David Morris Group

Posts tagged ‘money’

Rebuilding damaged credit

21 February, 2011 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of the New York Times, Tara Siegel Bernard:

Millions of consumers have fallen out of favor with the credit scoring gods. Some lost their jobs or were just overwhelmed by mounting debt. Others got caught up in the real estate bubble or had major medical bills. Whatever the reason, the rising number of foreclosures, short sales, late credit card payments and the ultimate credit sin — bankruptcies — have left black marks on credit reports most everywhere.

So what can these people do to repair their credit?

The simple answer is to focus on the information that is used to generate the all-powerful FICO score — the measure used most frequently by traditional lenders to determine creditworthiness. Its scale runs from 300 points to 850 points; the higher the score, the better your credit standing. “FICO is still the 500-pound gorilla,” said John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at SmartCredit.com. “In 2011, the best way to get credit from the mainstream lenders is to have a good FICO score.”

Consumers can hope that the banks will eventually consider alternatives to the traditional FICO score, which was developed by Fair Isaac Corporation and has been in wide use for about two decades. After all, as banks regain their appetite for lending, they will be looking for ways to differentiate between borrowers with the same scores, some of whom are temporarily struggling and others who chronically have trouble with money.

For now, though, the FICO score reigns. The best antidote to a poor score is time. Still, there are a half dozen ways to speed the process, or, at the least, avoid even more credit trouble.

What to Do

ASSESS YOUR SITUATION Before you even start to think about rehabilitating your credit, make sure that you can pay your bills on time and not do any more harm. If keeping up with your credit card bills is still an issue, then call the issuer, explain your situation and try to negotiate payments you can afford. Ask the issuer how that will be reported to the major three credit bureaus: Not paid as agreed, which can hurt your score? Or will the new terms say that you are now paying as agreed?

“You have to get in writing that this is what they agreed to do,” said Mechel Glass, director of education at CredAbility, a nonprofit consumer credit counseling agency. Ditto for other providers, like utility companies.

Then, assess all the damage by getting a free copy of your credit report from each of the three major credit reporting bureaus through annualcreditreport.com. Each of the major credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — generate their own FICO scores based on the data they collect. Two versions of your FICO score are also available for $19.95 each, through myFico.com.

How far your credit score has fallen will depend on where it started, as well as the frequency and severity of your credit mistakes. If you had almost perfect credit, but because of the loss of a job your credit card bills ended up at a collection agency, you can expect to lose anywhere from 80 to 150 points from your FICO score. A short sale or foreclosure? Both, Mr. Ulzheimer said, “would turn a FICO 790 into a FICO 590 overnight.”

CLEAN UP YOUR SCORE Start with the low-hanging fruit. Let’s say you were late paying a bill from a company that no longer exists, or a bank that has since merged with a larger institution. If the credit reporting bureaus cannot verify the accuracy of that black mark, they are required to remove it. “Not only does it have to be correct, but it has to be verifiable,” Mr. Ulzheimer said.

Next, focus on paying off the loans — namely, credit cards — that will help give your score the most lift. Paying off a mortgage, a student loan or other installment debts, like car loans, feels good but that won’t necessarily do much for your credit score.

You also want to get your so-called debt utilization rate into good shape. FICO considers how the total amount of debt on each of your credit cards compares with your total available credit. The credit score “elite” — that is, people with FICO scores above 760 — typically don’t have debts that exceed 7 percent of their available credit. But if you are at 50 percent and can get the rate down to 30 percent, that will help.

LEAVE A NOTE Because prospective employers may pull a copy of your credit report, consider adding the equivalent of a doctor’s note to each of your reports explaining your hardship, like a job loss. All three major credit bureaus allow you to add a brief statement through their Web sites. FICO doesn’t consider these statements when formulating scores, however, so don’t expect it to sway lenders.

GET SECURED CARDS It will obviously be hard to get a traditional credit card when you have a poor credit history. Secured cards, if used strategically, can help nurse your credit back to health more quickly. These cards require you to put a set amount of money in a bank account, say $250 or $500, which is used as collateral. And the amount of available credit should be equivalent to the amount on deposit.

“What is the most predictive and powerful in your score are the things you’ve done most recently,” Mr. Ulzheimer said. “That cuts both ways. If you add a secured card and you pay it religiously and the balance is low, it will help your score a lot more quickly than if you do nothing.”

But read the fine print before signing up. Consumer advocates said some unscrupulous card issuers have charged the security deposit to the card. And be sure the issuer reports your payment information to the big three credit bureaus, since not all do.

Curtis Arnold, the founder of CardRatings.com, recommended two cards, both of which report payments to the big three: the Orchard Bank Secured MasterCard, which has an attractive interest rate of 7.9 percent, waives the annual fee in the first year and charges a moderate $35 annually thereafter. He also likes the Citi Secured MasterCard, largely because it offers an interest rate on the security deposit equivalent to an 18-month certificate of deposit, which he says is an industry first.

TALK TO A CREDIT UNION These institutions may be more willing to work with members who have checkered histories. Their offerings vary, but they may be more likely to consider alternative credit scores, offer free credit counseling or have products tailored for people with poor credit histories. “Certainly, many credit unions have credit builder or rebuilder loans, often structured as a loan with a built-in savings component so that a person gradually builds up funds that can act as partial collateral,” said Clifford Rosenthal, the president of the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, a trade association representing credit unions in low- and moderate-income areas.

ALTERNATIVE VERIFICATION There are other credit reporting agencies and services that — for a monthly fee, and sometimes a hefty one — will collect your payment history from sources that aren’t included in your traditional credit report or FICO score. At this point, however, most mainstream lenders base their decisions on the big three bureaus’ reports and FICO scores. So you’re better off saving your money. “All of those companies say they will report your accounts to a credit bureau, and they may be doing that,” Mr. Ulzheimer said. “But if it is not the big three, then who cares?”

This could change, of course, as banks become more willing to lend and potentially open to using other means to identify promising borrowers. Lenders may begin to consider rental payment histories, for instance. Or they may be willing to look at alternative credit scores that incorporate payment information that doesn’t show up on traditional credit reports.

Or perhaps one lender will permit so-called shoe box credit: Did you know that if you walk into a lender with a box stuffed with receipts proving that you paid your cable bill, for instance, that they are required to consider it? They aren’t obliged to give you a loan, but the regulation says they must consider the information.

What to Avoid

CREDIT REPAIR OFFERS You may have seen the advertisements for credit repair companies on the Web. “We really tell our clients to stay away,” said Ms. Glass, of CredAbility. One re-emerging scam, she says, involves companies that claim they can clean up your credit. Some companies manage to do this for a limited time by disputing all of your accounts, sending letters to the bureaus claiming the accounts aren’t valid. But after the credit bureaus validate the accounts and debts, they reappear on your report and your score will plummet again.

Legitimate credit repair companies exist, and they can assist in disputes. But there’s nothing they can do that you can’t do yourself at little cost. Besides, these companies often besiege the bureaus with letters, and the bureaus are allowed to ignore what they believe are frivolous disputes. Be wary of companies that do not disclose in writing that you can do these tasks free on your own, that guarantee results or that try to charge you before they perform any services.

CERTAIN CARDS Despite the tighter credit environment, Chi Chi Wu, a staff lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center, said the center was still receiving complaints about credit cards aimed at people with poor credit histories.

“These cards are pitched as a way to build credit, but with these kind of steep fees and high interest rates, there is a good chance they will hurt,” she said.

Tags: money, Useful Information
Posted in Financial/banking information | No Comments »

Mortgage update

21 February, 2011 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of Vince Lotito, Prime Lending:

Quote of the week… “I’ve been blamed for just about everything that’s wrong with this country.”–Elvis Presley

We who work in the real estate and mortgage industries know exactly how Elvis felt. The same people who unfairly blamed us totally for the recession now look to us alone for signs the economic recovery has taken hold. They might want to remember the health of the housing market is directly dependent on the health of the jobs market, which is not under our control. In any case, everyone felt better last week when January Housing Starts were UP a surprising 14.6%. Even though starts are down 2.6% from a year ago, this still shows builders are more hopeful going forward. The boost came from multi-family units, though single-family starts were off a mere 1% for the month.

A lot of home buying activity is due to the affordability now out there. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and a major bank reported their index shows home affordability in Q4 of 2010 at its highest level in 20 years. Their measure found that 73.9% of the new and existing homes sold in Q4 were affordable to families making the national median income of $64,400.

Business tip of the week… A big part of success is not giving up. Studies show that one trait shared by all very successful people is perseverance. They are persistent, determined, tenacious, pursuing a goal far beyond the point where the average person gets discouraged.

Was the financial crisis avoidable?

26 January, 2011 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtsey of SEWELL CHAN of the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a federal inquiry.

The commission that investigated the crisis casts a wide net of blame, faulting two administrations, the Federal Reserve and other regulators for permitting a calamitous concoction: shoddy mortgage lending, the excessive packaging and sale of loans to investors and risky bets on securities backed by the loans.

“The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming and thus nothing could have been done,” the panel wrote in the report’s conclusions, which were read by The New York Times. “If we accept this notion, it will happen again.”

While the panel, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, accuses several financial institutions of greed, ineptitude or both, some of its gravest conclusions concern government failings, with embarrassing implications for both parties. But the panel was itself divided along partisan lines, which could blunt the impact of its findings.

Many of the conclusions have been widely described, but the synthesis of interviews, documents and testimony, along with its government imprimatur, give the report — to be released on Thursday as a 576-page book — a conclusive sweep and authority.

The commission held 19 days of hearings and interviews with more than 700 witnesses; it has pledged to release a trove of transcripts and other raw material online.

Of the 10 commission members, the six appointed by Democrats endorsed the final report. Three Republican members have prepared a dissent focusing on a narrower set of causes; a fourth Republican, Peter J. Wallison, has his own dissent, calling policies to promote homeownership the major culprit. The panel was hobbled repeatedly by internal divisions and staff turnover.

The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.

It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”

Like Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., predicted in 2007 — wrongly, it turned out — that the subprime collapse would be contained, the report notes.

Democrats also come under fire. The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”

Timothy F. Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the crisis and is now the Treasury secretary, was not unscathed; the report finds that the New York Fed missed signs of trouble at Citigroup and Lehman, though it did not have the main responsibility for overseeing them.

Former and current officials named in the report, as well as financial institutions, declined Tuesday to comment before the report was released.

The report could reignite debate over the influence of Wall Street; it says regulators “lacked the political will” to scrutinize and hold accountable the institutions they were supposed to oversee. The financial industry spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with it made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

On the other hand, the report is harsh on regulators. It finds that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

It says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates some banks, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans, blocked states from curbing abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.”

“The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” the report states. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.”

The report’s implications may be felt more in the political realm than in public policy. The Dodd-Frank law overhauling the regulation of Wall Street, signed in July, took as its premise the same regulatory deficiencies cited by the commission. But the report is sure to be a factor in the debate over the future of Fannie and Freddie, which have been run by the government since 2008.

Though the report documents questionable practices by mortgage lenders and careless betting by banks, one striking finding is its portrayal of incompetence.

It quotes Citigroup executives conceding that they paid little attention to mortgage-related risks. Executives at the American International Group were found to have been blind to its $79 billion exposure to credit-default swaps, a kind of insurance that was sold to investors seeking protection against a drop in the value of securities backed by home loans. At Merrill Lynch, managers were surprised when seemingly secure mortgage investments suddenly suffered huge losses.

By one measure, for about every $40 in assets, the nation’s five largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses, meaning that a 3 percent drop in asset values could have wiped out the firm. The banks hid their excessive leverage using derivatives, off-balance-sheet entities and other devices, the report found. The speculative binge was abetted by a giant “shadow banking system” in which the banks relied heavily on short-term debt.

“When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans and the risky assets all came home to roost,” the report found. “What resulted was panic. We had reaped what we had sown.”

The report, which was heavily shaped by the commission’s chairman, Phil Angelides, is dotted with literary flourishes. It calls credit-rating agencies “cogs in the wheel of financial destruction.” Paraphrasing Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” it states, “The fault lies not in the stars, but in us.”

Of the banks that bought, created, packaged and sold trillions of dollars in mortgage-related securities, it says: “Like Icarus, they never feared flying ever closer to the sun.”

Tags: Home, housing, Indicator, money, Useful Information
Posted in Financial/banking information, Government Information | No Comments »

Good news series 2 of 3

24 August, 2010 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of RISMEDIA, August 19, 2010—

(MCT)—As director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard, Nicolas Retsinas has had a front-row seat for the real estate market’s dramatic boom and bust. After 12 years at the center, Retsinas left the director’s job to teach housing finance at Harvard Business School. He spoke recently with New Jersey’s The Record about why buyers got mortgages they couldn’t afford, and why real estate matters so much.

Were you surprised by the magnitude of the housing bust and how long it has lasted?
Nicolas Retsinas: Yes, by the severity of the housing bust but even more so, how credit just seized up.

When do you see any kind of loosening-up of the credit markets?
NR: I would suspect we’re likely to see the same dominance of the government at least through the balance of this year. One of the big issues facing public policymakers is what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If we want to attract private capital, not only from this country but also global capital, some part of that credit risk has to be borne by the government.

One of the biggest factors in the bust was that credit standards got too easy. Buyers who weren’t qualified got mortgages. Do you have any ideas about why this happened?
NR: In part, people were granted mortgages not on their ability to repay the mortgage, because it was clear that wasn’t going to happen. But there was an expectation that even if they couldn’t pay, the future increase in the value of the property would end up being the collateral for that loan. For a long time, that was a formula that worked. But we reached a point where even with these exotic—what turned out to be toxic—mortgage terms, they just weren’t affordable.

What has been the biggest human cost of the housing bust?
NR: The biggest human cost is the millions of people who have lost their homes. One can look back coldly and say, “Well, maybe a lot of them shouldn’t have bought a home in the first place.” But a lot of people lost their homes the old-fashioned way: they lost their jobs.

Who has benefited from the bust?
NR: Beside the investors who played with different sorts of financial products, I think the key winners probably have been first-time home buyers, who have maybe longed to buy a house but could not afford to. Now we’ve essentially transferred wealth from existing homeowners to new homeowners.

Some observers have been disappointed by the number of homeowners helped by the federal loan modification program.
NR: In defense of the government, when they designed this program 18 months ago, they based it on a premise that the principal problem in the housing market was egregious mortgage terms. And if those mortgage terms could be reset and recalibrated to more typical mortgage terms and could be afforded, through subsidy or whatever means, by the borrower, that would stem the hemorrhage of the defaulted loans and foreclosures.

As we moved into 2009, the problem was less about the subprime loans and more the traditional reason why people have problems making ends meet—which is that they lost their jobs. If you modify the loan so that your monthly payments are only 31% of your income, and your income is zero, that’s probably not going to work. The problem outran the solution.

Will home-price appreciation return anytime soon?
NR: The next couple of months will be an interesting test because we’ve had the withdrawal of the home buyer tax credit. I think we’re likely to have a sort of trawl-along-the-bottom type of recovery, a little bit lumpy for a year or so.

Congress is looking at new financial regulations. What effect are these likely to have on mortgages?
NR: I think it’ll make it more difficult to go back to the Wild, Wild West. There will be a new consumer financial agency, and I think that will be more likely to look at some of these (mortgage) products. I think that’s going to be critical. RE

Tags: Home, home prices, Home Sales, house, housing, Housing Sales, Indicator, market, money, Nevada, Northern Nevada, Real Estate, Useful Information
Posted in Government Information, Housing Market News 2010 | No Comments »

Good news series 1 of 3

24 August, 2010 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of RISMEDIA, August 13, 2010—

The real estate trend in firming home prices solidified in the second quarter with more metropolitan areas showing increases from a year ago, aided by a surge in home sales driven by the home buyer tax credit, according to the latest survey by the National Association of Realtors. In the second quarter, 100 out of 155 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) had higher median existing single-family home prices in comparison with the second quarter of 2009, including 14 with double-digit increases; two were unchanged and 53 metros showed price declines. In the first quarter of this year, 91 areas had higher prices, while only 26 MSAs experienced annual price gains in the second quarter of 2009.

The national median existing single-family price was $176,900 in the second quarter, up 1.5% from $174,200 in the same period of 2009. The median is where half sold for more and half sold for less. Distressed homes accounted for 32% of second quarter sales, down from 36% a year ago.

Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, said the correction in home prices appears to have ended in 2009. “All year we’ve been seeing relatively flat national home prices, which appear to be supported by market fundamentals,” he said. “Prices in some areas remain below replacement construction costs, so even with an elevated supply of existing homes on the market, we don’t expect any consequential movement in home prices for the foreseeable future. Very low inventory of newly built homes will also help to support home values.”

Yun urged caution on interpreting price data. “The median price is influenced by the mix of homes that were sold and do not reflect pure appreciation or depreciation,” he said. “The recorded home prices in many markets were significantly depressed last year because of a large percentage of distressed homes sold at discount. Now as more normal, non-distressed home sales are occurring, the median price in many areas is showing higher values.”

Total state existing-home sales, including single-family and condo, rose 9.1% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.61 million in the second quarter from 5.14 million in the first quarter, and were 17.3% above the 4.78 million-unit pace in the second quarter of 2009.

Sales increased from the first quarter in 44 states and the District of Columbia; 47 states and D.C. had increases over year-ago sales levels.

NAR President Vicki Cox Golder, owner of a Tucson, Ariz.-based firm, said record low mortgage interest rates will help cushion a summer slowdown. “As expected, sales are slowing down now that the home buyer tax credit has expired, but record-low mortgage interest rates, along with stable and affordable home prices in most areas, provide opportunities for buyers who weren’t able to take advantage of the credit,” she said.

According to Freddie Mac, the national average commitment rate on a 30-year conventional fixed-rate mortgage was a record low 4.91% in the second quarter, down from 5.00% in the first quarter; it was 5.03% in the second quarter of 2009.

“Job creation will give home buyers more confidence, but the market over the next few months is likely to be below what we would expect for the size of our growing population,” Golder said. “With improving bank balance sheets, credit restrictions should gradually improve—Realtors are a great resource for consumer information on loan availability as well as neighborhood market conditions, which vary widely.”

In the condo sector, metro area condominium and cooperative prices—covering changes in 55 metro areas—showed the national median existing-condo price was relatively flat at $175,700 in the second quarter, down 0.5% from the second quarter of 2009. Twenty-six metros showed increases in the median condo price from a year ago; the first quarter of 2010 showed 24 metros up, while only four metros saw annual price gains in the second quarter of 2009.

Regionally, the median existing single-family home price in the Northeast declined 3.2% to $238,000 in the second quarter from a year earlier. Existing-home sales in the Northeast jumped 14.9% in the second quarter to a level of 980,000 and are 23.6% above the second quarter of 2009.

In the Midwest, the median existing single-family home price increased 1.4% to $148,500 in the second quarter from the second quarter of last year. Existing-home sales in the Midwest rose 14.5% in the second quarter to a pace of 1.30 million and are 20.9% above the same period in 2009.

In the South, the median existing single-family home price slipped 2.0% to $155,500 in the second quarter from the second quarter of 2009. Existing-home sales in the South increased 10.9% in the second quarter to an annual rate of 2.10 million and are 18.8% above a year ago.

The median existing single-family home price in the West rose 2.6% to $219,700 in the second quarter from a year ago. Existing-home sales in the West fell 2.6% in the second quarter to an annual rate of 1.23 million but are 7.6% higher than the second quarter of 2009.

Why’s it’s still a great time to buy real estate.

27 July, 2010 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of Today’s Real Estate Advisor, Margaret Kelly:

Here are three great reasons why it’s still a great time to buy real estate and make smart investments in a down market.

Low Home Prices
Although there is widespread agreement in the industry that the housing market has reached the bottom, home prices aren’t expected to spike upward. Instead, they’re likely to skip along the bottom into 2011. They will continue to decline in some markets and creep up in others. As long as buyers remain diligent in the home search over the coming months, possible pricing fluctuations won’t have a dramatic effect on their property options.

Low Interest Rates
Interest rates on 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages hit a five-month low of 4.93% in May, and as of early June the rates were holding steady below 5%. Financial concerns over the growing debt crisis in Europe have stemmed discussions in the U.S. of raising rates. The historically low rates will save home buyers thousands and thousands of dollars over the life of a loan, which arguably is reason enough to enter the market.

Other Tax Benefits
The U.S. Home Buyer Tax Credit was temporary, but there are other tax benefits that buyers can continue to count on for the foreseeable future. Property taxes, mortgage interest payments and mortgage insurance premiums are qualified deductions that can help reduce many homeowners’ tax liability. For eco-conscious homeowners, purchasing energy-efficient appliances and making other green upgrades can mean a tax credit up to $1,500. For more information, be sure to visit www.irs.gov or consult a tax professional.

Don’t miss your opportunity to take advantage of the best buying conditions the market has seen in decades. There are plenty of deals to be had in our local Reno/Sparks market. We are the experts that can help you find the right deal for you!

-DMG

Tags: Home, home prices, Home Sales, house, Housing Sales, Indicator, market, money, Monthly Existing Home Sales, Real Estate, Reno, Sparks
Posted in Government Information, Housing Market News 2010, Interest Rates, Market Statistics, Monthly Existing Home Sales, Northern Nevada | No Comments »

Fannie Mae announces changes to the ARM policy

4 May, 2010 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

Courtesy of Perry Faigin, Mutual of Omaha Bank:

MortgageOrb.com, Sunday 02 May 2010 – 22:00:02

Fannie Maehas announced new standards for the purchase and securitization of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products. The company says it is changing its eligibility criteria to protect consumers from potentially dramatic payment increases and to help ensure that borrowers who hold these types of mortgages can sustain them beyond the initial interest-rate period.

“Our goal is to make sure consumers can sustain their mortgages and remain in their homes over the long term, while helping our lender partners offer a range of mortgage products for qualified borrowers,”says Marianne Sullivan, senior vice president of single-family credit policy and risk management at Fannie Mae. “These policy changes reflect our intention to continue providing liquidity to different market segments by ensuring that support for ARM products remains in appropriate circumstances.”

For ARMs with initial periods of five years or less, Fannie Mae will require that borrowers be qualified at the greater of the note rate plus 2% or the fully indexed rate (i.e., index plus margin).

Fannie Mae will continue to make available an interest-only loan product, but will change its qualification criteria. The maximum loan-to-value ratio cannot exceed 70%, the borrower’s credit score must be 720 or higher and the borrower must have a minimum of 24 months of liquid asset reserves remaining after loan closing.

Balloon mortgages, which typically offer lower initial interest rates but leave a significant balance due at maturity, will no longer be eligible, except with special approval from Fannie Mae.

All loans not meeting the new guidelines must be purchased as whole loans on or before Aug. 31, or delivered into mortgage-backed security pools with issue dates on or before Aug. 1, the agency says.

SOURCE: Fannie Mae

Tags: housing, money, Monthly Existing Home Sales, Nevada, Northern Nevada, Real Estate, Reno, Sparks, Useful Information
Posted in Financial/banking information, Government Information, Housing Market News 2010, Northern Nevada | No Comments »

New goverment rescue plan for foreclosed and underwater homes

31 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Over the last seven days the papers have been full of new ideas to help the troubled home market. Anyone that is interested in the economy, job growth and unemployment must be concerned with the health of the housing market. Until housing is back on a solid footing the US economy will be wobbly at best, and at worst it will have a second recession. Bank of America’s proposed plan to help 45,000 homeowners is laudable but about as effective as using a squirt gun on a home fire. What is important about Bank of America’s plan is that after three years of blindness they have cracked the door open to the unpleasant, smelly reality of the housing crisis and offered a solution to it.

Banks and investment banks played with the US economy and profited mightily at the expense of America on the whole. Regardless if you were conservative and never played in the housing boom, you were used by the banking industry and are now worse off for it.

On Saturday the Reno Gazette-Journal ran a front page story “Rescue may miss many who need it”. First, let me say in essence that the paper is correct. Bank of America is recognizing that 45,000 very sick homeowners are going to lose their homes. The real issue is that those 45,000 are the nearly dead and it is the 16 million homes underwater that need to be focused on and until all banks step up to the plate, housing is flying south for a very long and bitter winter.

I want to acknowledge just how difficult acting on the problem really is. The banks have woven a web of curious networks between insurers, investors, servicers and others with protections, profits and liabilities that can be hard to understand. Despite the problems we are facing, some are profiting from the chaos, not least the very assorted banks and investment banks that brought on the disaster to the American people.

On one hand the commonly held belief, still held by many, is to let the cleansing process work itself out. Many homeowners that never bought during the boom, or have free and clear homes, are heard to shout this sentiment out and cast all that are in trouble as dilatants that have received their just rewards for not being smart like them. Without a question in 2006-2007 tens of thousands of people lost their homes that should never have ever received a loan. But now we are talking about 2010. We are talking about people that bought homes in 2007, after the “bubble burst”, fully qualified for a home, put 20% cash down and today are underwater! We are also talking about homeowners that purchased homes in 2001, well before the much talked about “bubble” and put 20% cash down and today have homes that are underwater. Our market has rolled back well beyond the stupidity of 2003-2006, back to 1998-1999 values.

In the Saturday RGJ article titled “Rescue may miss many who need it”, University of Nevada, Reno economist Tom Cargill said of the new Obama plan “it’s a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money. It uses taxpayers’ money to support bad decisions made by people to buy homes they can’t afford.” Personally, I highly disagree.

We are looking at homeowners that now realize that they are $200,0000-$500,000 upside down in their homes. These were all qualified buyers, who all put down 20% or more and are underwater. Mr. Cargill, please tell these tens of thousands of Nevada homeowners tough luck and that they made bad decisions. Please tell them to forget that they owe more money than most and to go out and become consumers again and run up their credit cards and spend money so the economy can grow and the banks can profit and they just need to suck it up and in 7-12 years, if they are lucky, their homes just might, maybe have some equity in them.

What needs to be done? I suggest the radical notion of the following: protect the principal, protect the investors, encourage homeowners to pay off their principal loan balances. First, work with all homeowners that have homes underwater and who are current on their payments. Move all loans to a .5% interest based on a 15 year amortized loan. Years 1-5 are at .5%, years 6-8 are at 4%, years 9+ are at 6%.

Example: A $300,000 loan @ 5.5%/30 years has a P.I. payment of $1,703 per month. .5% has a payment of $1,730 per month. The point here is that many homeowners are short selling as much as they realize that it will easily be 10 years before they have equity but can make the payment. With a 15 year loan not only do we have free and clear homes in 15 years in a mere 5-7 years, the loans will have been paid down so much that with no appreciation whatsoever in the housing market the homeowner will have equity.

For those homeowners that are not current they can be offered 20, 25, 30 year loans. In the same example the loan payment would drop over $800 per month on a 30 year loan. If that does not save the homeowner then per Mr. Cargill they truly overbought or their income has been cut so much that foreclosure is their only option.

Drastic? Not really. Homeowners take homes off the market, principal is preserved, fewer homes for sale, better chance for stabilization. Better stabilization and growth, better tax income for the city, better confidence in an individual’s personal financial position, the more likely they are to spend money. The more money they spend the more taxable income to the state, the more confidence homeowners have about themselves, the more likely to buy services, the more services they buy, the more companies can expand and hire. The more people that have jobs the better the economy and so on.

What about the federal government and the bailout money? Well obviously .5% for 5 years is a bit painful for the banks so that money goes to give the banks/investors a 2% additional return for years 1-5. When a seller sells in years 1-5 they pay to the federal government a percentage of the profits, if any, as a form of repayment.

Investors get their principal, banks stop write- downs, banks stop paying tens of thousands of employees to handle bad debt, banks save hundreds of millions of dollars on foreclosure costs and write-offs, homes come off the market and prices stabilize.

Short sales, foreclosures, traditional sales

24 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Last week the Wall Street Journal ran an article on short sales. The article is well meaning but I feel is poorly informed. I have added the article in its complete form below with my notes in brackets:

“Q: I am looking to buy my first home, and it seems like short-sales are priced much lower than regular sales. Are these prices negotiable, or are they the bottom line that lenders will accept?

A:Many lenders negotiate prices for short-sales [The lien holder is NOT the owner and cannot negotiate the price of the home], in which the seller is offering the home for less than is owed on the mortgage. But traditionally the only way you could find out was to submit a below-list offer and wait—often for many months—for a response. If the bank made a counter-offer, you knew you were in the ballpark; if they didn’t respond at all, you were too low [The author missed the point. The bank is NOT the seller and does not "counter the buyers offer". The short sale process is first and foremost to confirm that the lien holders will approve of a short sale for the seller. That in fact the seller is approved to do a short sale. Then the lien holders negotiate with the seller on terms acceptable to the lien holders/investors on what they will accept. The lien holders are looking only at the costs of the sale or the HUD-1 settlement sheet]. By then, you may have lost all interest in buying the property. [Lien holders are looking at what is best for them. Is a foreclosure more profitable? Is the offer within acceptable range to approve of a short sale for the investors without the expense and risk of a foreclosure? It is all about the net. Lien holders do not respond to offers per se, they respond to the owner of the home and a low offer only creates a barrier whereby the foreclosure route is the best way for the lien holders to go, thus a decline of the short sale.]

The good news is, on April 5, this frustrating system will change at least for some buyers and sellers. That’s when the federal government will begin to provide financial incentives to lenders to do more short sales. The rules also help standardize the process, so your chances of negotiating a distressed property bargain will increase. [No, in fact we really do not know what to expect but the author is still thinking that a short sale and a foreclosed home are one and the same. It is my opinion that in fact the author is right in the fact that more "bargain" sales are on the way but not for what is being said. In reading the new directive it appears that the banks may well use the short sale process to circumvent the expenses of a foreclosure. Only time will tell on this. Until a home is foreclosed on the banks do not own the home and the owner is the seller. Sellers today are finding that to approve of a short sale they must agree to financial terms on some form of loan payment. That does not happen when a home is foreclosed, though the banks have the legal right to pursue the owner for lost monies, but that is another subject.]

Under the old practices, when a financially-distressed seller brought a potential buyer who was offering less than the amount owed on the loan, the bank would order an appraisal or broker’s price opinion (BPO) and then decide whether the offer was acceptable [Correct, the banks are looking at fair market value, as a buyer looking for a "bargain" this is where they go wrong. Fair market value is what the home is worth]. Under the new federal rules, banks will order a BPO before the property is listed for sale, and will share information on the minimum net proceeds they’re willing to accept with the sellers. If they then bring in a buyer whose offer is equal to or greater than this pre-approved amount, the lender must accept it within 10 days. [This is correct, but actually seeing the lenders adhere to such a time line will be interesting to see. The new process if done correctly (something I have been asking for for two years) would be huge. By placing a home on the market that can close in a near normal fashion, we can slow down and even stop the falling prices, therefore the question on bargains we hope will also be coming to an end as well.]

Not all sellers are eligible for this program, called Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) (for the requirements see Help for America’s Homeowner’s Supplemental Directive 09-09). But since the process is likely to go so much smoother for those who buy and sell under HAFA, I suggest you wait a bit until the program goes into effect and concentrate on finding these “pre-approved” deals. [Agreed. In fact, based on what I know now many homes will fall outside of this program.]

Of course, when you do find a property you like, you may not be the only person bidding on it. [The days are long gone where only one buyer bids on a home. Today any buyer writing a low offer is pretty certain to fail, unless they are trying to buy a home that NO ONE else wants and that is also another story for another time.] To improve your chances of winning, make sure your offer is “clean,” with as few contingencies as possible (though I would never fore go a home inspection). Include tax and credit records, and a mortgage pre-approval letter. If you can afford to pay cash, that will put you in an even stronger bargaining position [This is not different than any offer, at any time, these are in fact standard items that any offer should include]. Still, in your eagerness to win the property, don’t forget that distressed properties often come with added financial burdens. Although under HAFA, the seller is supposed to provide clear title, to protect yourself your, your contract must make it clear that you will not be responsible for any of the seller’s unpaid property taxes, liens or second trusts. [Here we go again, the author is confusing short sales and foreclosed homes, what she says is true on foreclosed homes but on short sales the home is still owned by the owner and in most states the law says that the owner is still responsible for full disclosures] . Also, cash-strapped homeowners often stop paying taxes and homeowners’ association fees during the time between when the house is listed and the deal is closed. To make sure that you’re not on the hook for these expenses, Leonard P. Baron, professor of finance at San Diego State University, recommends that you ask that the bank escrow at least six months worth of taxes and HOA fees, to cover any potential shortfall. [We call this clear title and in areas that useescrow and title companies all recorded liens must be paid or the escrow cannot close. Again the difference here is short sales versus foreclosures.]

June Fletcher at fletcher.june@gmail.com”

It went on to explain how to get a good deal and how the new government guidelines will address how short sales need to be handled from April on. The general ignorance of the article was amazing and the lack of knowledge underscores the gap in understanding. Later today we are going to post 60 graphs giving a update on what is happening in the Reno & Sparks Markets with the three dominate types of sales, short, foreclosed, traditional.

Inflation vs. deflation, can we have both?

24 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Each day people ask when will home values stop dropping and my answer is when more buyers buy and fewer sellers are willing to sell. Simple? I found the following article this week and decided that it was worth reading.

“As we work our way through the Great Recession, the discussion often sways between whether to expect inflation or deflation. Deflationists mention the huge credit bubble that we are digesting, and often like to point out Japan’s experience over the last 20 years. Inflationists point out all of the government spending and quantitative easing (essentially money printing) that may lead us to hyperinflation, mentioning episodes like the 1970’s Great Inflation, or even worse, Germany’s Weimar Republic. Who is right, and is the answer actionable for an investor? In order to keep the brief discussion more interesting, I’ve decided to add a few quotes from John Maynard Keynes, the economist our leaders claim to emulate.

“It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong” – John Maynard Keynes

Getting the inflation/deflation call seems very important. Inflation typically crushes fixed income, as higher rates can choke business, and pushes down the value of investor’s bonds. Further, high interest rates make stock investments less appealing relative to bonds, and therefore stocks tend to fall in price until their dividend yields become more interesting to investors. Hard assets can often make large gains during these periods, as falling currency values lose purchasing power, pushing up the nominal value of real assets.

On the other hand, deflation can cause investors to flock to bonds, which makes their values rise, and yields fall. Business suffers as prices drop. Wages also drop, as business slows. People often save more and spend less, further deepening the deflationary spiral. As business suffers, stocks typically drop. A poor business climate usually leads to less use of commodities (hard assets), and their prices often fall.

It is easy to conclude that making a bold bet on inflation will be disastrous if deflation continues, and vice versa.

“Markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent.” – John Maynard Keynes

Even if an investor ultimately makes the right call on inflation/deflation, when does her/his thesis play out? Remember, one of the best investors of our generation called the debt bubble well before it happened. George Soros (among others) mentioned the dangers of our enormous leverage in the mid 80’s, through the 90’s, and into the 2000’s. He was spot on in his analysis, but acting on his forecast would have made one miss the greatest bull market in American history. Imagine being short stocks as they rose 16+ percent a year from 1982-2000?

“Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for the reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally” - John Maynard Keynes

In order to avoid being out of sync, or even worse, loosing their investors, many “professional” money managers choose to follow the crowd. They “manage” risk by hugging investment indexes, and feel it is ok to lose 49% of an investors portfolio, as long as the markets went down 50%. Clearly, this may work for the stockbroker/financial advisor profession, but it doesn’t work for people who want to grow their assets and retire in comfort and safety. We believe this mentality is destructive to most people’s savings. The need to follow the herd is deep seeded in the human psyche. To overcome this bias, one must first understand it. Then, one must study history to see what people did well, and where they failed. Most importantly, a rational investor must be willing to do things differently than the herd. It is difficult to watch the neighbors make millions on tech stocks, or reap huge profits flipping houses and condos. However, fundamentals eventually apply. A rational investor will be called stupid, old fashioned, and jealous while bubbles expand. She/he will be resented when the bubble pops. In order to survive and thrive in an investment career, it would be wise to avoid “worldy wisdom”.

“A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind.” - John Maynard Keynes

In the inflation/deflation debate, most people with an opinion attach their ideas to a specific guru or school of economics. One theory is memorized, and doggedly followed, even when experiences dictate that things aren’t working as forecasted. There is very little thinking and learning involved, only determined rooting for whichever “team” one has chosen to follow. History is ignored, and few people open their minds to the idea that they might be wrong. Instead of learning all sides of an issue, most observers start with a premise and assume that everyone else is wrong. In our opinion, these debates are interesting, but only semi-relevant. Often times, each school of economic thought offers a few nuggets of wisdom attached to much hubris.

“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.” John Maynard Keynes

While we understand the different schools of economic thought, and pay attention to their lessons, we choose to be open minded as to what may happen in the future. History leaves a thick paper trail, and what actually happened to markets and asset valuations over time is more valuable to us than defending individual theories. We want our clients to survive and thrive over their investing careers regardless of the direction that inflation goes.

Those of you that visit our office frequently know that while we religiously track current events, we also spend an enormous amount of time studying the history of the markets. Often times, the parallels are chilling.

What we find is that most often, the bulk of the mainstream economists are wrong. Most of our leaders appeared to be caught off guard by the collapse of the debt bubble, despite nearly twenty years of warnings by high profile investors, competent journalists, and the lessons of history. Politicians typically follow Keynesian policies (stimulus spending to create jobs until the economy gets back on its feet), as this is often the school of economic thought most readily pushed on students at American Universities. Further, Keynes’ prescription for recessions requires massive amounts of deficit spending and appeal to the populist mentality of “doing something to help”. Our leaders forget that Keynes recommended government surpluses in good times, and government spending in tough times. It seems that we either suffer from selective memory, or that we have chosen our theory because it allows our leaders to avoid fiscal responsibility, while feigning to follow a well known economist. Historically, stimulus hasn’t worked well in solving recessions or credit bubbles. Tough love (bankruptcies, assets price collapses, high unemployment) has worked faster, but has understandably wrought political unrest. Our politicians don’t have the will to say “no” to their voting base, therefore stimulus will most likely continue until it creates massive inflation, high interest rates, and potential social unrest. (Hey, no one said running a democracy is easy!)

We also find is that quality businesses purchased at low prices tend to thrive over all time and space. The price of their stocks may swing with the ebb and flow of boom and bust cycles, but this really has little to do with the cash that these businesses earn and distribute to their shareholders. Large, multinational corporations have the added advantage of doing business in different countries. Some countries boom while others bust, creating some protection in the event of regional issues. Regardless of the economic outlook, people still eat, drink, and wear clothes, and the companies that supply these products really don’t care if we are of the Keynesian or Austrian persuasion!

Further, when we buy a bond, we actually become a creditor. Our thought process, when loaning money, is no different when buying a corporate bond than if we were loaning money to a distant cousin. When do we get paid back? Is there adequate cash flow to pay us timely interest and principle? Is the interest rate we are charging enough in context of both the risk of the loan, as well as in regard to competing investments? Only if these questions can be adequately answered will we invest.

By the way, these things also work for real estate investments, with an additional look at regional supply/demand characteristics as well as incomes and cap rates.

History shows that rational analysis of business and loans, as well as the proper pricing of these investments is more important to financial success than just looking at the economic backdrop prevailing at the time of investment. To reiterate, the safety of an investment (whether it be a loan or an ownership position) is of paramount concern for an investor, but the price paid is nearly as important. Money managers and individuals that got these two concepts right made money during the 30’s and 70’s, two difficult periods for investors.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” John Maynard Keynes

As pointed out above, it is not only difficult to pinpoint the direction of inflation/deflation, but also the timing. Credit bubbles tend to cause significant damage to an economy (see Reinhart and Rogoff’s This Time is Different) that takes years to play out. Contrast this with the United States high debt, inflationary policies, and a fed Chairman that has stated he will “drop money from helicopters” before he allows deflation to take hold.

Instead of making a bold wager on one or the other directions, we think it is prudent to remain open minded and hedge our bets. Housing and other big-ticket items that require financing to purchase are likely to continue falling in price. Until incomes begin to stabilize, and even rise, expect other discretionary purchases to remain weak.

Keep in mind (thanks Dave Rosenberg of Gluskin Scheff) that some Americans are walking from their homes and freeing up their cash, which leaves more room for consumption, while further hurting banks, investors, and the fed which hold the mortgages on these properties. If enough people strategically default, without retribution, consumption can recover quicker, although the losses will most likely be born by investors and by taxpayers in the form of more bailouts, with higher government debt and rising taxes.

As the government continues to add debt, and the Federal Reserve continues to monetize assets (print money), we put our currency at risk. A floating currency means that the value of said currency is left up to the financial markets in theory at least. In practice, many countries manage the value of their currencies through market intervention. If investors believe in the stability of the U.S. dollar, it’s value can remain high despite skyrocketing debt and quantitative easing. If, on the other hand, investors panic, the results could be severe, and could happen almost instantly. The British Pound’s recent sharp drop should be a warning to developed countries. We are a nation that imports more than we export. If the value of our currency plummets, the cost of much of what we import will rise.

Tying it together, we think it is entirely possible to see, for example, houses continue to fall, while the cost of food and oil rise.

We could spend hours discussing other potential sources of inflation/deflation, but I think our readers get the big picture. There are legitimate threats for both inflation and deflation. Over time, our spiraling deficits will most likely lead to a weaker dollar. Whether these trends play out over 2 years or 10 years, nobody knows. In the meantime, the collapse of a credit bubble tends to push prices down for years, slowly unfolding despite our impatient desire for “things to get better”. In conclusion, we think it is entirely possible to see, for example, house prices continue to fall, while the cost of food and oil rise. There is no reason to believe that all prices must rise or fall at the same time. If history is any guide, quality assets bought at cheap prices will provide protection from inflation and deflation. By owning assets of this type, we believe an investor can both protect capital, and grow purchasing power.” Courtesy of Ancorawest, Robert Barone

Bob says a lot in his writing but I feel that this is worth reading, and thought provoking as well.

David Morris

CRS, CRB,CLHMS, CDPE, SFR, ABR