $430,000. Thats a 16.6% decline. And that is merely on average. If you really look hard you can find houses at a far greater premium. Talk about buying low.

**Click the Image to see it more clearly**
Purchasing the home will be the trickiest part of this whole transaction. There will be some fees surrounding this transaction, but they are inconsequential in the long term. You should always be thinking about this as an investment over time, except you are the one in control of this investment, which may be a lot different to your prior investments.

The purchase price is critical and you should negotiate this properly. Do not cut corners on this aspect of the process. It can be the difference between $1,000 and $10,000.

• Renovate and Sell

The final portion of the process is where the greatest amount of uncertainty comes in. Just as I have been telling you that these are uncertain times, and indeed they are, this is truly where you will encounter this reality. It is unfortunate that there isn't an unlimited pool of people trying to buy a home at any given time, but today, most people are in the same mindset that you probably are. That is that you're uncertain about the future and you'd rather hold onto your money, because you're not sure what's going to happen.

The way to improve your chances of sale is by performing the first part of the process properly. Find a great location in which there was just one or two homes that got foreclosed on. Finding a neighborhood in which foreclosures are rare is like finding a diamond in the rough. In my own experiences, I find that foreclosures are like dominoes. One falls and the rest around them soon follow. No one wants to buy in these areas, because they are cesspools of uncertainty. Find a great location!

Make sure you also renovate your home. This will cost a little bit of money, but a little bit of money can go a long way. Work hard yourself cleaning it and installing things yourself. If it is too hard for you, get a professional to do it. Find a friend who knows everything there is to know about installing windows or air filters (or whatever it may be). Pay them for their time. It will make a huge difference.

Selling homes is tough these days. Take a look at this graph that represents new home sales between January 2002 to January 2008. They have declined sharply in the past 12 months. However, uncertainty is bound to become certainty once again, and when that happens, home sales will increase. It just takes a little bit of nerve to make these moves right now because of all the uncertainty surrounding this investment.

In order to sell your home, use a Realtor. They know what they are doing and can find the right people for you. Also, your time is valuable so use it doing other things like creating your empire that you are well on your way to doing if you are getting yourself into selling foreclosures at this moment. It is a little uncertain, but remember, "buy low, sell high." Sounds easy, but sometimes you just have to look a little deeper and go against the crowd to truly get results.

• Conclusion

Currently, there is a huge opportunity in the housing market. You can make unbelievable money purchasing and selling foreclosed homes. Consider it a one to two year investment. Based on your ability to negotiate the price of the house, this could easily net you in excess of 30% over a short time frame. It is important to be absolutely methodical in going about purchasing a foreclosed home. Remember the process: Find the location, Price and Purchase, Renovate and Sell.

Buy low, sell high. Make me believe that isn't easier said than done.