Several times a month I get calls and emails. Sometimes, it's even people stopping in. "I've heard you're good at finding bargains." Well, yes I am. "Please tell me the addresses of some bargains so I can drive by."
Well, facts are cheap in the age of transparency. I will quite joyously look at stuff on the internet, even set up an MLS Gateway or feed for someone on the speculation that they'll come back to me later for a showing or to make an offer. Setting up such a feed takes very little time, and about the expertise of an eleven year old that has learned to fill out internet forms. Oh, and MLS access. Can't forget MLS access. We've got a system that lets me custom define the search area now - I can click the corners of a search area I want on a map, and it will return only the results within that area. It's a really neat feature, and using it takes about ten seconds of training, and maybe ten minutes to do the whole thing. I'll happily do it as the possible prelude to a limited service commission, and even if the prospects end up using another agent, I've risked and lost nothing significant. No agency contract required, or even asked. I've even done it for folks who didn't want to give me their phone numbers so I could follow up. If they come back to make an offer, my compensation will be set in the offer paperwork.
But good analysis, experience, and expertise are not free - or even cheap. Furthermore, my time is valuable - and you're asking for a lot of it. I might find three or even four real potential bargains when I spend a full day searching - and that's in a target rich environment. Furthermore, I've got a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge to draw upon that many agents don't, and I look at a lot of properties. I can winnow 100 listings on the internet to twenty possibles in about an hour, go through them in about five hours, of which I might show a client who has made the commitment to work with me six, with usually one or two standouts among those. The rest will have something that to experienced, knowledgeable eyes, will have reasons why it is not a viable choice for these particular clients. Maybe it's overpriced and I have reason to believe the owner won't negotiate. Maybe the location or surroundings have an unsolvable issue - one reason you can only tell a bargain by getting out of the office and looking at property. Given the area I work, most often there's something going on with the property itself that's not worth what it's going to cost to fix. I love the older East County suburbs of San Diego - they are good places to live, and when you consider what you get for what you spend, they blow the rest of the county away as far as value. Furthermore, I think the conditions are getting right for the housing buzz to rediscover them. But anytime you consider structures that mostly vary from thirty to eighty years old, you have to watch for maintenance and repair issues, and it really helps to know what you're looking for. Furthermore, it is always necessary to understand the market the property is being listed in. The only way you can do that is by having been in the properties that have sold recently, and the only way you can do that is to go out and look at them while they are still "for sale" because it's not likely the new owners will let you in after it sells.
What I'm trying to say is that the fact of the existence of a listing on MLS is cheap - basically free. You want me to send you addresses of properties for sale meeting certain criteria, that's easy and I'm happy to do it, no strings attached. Anything like that, that can be done by automated computer search, is not a part of what I'm really offering for sale, and I'll give it away on the speculation that sometimes, I'll make something when that person comes back to me to write an offer.
But the ability to recognize a bargain and equally important, what is not - that's the largest part of what I'm really selling as a buyer's agent. Winnowing those 100 listings to a few standout values is a valuable skill. If you don't agree with this, you shouldn't need or want that skill, and you shouldn't be talking to an agent about finding bargains. For people that want me to use that skill, there is a fee - they must sign a standard non-exclusive buyers agency agreement. This is precisely equivalent to the difference between a computer programmer giving away some old boilerplate code for free - but they want to be paid for a brand new custom program. This requires all of the same things: Expertise, analysis, experience, knowledge of the area and the current market, the time it takes me to build, run, and debug the bargain-finding program in consultation with the client, and everything else that's involved. The mental ability to do those things did not suddenly appear one morning and it does not maintain itself. Furthermore, the liability for doing this if I make a mistake is huge. Agent mistakes cannot be undone by simply re-writing a few lines of code to work correctly, and having the ability to sue me and my insurance company if I do make that mistake is a huge benefit to the client in and of itself. If they make the mistake, they're stuck - and to be blunt, the probability of a non-professional making that mistake is both much larger than most home buyers believe and many times the probability that I will make that mistake - while if I make that mistake, they can get a lawyer and sue me for everything they might have lost, plus court costs, plus other damages ad nauseum. The idea isn't to sue, but rather not to make that costly mistake in the first place. An amazingly large percentage of buyers make mistakes of a magnitude that I find incomprehensible, all in the name of saving a fraction of what the mistake costs.
The ability to recognize a bargain property is a valuable skill. If you disagree with this, what reason do you have for looking at properties before you buy them? Why don't you simply pick out the cheapest property that meets your specifications on MLS, make an offer, come to an agreement, and pay the price, all sight unseen? Remember, you're claiming that the ability to recognize a bargain does not have value. Why would you want to take the time to look if there's no value in it? When there are ten thousand identical items in a warehouse or on the grocery store shelves, you grab one and get on with your life. You might look at the label to make certain it was manufactured to fill the need you have. You don't bother opening the box - if it's defective, you can just exchange it for another. They're all interchangeable.
But that isn't the case even on everything in the grocery stone. There's a reason they wrap meat in transparent plastic - so you can see the piece of meat you're buying. To view the cut, how much fat is on it, how large a piece of meat it really is, how fresh it is - in short, the value of the meat. If you know what good meat looks like, you've seen people that have no clue as to what to look for choosing crummy meat that you've just rejected. It happens most of the times when I'm at the meat counter, as a matter of fact. It's why the grocery stores keep putting out bad cuts of bad meat. Somebody who doesn't know any better will buy it.
The same thing happens in real estate. I have dealt with people who bought into just about every bad situation imaginable - and now they're trying to unload the results of that onto someone else at a premium price. When I list a property, it's even my job to help them do so. But a significant percentage wouldn't even be selling if they had made the right choice in the first place!
The point I'm trying to make is this: Because the ability to find and recognize a bargain is a valuable skill, if you want it, you're going to pay for it. You can either pay me consultant rates by the hour, or you can pay me by doing the transaction with me. In either case, you're going to sign a contract that spells out exactly what that pay is. If you want bargains I've already found, those are valuable also. I can use the basic information as a lure to attract other people willing to work with me. If you buy it and you are not my client, the simple physical reality is that it's not available for people who are my clients. You got the benefit of my expertise without paying for it - and those who are willing to pay for it didn't. Contrary to something I read by a listing agent the other day, I have no responsibility to market the property - I haven't accepted agency, sub-agency, or anything else. When I'm acting as a buyer's agent, I have no obligation to any owner to sell their property. And until some prospective buyers sign my agency contract, I have no responsibility to them as far as locating and evaluating property. So if they're not going to sign my contract - and a non-exclusive agreement is all either one of us needs - I have no responsibility to give them the benefits of my expertise for free, any more than a lawyer or a computer programmer does. As a matter of fact, that non-exclusive contract is me betting that I will find something sufficiently above and beyond the market that they want to buy it - because if they don't buy it, the contract says I don't make anything because they don't owe me anything. It's me betting that my expertise will cause them to want to stick with me - because if it doesn't or they don't want to, there's no reason they have to. If that bargain I find isn't a bargain, they can walk away with no obligations. But if it is a bargain, they use me as buyer's agent. The only reason to refuse to sign a non-exclusive agency contract is if you're not willing to work with the agent who brings you the bargain.
And that describes most of those who call or email. When asked to sign my contract, they'll say, "I'm working with someone." To which the answer is, "No, you're not. They're not doing the job. If they were, you wouldn't have come to me. What you are asking for is no different than asking one lawyer to do for free what you're paying another lawyer to do, or asking one computer programmer to do for free what you're paying someone else for. If you didn't think that what I do was somehow valuable to you, you wouldn't have contacted me and we'd both be doing something else right now. So your choice is this: Do you want to stick with someone who isn't doing the job, or do you want to work with someone who will get the job done, and will give you permission to fire him if he doesn't?"
Loyalty has a place. It's perfectly fine to give your Uncle Harry a chance to earn your business. But if Uncle Harry gives you his business card and tells you to call him when you've found the property you want to buy (or a property you may want to buy), he hasn't earned your business. In fact, he's told you he's unworthy of it. That's not an agent. That's a transaction coordinator, which most agents will charge you extra for so that they can go out prospecting and gladhanding for other business while the transaction coordinator does paperwork - the only real work their office does. But full service should be a lot more than a transaction coordinator doing paperwork in the office - and the office should pay for that coordinator out of what they make, not charge you extra for it. In this scenario, what expertise are you really getting? The ability to fill out all the paperwork on a checklist? It is important - but is it worth the thousands of dollars to you? Or is the ability to find you a bargain while discarding properties that aren't bargains what's really worth what a buyer's agent makes?
If you want a bargain on real estate, work with the buyer's agent who finds bargains you want to buy. The principle is the same one that says if you want the ditch Charlie digs, you pay Charlie to dig a ditch, not George. If you want the haircut Jane gives, you go to Jane's shop for her haircut - not down the street to Mary. And if John the mechanic isn't fixing your car correctly, you don't pay John and then ask Dave to do the work for free. You take your car away from John and take it down to Dave, and pay him for the work he does. It doesn't matter that John's mechanic shop has nifty uniforms, a funny advertising campaign, or anything else other than the mechanic who fixes your car so it runs right, which they don't. Dave fixes your car so that it runs right, you pay Dave, and you go back to Dave the next time it breaks down. If the funny advertising campaign is worth giving John some money, that's fine. But you're still going to have to pay Dave to fix your car, and he's going to want you to sign his service contract before he does any real work. The same thing applies to when you want to buy real estate. If Uncle Harry isn't doing the job you need him to do, you fire Uncle Harry and start working with someone else. Don't tell me you want me to find bargains for you but you're working with Uncle Harry. Get Uncle Harry to find you the bargains. If he's not doing that, your choice is really very simple: Suffer with Uncle Harry, or start working with someone who will do the job that he isn't.
When I'm looking to buy professional services, I don't look for the office with the lawyer with the neat ad campaign, computer programmers who act friendliest, or the doctor who talks about how to draw customers into their office. I look for the office who will demonstrate their expertise, keep me there by demonstrating their knowledge of the expertise I need, explain everything I need to know (preferably before I need to know it), advise me as to what my best choices are and the consequences of those choices. I want the office that finds other, better alternatives and offers them to me. That's sanity. That's what's valuable to me.
The same principle applies to real estate. If you want to do the searching yourself, that's fine. Here's your MLS gateway, call me when something pops up that you want me to get involved in. But if you want real expertise on the buyer's side of the transaction, that gateway is not what you want and you're going to have to agree to pay the agent who gives it to you. Because it is valuable, and if you didn't think it was valuable, you wouldn't be asking for it. I am not what most people think of as cheap - no good agent is. But I'm a lot less expensive than using a cheap agent.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
There is no such thing as the perfect time to buy. The perfect time to buy would mean that you have all kinds of leverage, and can make sellers give you pretty much the deal you want, but prices are nonetheless rising rapidly so that you will have a large amount of equity the first time you need or want to refinance, or if you need to relocate.
These two conditions never go together. If buyers have all the leverage, they are certainly not going to opt for increasing prices. Sellers can gripe and moan about it all they want, but when there is too much inventory prices are going to fall until that that excess is gone. Supply and Demand. In 2003 and 2004, there might have been 4000 residential properties on the market locally at any one time. When I originally wrote this, it was over 22,000 and I've seen it up to 25,000. That meant 18,000 additional sellers were competing for no more than the same number of buyers (fewer by my count). If they don't really want to sell, if they just want to sabotage other sellers by adding to apparent inventory, that's no skin off the buyers' noses. If sellers want to actually sell the property, they've got to compete in order to attract those potential buyers. It's not like buyers just go out there and buy the property whose owner's turn it is to sell. They buy the best property for them at the cheapest price. So sellers can either compete by having a cheaper price, or they can compete by having a better property. Most house bling does not recover the money you spend on it, even in a seller's market, but it might give you the wedge you need to attract a buyer in a buyer's market - provided that your property is no more expensive than the comparables. Most sellers are in denial about this. They've got something a little bit better than the comparables, they want to ask $50,000 more, and then they wonder why their property isn't selling.
If you're looking for a time when property prices are increasing by twenty percent per year, by all means wait. Those conditions are called "seller's markets," because people who are willing to sell can get buyers to do pretty much everything they want, including pay more than the last seller got. Most sellers want to hold when prices are going like that, and buyers are desperate to acquire. High demand, low supply.
Trying to time the market so that you buy at exactly the moment when it hits bottom is an exercise in futility. Trying to "Time the market," whether stocks, bonds, or real estate, is a recipe for disaster. It's great if it happens, but it's sheer luck, and anyone who tells you different is lying. By the time people realize that prices are really going up again, buyers will come out of the woodwork and we'll be in a seller's market again.
Buyer's markets, where sellers outnumber buyers, do not last long, in large part due to the fact that once everyone figures out that prices are no longer declining, now everybody suddenly wants to buy. Inventory has usually been shrinking for quite some time before that happens.
Buy while the ratio of sellers to buyers is in the thirties, while you can pick and choose your properties, and if one seller won't play ball, the one down the street who's a little more desperate will. If you need some special consideration, like a seller carryback of part of the purchase price, you kind find sellers who will be willing to cooperate because that's the only way they will get the property sold. If you wait until the market heats up and there are only five sellers per buyer, they're a lot more likely to tell you to take a hike with special requests like that. If I want cash, why should I loan it to someone with poor credit money at a below market rate if it's likely that I'll find another buyer in a week?
The time of year may not be optimum. Other things being equal, Christmas season is always the best time of year to shop for a property, because nobody wants to move the Christmas tree. Most people have enough extra stuff going on at Christmas that they don't want to add another major item: buying or selling their home. Those sellers who have their property on the market need to sell. Spring is the best time for sellers, right when things start to warm up (so the very best seller season happens earlier in San Diego than I understand it does in Minneapolis)
Finally, there is one more factor: The Mortgage Loan Market Controls the Real Estate Market. Right now lenders are being picky about what circumstances they will loan money in, and incredibly picky about the loans they actually fund. This means that if you're one of those folks whom the lenders will fund, or who doesn't need a loan, you'll be able to pick up wonderful bargains.
Caveat Emptor
Original here
I refinanced my house and an existing lien was not discovered
Now the important question: Is it a valid lien, or has it really been paid, and just not released of record? If it has been paid, you don't owe money simply because the lien release on your property was not properly recorded. If you can prove it was paid off, either by yourself or a previous owner, you're out of the woods.
Since you are asking the question, however, I'm going to assume that it is a valid lien. Most are. You owe the money. It doesn't magically go away simply because the title company (or lawyer doing the title search) missed it.
Now, assuming you live in a title insurance state, it should make no difference to the state of your mortgage. You bought a lender's policy of title insurance as part of your transaction, and the title policy insures the lender from loss due to the extra lien.
You still owe the money, of course. Like any other bill, just because you neglected to pay it off or neglected to pay it on time does not mean you somehow don't owe the money. If it was in effect from before you bought the property, though, your owners policy of title insurance should kick in and pay it off. That's the way title insurance works - they tell you about known issues with your title, and then they insure (almost) everything else. They'll then go after the previous owner, of course. That's what subrogation is all about. They stepped in and paid to keep you from getting damaged, but they now assume the right to receive the money from the person who damaged you. If you live in an attorney title search state, my understanding is that you are going to have to sue the attorney involved, but suing attorneys is a tough proposition, and you can't recover the base lien, only increased damages resulting from that attorney's negligence. If the previous owner was really responsible for it, the title insurer is going to have to run them down and file a lawsuit, and quite often the previous owner has no assets that they can get at.
If the lien was your doing, as most are, you're going to have to start making an effort to pay that lien. How much of an effort depends upon whether you have a lender's policy of title insurance. If you do, it's really no huge deal, because the lender has access to the checkbook of a national megacorporation. If you don't, the lender can potentially force you to pay it in cash right now. They can also force you to refinance by calling your loan, or to take out a second mortgage to pay the lien off in many cases. It's possible they might just pay it and tack it on to your balance, usually boosting your payment in the process. Talk to a real estate lawyer in your state for details, but the lender is not generally going to leave an uncovered lien in place, when the pricing they gave you for that loan was predicated upon there not being such a lien. Since the lien predates their loan, it's almost certainly senior to it, by which I mean that if something happens and you have to sell the property to pay off the liens, it gets paid before your mortgage. The lender is not usually going to tolerate that.
Now suppose that you got a thirty year fixed rate loan at 5% back in 2003, and suppose rates have gone up to seven and a half percent by the time you rediscover the lien. The lender can do better with that money from your loan, and so they are going to want to seize upon any excuse to make you pay it off. This, all by itself, is a really good reason to be careful with your liens.
If you intentionally hid the lien, the lender may even sue for fraud in many jurisdictions. If you intentionally hid it, for instance, it's quite likely that your policy of title insurance won't cover you or the lender, and the lender is going to be very unhappy about that.
Most people, however, don't intentionally hide a lien, they just forgot it was there, and when the title search comes up empty any worries in the back of their mind went away. If they even think about it, they mentally write it off. "Oh, I must have forgotten that I paid it." You still owe the money, and now that it's discovered, you're going to have to start paying on it, but if they've got lender's title insurance the lender shouldn't freak.
Missing liens is actually fairly rare, but once title insurers miss them, they usually will not be caught on subsequent title searches, because the title company will use the previous title search as a starting point (around here, they actually call them "starters", but I don't know how widespread the practice is) for their new title search. Sometimes they do catch them, and ask the previous title company for an indemnity (which basically says that the previous title company is still liable for having missed it).
Caveat Emptor
Original here
The overview is simple: The government has made it take slightly more effort to lie to consumers, while adding layers of delays that add a minimum of a week - an average of three weeks - to the time it takes to do a loan. Meanwhile, lenders have changed the market in ways to hinder competition and make it tougher for the savvy consumer to find the real best deal.
In short, while a complete chump might be happy that the con artists have to work a little harder while ripping them off, the consumer who makes the effort of understanding what is going on has far less ability to ensure a positive result.
First the good news: the change for the better is the new government forms. It's been 4 years since The new HUD 1 and Good Faith Estimate were approved, and they are more intuitive and easier for laypeople to understand than the old forms. There is also new verbiage on the forms that tells people that just because they applied for this loan in no way obligates them to actually complete it. That's also good
In exchange for that much good news, there is a litany of things that are worse. Let's start with the small stuff and build up to the most important.
First off, the Home Valuation Code Of Conduct (HVCC). Precisely how the Attorney General of one state used state funds to shake down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provide cushy jobs for his political cronies and allies, and gain personal control over the way business is conducted in all fifty states should certainly be a subject for public scrutiny, but I'm mostly concerned with the impact upon the consumer. In exchange for allegedly freeing appraisers from "interference" by real estate agents and loan officers who want them to hit a specific number, consumers are now paying higher costs for appraisals, appraisers are getting less money for those same appraisals, an entire level of bureaucracy and political patronage has been created with control over the entire appraisal process. For our part, loan officers and real estate agents no longer have the ability to stop using a particular appraiser, no matter how terrible we know them to be - it's whomever the appraisal management company picks (i.e. the low bidder). As a loan officer, I am not allowed to so much as communicate with the appraiser except through an intermediary. And if they've chosen a really horrible comparable that unduly influences value in either direction, most of the appraisal management companies make it difficult or impossible to process that information into modifying the appraisal. I personally had an appraiser kill what should have been a perfectly good loan by choosing two trashed lender-owned properties as the prime comparables to a well maintained family home that was in a better location than either - and I couldn't choose another appraisal, another appraisal management company, or anything else. I had to tell the client I was real sorry about the money he wasted on the appraisal, but that was the limit of what I could do. Yeah, I could offer to pay for appraisals - by jacking my margin on loans enough to pay for the ones that don't work out. Lots of companies do that, with an added margin for themselves, of course - he who takes the risk always gets a reward, and when they set the terms they are going to set ones that result in a higher profit to them. But that's not the way I choose to do business. HVCC may eventually be repealed due to the problems with it being so blatant that they cannot be ignored. But it is a comparatively small issue in terms of real difference to consumers.
Yes, the others are more important than wasting several hundred dollars on a loan that now can't be done because the appraisal job was given to a bozo, despite whatever the loan officer may have wished. Oh, and it also delays the loan because I have to go through one Appraisal Management Company, and it takes as long as whomever they choose takes. Read on.
The elimination of stated income loans is not without its benefits. It was horribly abused, and those abuses are now a thing of the past. However, if you're a small business person or someone with a large amount in legitimate deductions, it means you may have to forego a lot of legitimate deductions on your income taxes in order to qualify for a loan, making it much more expensive to those consumers the stated income program was designed for. Especially if you bought the home you can really afford as opposed to the one your taxes say you can and you've got an adjustable loan. This elimination can, has and will continue to cost a noteworthy number of individuals who really could afford it their homes. It will continue to cost individuals who leave employment and go into business for themselves. It would have been better targeted by limiting it to people who are in the economic classes it was intended to serve. The cost of doing it the wrong but easy way isn't huge on a per capita scale, but it's highly concentrated in those consumers who are our best sources of economic growth.
The next issue hits everyone who applies for a loan. It lies with MDIA, a new act put into place by Congress. It is allegedly to help the consumer by forcing the mortgage provider - broker or banker - to provide accurate information on their Good Faith Estimate and Truth In Lending forms. I say allegedly because that's not how it works in practice. I can't speak for their intent, but I can tell you what happens in practice. First, the mortgage provider tells the consumer whatever lie it takes to get the consumer to sign up, same as it has always been. Then, a week before final closing but too late for the consumer to actually get another loan that will fund in time for their purchase, they have to tell the consumer something resembling the truth. Even if it's only a refinance, the consumer has sunk the money into the loan for the appraisal and there is all the time and effort they spent getting the loan to that point, meaning that they are still unlikely to go look for another loan. Real difference to the consumer: not much. Difference to the unethical loan officer: They have to do one extra Good Faith estimate and Truth in Lending in order to get the money they that results from telling the lie. Forms that their computers are perfectly capable of spitting out. In practice, the amount of disincentive for lenders to lie about their loan to get people to sign up is zero.
(oh, I'm sorry, I meant "forget to tell the consumer about all the fees they'll be paying". Not. These loan officers know about every fee that's going to get paid. If they don't, I sure wouldn't do business with them)
Furthermore, this delays the loan. I just closed a loan where everything I put down on California's version of the Good Faith Estimate, the Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement was exactly the same from day 1 to the day we were ready to close - and I moved heaven and earth and gave up $1000 plus just so we could close it and get on with our lives - only to find that the lender I had placed the loan with calculated the APR by a different way - not compliant with Regulation Z which governs such - simply to cover their backsides. This forced a re-disclosure and a minimum waiting period of seven days just to get this loan about which absolutely nothing had changed from day one closed. Extensions of rate locks cost money - this one cost two tenths of a point, which the consumer ended up paying because the government wanted to "protect" them from the "Nasty Rapacious Loan Officer" who told them the truth in the first place. But the penalties on the lenders are enough that they want to force this re-disclosure, delaying the loan, even when the consumer has been told the exact truth in the first place. After all, it doesn't cost that lender any money to force the redisclosure and waiting period.
The complexity of underwriting standards has skyrocketed. Can't force anyone to make a loan, or dictate conditions under which it is made. Nonetheless, it seems every week there are more baroque little curlicues to the loan process trying to reassure nervous investors. Every one of these means trouble for some people, and at this point it's well-qualified people. All the government can and should do is what it has: provide an alternative in the form of FHA loans. They're intended for first time buyers, but you don't have to be a first time buyer to take advantage. If someone can't qualify conventional but can qualify FHA, they will pay the extra cost. Unfortunately, the lenders are adding their own little curlicues to FHA loans in order to short circuit this natural process - and it's not like FHA loans aren't baroque enough already.
This segues into the elimination of everything that isn't straight A vanilla loans or government insured loans. Actually, conforming A paper loans are essentially government insured now that the government owns Fannie and Freddie. But subprime is gone, Alt A is gone, and A minus is essentially gone. Fannie and Freddie have eliminated all but the first tier of their expanded approval programs for people who almost but don't quite fit their ideal models of who qualifies. I personally haven't had an expanded approval loan since but I understand they're not funding in the real world. The impression I get is very strongly "We don't want to do these any more, but we have to leave the possibility open as a political fig leaf. Good luck getting us to actually fund one."
This has implications for home ownership and home retention. Bad things happen to good people. Identity theft, illness, job loss, business failure. All of these now have a much higher probability of costing you your ability to buy a property, and of costing you the ability to retain that property for years after you work your way through the main problem. I really like hybrid ARMs and have done them for myself for a long time, but the probability of having something happen which completely sabotages any ability to refinance has become unacceptably high, in my opinion. You can save a lot of dough by using hybrid ARMs, but what happens if you can't refinance at all before the fixed period ends? Net result: consumers who would have been comfortable and saved money with hybrid ARMs are now forced to reconsider and choose fixed rate loans at higher rates of interest. Net result: higher costs to consumers and more income to lenders and investors.
All this increased complexity adds to the time it takes to do loans. When I started this website I could reliably get a purchase money loan funded in about two and a half weeks, and a refinance done in under 30 days (Right of Rescission basically adds a week to the time it takes to get refinances done). Until and unless things change, the thirty day escrow for purchases is history and the 45 day escrow is becoming increasingly difficult. Add a week to that time for refinances. I know loan officers who won't accept less than a sixty day escrow for purchases any more. This extra time costs consumers money, especially if they are buying or selling a property. If you're just refinancing, your living situation really isn't going to change - but if you need to move, the extended escrow period makes things more unsettled and more costly. If you don't believe me, you haven't bought or sold property recently.
All of these pale in comparison to something that has drawn precisely zero scrutiny from outside the mortgage industry: lenders are now charging brokers for loans that are locked and not delivered. It's not a figure in dollars charged immediately - it's a differential in the form of higher costs to get the same rate that the brokers and all of their future clients have to pay. The practical upshot to this is that those brokers who were working in favor of consumers can no longer lock the rate and cost upon application for the loan, which means they can no longer stand behind what they tell you when you sign up for the loan with a Loan Quote Guarantee. Lenders rationalize this by saying the failure to deliver on the lock costs them money - but they don't charge their own "in house" loan officers this differential.
The effect is to limit competition and make brokers unable to guarantee their quotes. Good luck getting that sort of guarantee from a traditional lender. It also makes it impossible for consumers to get a backup loan in case they have been lied to. Because I can't lock my loan until we're actually sure it's going to close, I certainly can't guarantee to beat the other guy when it comes to the final push - and if the rate cost tradeoff declines, a quote that's pure nonsense today may become realistic. On the flip side, a quote that's conservative today may become impossible if that rate/cost tradeoff goes up. Guess what? Each one of these events happens about fifty percent of the time. So another practical upshot is that there's no way to really know what's going to be delivered at closing unless we can lock the loan. Under these circumstances, people tend to take flight to the big comfortable names with lots of advertising, not the small broker doing the right thing with no overhead who really can deliver a better loan. Cost to consumers: High, as in multiple thousands of dollars. If lenders could and would really compete with brokers on price, there would have been no economic niche for brokers in the first place.
One by one, changes in the lending environment has demolished the usefulness of pretty much all of the concrete "do this, not that. Require this from your loan provider" type help that I have been trying to disseminate since day one on this website. The softer, contextual stuff still stands well, but the concrete step-by-step instructions, not so much. The practical upshot is that while the situation for the complete babes in the woods applying for a loan has improved slightly, the ability of the well-informed consumer to influence the lending process for a positive result has been severely eroded. Now more than ever, it comes down to the individual loan officer and their intentions. I'm not happy about it, but that's the business as it is today. I can adapt or I can get out of the business, and it's not like me getting out of the business would change things for the better.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
People who talk about learning skills tend to discuss a model for learning called the conscious competence learning model.
It starts with unconscious incompetence. You not only don't know how to do something, you don't realize that it is a skill that requires learning. "Anyone can do that", people at this stage of learning will think, despite the fact that they never have. They have, in fact, no basis for comparison. A very few things are as simple as tripping over your own feet, but most aren't.
The next stage is the conscious incompetent. You still don't know how to do whatever it is, but at least you know that you don't know how. Maybe you've tried and fallen flat upon your face, maybe it's something that you instinctively know is beyond your training or ability. Back when I worked for the FAA and people would find out what I did for a living, it's was amusing to see how many people would immediately volunteer that they couldn't have done my job. For some reason, I don't get that now, despite the fact that the skills of being a good real estate agent are at least as difficult to acquire.
The next stage up the ladder is the conscious competent. Some preparation, supervision, a few botched tries, and then you do it right without anyone having to step in. But you've got to think - really pay attention, take your time and be careful about what you're doing.
The final stage is unconscious competence, where the skill becomes second nature. You're good at whatever it is. Most people over the age of two are at this stage as far as the skill of walking is concerned. They do it without considering how to move the muscles that make the legs and hips move. They walk whatever distance they need to without even paying attention. And here's an important point: Sometimes by not paying attention, people step on something or trip over something and get seriously hurt. They walk in front of a semi, or trip over the coffee table and fall through a window or just step on an oily patch that causes their feet to go out from under them and hit the back of their skull on the pavement.
It is my contention that nobody is up to unconscious competence when it comes to real estate.
In fact, if you think you've achieved unconscious competence at most of the core skills of real estate, you're almost certainly stuck on the first level - somebody who doesn't know what they don't know.
First off, real estate isn't one skill. It's at least half a dozen. The average client doesn't care about how good we are at attracting other clients. They care if we interact with them incorrectly, but I have yet to hear of a prospective client saying, "I want to sign up with someone who's great at prospecting for leads." They'll say things that amount to the same thing, like "I want to work with a top producer," or "I want to work with (insert heavily advertised brand here)" but there's a real difference of intent on the part of the consumer. They really don't care about lead prospecting competence per se. Yet this is probably the most discussed skill set on real estate websites. I don't understand why other agents think this is fascinating to clients, but by how often they talk about it, they evidently do. Maybe because it's one of the big focal points for every office - if you don't attract enough business, you're not going to be in the business. Nonetheless, clients don't really care about this one. You could be the worst prospector in the business, but somehow get enough clients to stay in business, and as long as you're good at everything else, the clients are going to be happy.
Then there are the interpersonal skills that most people have in fact developed by the time they're adults. Hello, how are you? Nice day, and so on from there until we get to the pinnacle of those skills, handling people so well that they never realize they've been handled. People care about this, and they know they care. Don't believe me? Whatever you do for a living, try calling your next prospect something nasty. You can't do real estate without these skills, but not only are they not the central job function for real estate licensees, but clients actually do not want somebody who is obviously too good at this. Why? They like the basic skills, but they don't like being played by sales persons, something that's happened to basically everyone by the time they're ready to buy real estate or get a loan. Nonetheless, many people choose agents and loan officers based upon feeling "a connection." *Buzz*. Wrong answer, thank you for playing. If a prospective agent isn't competent at the interpersonal dance, that's one thing. But 95% of all agents are quite good at it, and it doesn't mean a darned thing about their competence at real estate. Anybody with any competence at interpersonal skills can talk a good game in the office. They could be ready to crack that license prep course any day - not actually know a thing about real estate yet - and still manage to generate "a connection."
Then there's the paperwork and legal CYA stuff. I could name names of nationwide real estate firms that take months to cover these skills with new licensees, and brag about their training based upon that. The obvious snark that occurs to me every time I see one of their advertisements is, "How is being able to avoid legal judgments when you've hosed your client a virtue in the client's eyes?" In other words, it blows my mind that they actually brag about it to clients - and it also blows my mind that some people will actually choose them based upon advertising that essentially says, "We're good at the paperwork that allows us to not get sued for hosing our clients".
To be fair, paperwork is a real and necessary part of the career skills, but I'd like to see more emphasis upon actually doing a good job for the client, not disclosing everything in small print, hidden among 500 other sheets of paper at final document signing. There is stuff here that you're going to see on every transaction, or almost every transaction, but pretty much every real estate transaction is going to have something going on that is different from some hypothetical "typical" transaction, and if you aren't thinking about what you're doing, it's very likely you'll miss something important. Even if you are thinking carefully, you might miss something. People successfully sue agents every day, and the defendants are not all incompetent. Paperwork isn't a skill that gets clients a better bargain very often, and perfect paperwork doesn't mean the client didn't buy a vampire property or money pit, that they got a good bargain even if they didn't buy a vampire, that they sold for a good price in a timely fashion, or anything else except that the paperwork is perfect. The paperwork will usually tell them if they are careful enough and understand enough to read between the lines, but "careful enough" can be "reading documents for forty-six hours straight at final signing," and even then, it's pointless unless they've got the willpower to say "no" to the transaction at the last moment like that. Nonetheless, bad paperwork is what the attorneys of former clients find easiest to pin on real estate agents, and almost every judgment against an agent has "bad paperwork" behind it as the evidence. Paperwork is a necessary skill for agents, but it it's only evidence of a good or bad job - it isn't the good job or bad job itself.
Negotiation is a critical skill for agents, and many do actually study it. But for every agent I encounter who understands principles of negotiation, another is completely clueless and a third thinks negotiation is where you tell the other side everything about how the transaction is going to be. You should see some of the contracts my buyer clients have been told to sign - take it or leave it - in the middle of the strongest buyer's market of the last fifteen years. And these folks wonder why the property didn't sell. Actually, I'll bet that if you work with buyers, you wouldn't be surprised. I just randomly pulled up twenty listings in the zip code my office is in - and all but two had violations of RESPA right in the listing. Bare, baldfaced violations of RESPA - steering is illegal, no matter the form it takes. It's not only setting you up for a lawsuit, it's setting your client up for a lawsuit. If DRE wanted to put at least half the agents and brokerages in California out of business over steering, I think it would be pretty trivial. But I digress - I'm trying to talk about negotiation.
Everything about the transaction is negotiable, and refusing to negotiate anything can be grounds for losing an excellent offer. Price is not an independent variable, and it's not the most important of a series of completely independent points. It may be the central issue of a negotiation, but it influences everything else about the negotiation, and is in turn influenced by all those other factors. What does each side need, what do they want, what would they settle for, and what are they willing to give up in order to get it? If the answer to this last question is "nothing," then they must not want it very badly! There are many factors other than money, but they all inter-relate, and the person who can figure out something the other side wants that isn't money can use that to make both sides happier. Negotiation isn't just faxing offers back and forth, and in the context of real estate, it's a skill that takes a significant amount of practice as well as study to maintain. Furthermore, more than any other skill involved in real estate, negotiation never gets to be so strong a skill that you can do a good job without thinking about it. For one thing, on the other side of that negotiation is another agent who does the same thing. I always presume the other side is better at it than I am to start with. Evidence quite often proves this presumption to be nonsense, but you don't hose your client in negotiations by paying attention and being careful. Nor is there any metric for negotiation skills except how good the deal you get one particular client is, and since every property is unique, often the client has no real idea whether you should be nominated for negotiator of the year or pilloried for incompetence. I haven't heard of anybody being sued for poor or non-existent negotiation skills. I have heard of buyer's agents getting beat up by their brokers for doing too good of a job - lowering the commission.
The next skill is property evaluation. This is more important to buyer's agents than listing agents, but listing agents can benefit by knowing it as well. It breaks into several skill facets, each of which is a skill that requires instruction and practice. The most important facet of this is the ability to spot defects that are going to cost the client money - actual structural problems. Ask yourself: Is the fact that the agent tells you they're not an inspector going to make you feel better about buying a property where the roof caves in three weeks later? Is that going to absolve the agent of blame in your mind? Don't expect your agent to note everything that a contractor or inspector or engineer will - but they should tell you about everything they see, and they should see most of it, and it should come as part of a full service package, so you don't have to spend $300 getting an inspector out, or $600 for an engineer, not to mention put a deposit into escrow where you may not get it back for quite some time if the seller wants to be obstinate. This is a critical job skill - but you would be amazed at the number of highly agents whose advertising tells the world about how much real estate they sell who might as well be wearing a blindfold. Telling clients about defects makes it harder to really churn those numbers!
Furthermore, without a good agent who will tell you this stuff, you might have to do this multiple times. Instead, with a good agent you know about the problem before you consider putting an offer in - and instead of a costly drama that eats your life, you walk away unscathed and find another property that actually suits you. On the day I originally rote this, I had persuaded a client to cross four properties off their list, all of which would have sent him through that cycle. Decorator's eye is another facet of this - helping the client stage a property - or helping buyers see the potential of a property despite poor staging. Poor staging wouldn't make nearly the difference it does if most agents weren't lacking in this truly important skill.
Rehabber's eye is related, yet a distinct sub-skill - helping the client see the property with a few changes, usually not very expensive ones. Location evaluation: How does the location of the property fit with the client's agenda? Schools, traffic, shopping, environmental noise and other factors. Sometimes, the client doesn't know their own agenda, as I have discovered upon many occasions. All of these are part of the core job function, all are skills that must be developed and practiced if you want them. They are also critical to how happy a client is going to be with an agent's work - particularly if you're working as a buyer's agent, as I usually am. But it seems that this whole group of critical skills gets neglected in favor of "Which property has one feature that makes Mrs. Client swoon with delight?" This approach is conceptually similar to "throw enough mud at the wall and eventually some will stick." Out of sheer frustration if nothing else. But I have yet to see a single brokerage train their clients for any of this entire group of skills. Indeed, most of the major chains seem to be doing their best to pretend these are not part of an agent's function. Here's the thing: I can get people to buy and sell properties without these skills, and never get sued successfully over them. But then it's completely hit or miss as to whether the client will really be happy with the property - and who do you think is going to get the blame if they're not? I had some clients insist upon buying property on the corner of two moderately busy streets last year - and I made certain to remind them of the traffic and noise throughout the transaction - giving them encouragement to change their mind if they weren't certain they were going to be happy with it. But I'll bet you a nickel they call me when it's time to sell it because these opportunities to change their mind also generated a real buy-in to the situation for them.
Marketing skill is more critical for listing agents, but buyer's agents need to know marketing as well. How do you get the attention of someone who will want to buy this property? How do you persuade them it's worth making an offer on? What are the available venues, and what actually works? Theory says that there is one buyer out there who will pay more for the property than anyone else - how do you get their attention or that of someone close to them? Get them to come look, get them to see value, get them to make an offer you're happy to accept, get them to carry through on the purchase? On the buyer's side, you've got to be able to counter the fecal matter - and I can count on the fingers of one hand all the properties I've been in the last year where I didn't find some obvious fecal matter in the way it was represented, or the things that the listing agent said in order to get it sold. (FYI: This fecal matter has an ugly habit of biting the disseminators later on.)
Did you think I was leaving market knowledge out? Here it is. How does the property compare to everything else around it? What's the general market for real estate like in the area? What else has sold lately, for how much, and what was it really like? It's too late now to get a viewing of all the comparables that sold within the last few months - the lock box is gone, the new owners have moved in, they're done with all that transactional nonsense, and the vast majority sure as heck aren't going to let random strangers poke around their new house. How many agents get off their backside, get into their car, go out and look, take notes, and remember? Most of the agents I've done business with never leave the office except for an actual showing generated by clients driving around, or surfing the internet, or even reading the "for sale" ads.
Showing clients only those properties they have asked to see is so backwards I have difficulty articulating precisely how messed up it is. A good agent knows the market, knows the comparables for sale, and knows how a given property compares. They might not have been in every single one, but they've been in enough for a good comparison. Patronizing an agent who hasn't done this, who doesn't make a habit of this, is like having half an agent - at most. How in the nine billion names of god are you going to help a client price a listing properly if you haven't looked at the competition? How in the name of ultimate evil are you going to know a property is or isn't worth making an offer on, and for how much? Yet people will do put up with this nonsense because they don't know any better. This is probably the agent skill that needs the most practice of all, and decays the most quickly if not practiced. There's this one neighborhood about three miles from my office that I haven't been into for almost three months, and I'm terrified I'm going to get a call for it before I can remedy the situation. There's nothing wrong with clients suggesting properties, and I firmly believe that no matter how messed up the property is, they should be given the opportunity to see any property that catches their eye - but doing that and only that takes zero advantage of the one thing good agents have that bad agents and 99.999% of the general public don't - precisely this expertise. It is this expertise that makes more difference than any other skill set in results for clients - whether selling or buying. You can't recognize either a bargain or the opposite without the context to put it in. You can't price a property right without knowing the competing properties and their relative strengths and weaknesses. But all too many people, both agents and general public, discount this difficult to acquire skill, thinking, "Anybody can do that!" Question: Which learning category does this place them into?
I don't know how many people I've met that seem proud to be stuck in unconscious incompetence. But just because you don't recognize the skill doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that its lack won't bite you, and it most assuredly does not mean that its presence in others won't hurt you. For real estate transactions, to the tune of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Knowledge springs, not from the mental impenetrability of "Anyone can do that!", but rather from the admission that perhaps you might have something to learn.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
I enjoy your blog very much and figured you would be a good person to ask this prepayment penalty question to.Is there a prepayment penalty if you dont pay down the whole amount? For
instance, say I owe 620k and want to refinance this. Can I get a loan for
say 610k from another lender and leave 10k with the orignal lender?Does that avoid the prepay penalty?
No.
Have to admire the ingenuity, but it won't work. Here's why:
First off, the penalty is triggered by paying a certain amount extra. There are two main trigger points for a prepayment penalty, usually known as "first dollar" and "twenty percent." "First dollar" prepayment penalties are uncommon, but they do exist. What such a penalty means is that if you pay one extra dollar of principal during the time the penalty is in effect, you will get hit for the penalty - usually six months interest on the prepaid amount. Not so bad if you pay an extra dollar and get hit with a three cent penalty, but you have to pay a substantial amount to get any noticeable good out of it. You pay $1000 extra, and that's $30 they're going to hit you with on a 6% loan. Pay off a $100,000 at 6%, and they're going to have their hands out for $3000 extra.
The other trigger point, "twenty percent" lets you pay down the balance by up to twenty percent for any given year without triggering the penalty. Note that this includes not only any extra you pay, but normal amortization as well. If you have a $100,000 balance, and would normally pay $3000 down through regular amortizationduring the year, this leaves you with "only" $17,000 of extra that you can pay before the penalty starts hitting you. Most often for this type of trigger, the prepayment penalty will only be assessed on any amount over 20% of the balance, but I have seen these charge the full penalty once triggered. So paying off $20,001 of a $100,000 balance at 6% might, depending upon your loan contract, cause a $600.03 penalty to be assessed - but most often it will only be that three cents. In this case, paying off the loan in full would only cause the penalty to be assessed on $80,000 - $2400 instead of $3000. It's also something to be cognizant of that this 20% paydown applies to the balance as of the start of the loan year, which runs from contract anniversary to anniversary. Say you have such a penalty in effect for three years. The first year you only pay it down to $80,000, escaping the penalty. The second year, you can only pay it down to $64,000 - by 20% of the beginning amount for the year - before triggering the penalty. If you do so, in year three you can only pay it down as far as $51,200 without triggering that penalty. This type of trigger is used when the lender is mostly worried about a complete refinance or selling the property. (A "soft" prepay is one where the penalty is not due if you actually sell the property, but most loans with prepayment penalties have "hard" penalties that are assessed at a certain trigger level, no matter the reason.)
No matter whether your penalty trigger is "first dollar" or "twenty percent" though, you're not going to refinance without paying it off completely. Here's why: In order for the new loan to be first in line, the old loan has to be paid off completely. The rates and prices on home loans that we all see advertisements and such for are predicated upon them being first trust deeds. They can only do this by paying off the previous loan in full and having a Reconveyance of the Deed of Trust recorded. Not paying the old loan off means no Reconveyance, which in turn means no new loan because their Deed of Trust will not be first in line. You'd have to content yourself with the higher prices for a loan priced as a second trust deed.
There are only four ways to avoid a prepayment penalty that I'm aware of. 1) Don't accept one in the first place, 2) Don't sell or refinance until it expires if you do accept one, 3) Convince a court the lender has done you sufficient dirt for the court to order part of the contract voided (this takes a lot of dirt), or 4) Swap your old penalty period for a brand new one by refinancing with the same lender, if they will allow it (They don't have to).
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
One of the things I keep telling folks about the real estate market, whatever area you live in, is that it is controlled by the loan market. If you want to understand where real estate in general is headed, look at the loan market and the financial markets that generate them.
Right now, the loan markets are in terminal panic mode. The lenders are looking for any restrictions they can slap on around the edges to mollify investors, and investors are shying away from any loan that has any element of risk. All non-governmentally guaranteed loans for more than 95% of value have disappeared, and the ones above 90% of value are very difficult to find and even more difficult to fund. This means that VA loans and FHA loans are all that is left above 95% loan to value ratio, and stated income loans are dead, no matter how much sense they make for your situation, as nobody will make them. Fannie and Freddie have drastically curtailed their A minus programs (all but the first level of their expanded approval has been eliminated, and they don't want to actually fund even those). Outside of government loans, you've pretty much got to be A paper full documentation to get a loan at all.
This eliminates pretty much every type of loan that was a major player in the market when things were hot. It also severely restricts the numbers of new buyer in a position to buy. Since 100% Loan to Value ratio financing had been the almost universal financing vehicle for borrowers for the previous several years, this constricts the ability of prospective buyers to get the loans they need. Comparatively few people have money they could use for a down payment if they wanted to. Not everybody qualifies VA or FHA. VA requires military service, and FHA has policy limits on what they will fund.
Furthermore, all of the other loan programs to get 100% loan financing have gone away, and all of the supplemental programs to extend buyers' ability to qualify have rather sharp income limits, and those income limits are not going up at all. They actually effect San Diego less than most areas, but even here, they constrict the ability of buyers to qualify. Both the mortgage credit certificateand all of the municipal first time buyers programs have income limits that mean people can't make over a certain amount of income - and even if they have no other bills they can't qualify for the loan on property over a certain loan amount, because even if they have no other bills, their debt to income ratio will be too high from just the payment and taxes and insurance on the property. You can't cheat on this - all of these programs require full documentation of income. Above about $420,000, even if they conforming limit goes up, even if the prospective buyers make the maximum amount per year for the program and have no other bills, the people these programs are aimed at won't qualify because the debt to income ratio will be too high.
The moral of this story is simple: If you want to sell your property above a given price, you're not competing for first time buyers. You are competing for people who have sold (or are about to sell) their property for a profit and are now ready to move up. If the prospective buyers don't qualify for the necessary loan based upon debt to income ratio, they can't buy.
Any time you raise the price you want to sell by a certain amount, there are people that no longer qualify to buy your property. You have priced them out, and no matter how much they might want to buy your property, the fact remains that they cannot.
As for buyers making the median family income in San Diego of $75,900, their limit on loans is about $270,000. So unless they have a significant down payment, a family making $6000 per month is looking at a condominium. Just a cold hard fact.
There will always be buyers around the edges who are exceptions. People who have saved or inherited a substantial down payment in defiance of demographic trends. But those are the exceptions, and for every one of them, you have a dozen of more unqualified buyers engaged in wishful thinking. In the last year or so, I have spend a lot of time looking for loans unsuccessfully trying to get people into sustainable situations and save their property from foreclosure. At this point, until the lenders and investors calm down from their institutionalized panic, those loan programs aren't going to exist. Even having lots of equity may not help you unless you can afford a hard money loan.
Before you ask me what relevance this has to buying and selling, I'm going to answer: Every time a lending program goes away, there go some buyers who otherwise could have qualified. Right now, there is no stated income. Doesn't bother me much, as 95% or more of my clients have always been full doc, but for those who are used to the opposite ratio, it's the apocalypse. Ditto for sellers and listing agents who don't understand what it takes to qualify, and who price their properties as if the loan market for several years ago was still going gangbusters. When the property sits for months because the people who might buy can't qualify for that big of a loan, that's a problem.
With all this said, the people who do have the cash or the ability to qualify for a loan are in the driver's seat now. You may be getting tired of hearing this from me, but veterans can qualify for more loan than someone without military service for the same income due to the lack of mortgage insurance requirements. People with a large down payment are in an even stronger situation, and people who have both things going for them have an incredible amount of negotiating leverage. When the loan market will approve anyone who can fog a mirror, your competition is everyone who can fog a mirror. When the loan market wants to see guarantees and cold hard cash going into the property in the form of a down payment, your pool of available buyers is much smaller - and prices are lower because of it.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
(This was originally published September 29,2005)
Here's another advertisement that I got in the mail:
"Pick a Pay, Any Pay!' The Revolutionary Option ARM!""Start rates as low as 1%!"
Loan amount $100,000 Payment $321.64
$200,000 $643.28
$300,000 $964.92
$400,000 $1286.56Could this help save you money?
Let's see, given the real rate on these, there is negative amortization of about $500 to start with per month on the $300,000 loan, compounded over the three years the pre-payment penalty is in effect. Cost me $19,000 to "save" this money - even if the underlying rate doesn't rise. Not counting what it costs to do the loan. Or I refinance out of it and pay a pre-payment penalty of about $9200.
Doesn't matter the friendly sounding name you give it. An option ARM is a Pick-a-pay is a negative amortization loan.
What this guy (in this case) is hoping is that you'll be so enticed by this "low payment" that you won't ask questions. These are easy loans to sell to people who don't understand them, and impossible to those who do unless you're the person it's really designed for. Indeed, many prospective clients do not want the problems with this loan explained to them. It's like they've chosen to be insulated from reality for a time.
But this is no surgical anaesthetic. Most folks are going to want to be homeowners for the rest of their lives, and unless your income has increased commensurate with your loan balance (and prospective interest rate increases) I guarantee you that the pain will go on for quite a long time after the time of "affordable low payments". I'd rather not shoot myself in the foot in the first place.
More from the ad:
You could also lower your monthly payments. Free yourself from high interest rate credit cards and debts with a loan that could reduce your monthly payments by hundreds of dollars and leave you with enough cash to buy a car, remodel, or pay property taxes. And don't forget that mortgage interest is usually tax deductible. So you could save more at tax time.
This is all true - and only a part of the story. Remember that the easiest way to lie is to tell the truth - just not all of it. What they're selling you is the seductive "cash now - pay later". This was how you probably got into the situation they're talking about. What most people do is then take the money out and spend it, and then when the payments get to be too much, refinance again. What are you going to do when the overall payments get larger (again) next time. What are you going to do when there's no more equity? What are you going to do when you can't afford the payments?
The consolidation refinance can be a real financial lifesaver, if you do it right, have a plan, stick to it, and pay everything off, or at least pay your mortgage down below where it was before you go acquiring more debt. Fiscal responsibility is not what they're selling here.
You've earned a 30-day break from payments!
By rolling it into your mortgage, where you pay points and fees on it and the loan provider gets a bigger commission because of it. There is no such thing as a free lunch! You'll be better off if you stop looking for it. The bank is never going to give you one day that is free from interest, much less thirty. And because you don't make a payment now, you will be paying more later. Probably much more. You Never really skip a payment
You're probably going to see a lot of recurring themes when I do these quasi-fiskings. That's because the lenders and real estate agents and everybody else keeps advertising the same misleading nonsense over and over and over again, they just say it in slightly different ways. As far as I am concerned, anybody who sends out one of these ridiculous things deserves to have their name engraved on my personal blacklist of people I will never do business with. I hope for your sake that you feel the same way.
Caveat Emptor
Original here
Lessons from last night:
Demographically, Republicans can no longer win national elections. It doesn't matter who lied, it doesn't matter how unfair the media coverage, it doesn't matter the amount of cheating. Those are all included in the final result.
The Democrats saw that lying was successful. They will continue to do it.
The media are not going to become less biased. They are a focused filter favoring the Democrats - except for Fox, and Fox is preaching to the choir. The minority. The demonized minority.
The Democrats have a firm hand on the mechanisms for cheating, especially in urban centers. They are not going to suddenly stop.
Nor will there be fewer people dependent upon government handouts at the next election.
None of this matters because we are facing a financial crisis that could happen literally any day now. Nobody seriously thinks that the government has - or can get - the money to pay what it already owes. Our creditors - existing and potential - have already cut us off. Right now, the only thing standing between the US Government and a failed treasury auction is the fact that the Federal Reserve is buying up 70% of each new issue. They are paying for them with dollars created out of thin air, on the spot, and that is the only thing enabling the government to pay its bills right now.
If the Federal Reserve can do this, people who accept dollars are asking, then what real value does a dollar contain? What if the answer is "no real value at all"? There really isn't a good counter-argument to that.
So what happens when the people with goods and services to sell stop accepting dollars? Or at least, stop accepting them voluntarily?
The government, like any organism, will do whatever it takes to survive for as long as possible. It will confiscate what it needs from the citizenry and sell it to the highest bidder in order to get the most cash possible so that they can continue to pay law enforcement and all of the other bills.
(Military culture and ethos is wrong for this kind of work - so the military will be cut, mercilessly. But just like nobody can fight the military, we can't fight law enforcement either. What did you think the push behind giving law enforcement military toys was? I am telling you flat out NOT to fight, ever. The day for civil disobedience - not fighting - may come when the government is at the end of its rope. That day is not today, and if there is one thing I can guarantee looking at the long sad history of this kind of collapse it is that the government will not lack for brownshirt recruits. Those who believe in the mission will volunteer, and they will be thugs right out of the mold of all the worst internal police down through the centuries.)
That the government will then re-confiscate that sold item when they need the money again is something that may not be immediately apparent, but the smart folks with money will have it figured out right away. If it cannot be moved away from the government's ability to confiscate and re-confiscate, it won't really be worth anything. This means economic dislocation, as people either follow their jobs elsewhere or lose them.
The government will not tolerate anything competing with it. Not successfully. The people with their hands on the tiller cannot allow successful private schools for the middle class, or anything else the government oversees. For the upper class - those schools can afford to pay the government bribes (or whatever you want to call them) out of what their customers pay. But not the middle class - the necessary costs to pay those bribes put them out of reach for the middle class, as well as being large numbers of customers that the affluent are not. The people whose economic well being is rooted in control of the government function will not allow it, and even if they would, the entire mechanism of the President and his party are rooted in Envy - they cannot abide someone being better off than the average voter, unless that someone is somehow a member of an acceptable group (like actors) that publicly say they hate wealth while privately sitting on a fortune that makes most businesses look like paupers and laughing their backside off at the suckers who believe it. They must destroy those who seek to better themselves, or they lose people dependent upon them, and when they lose people dependent upon them, they lose power.
But the wealth to pay off the government's existing debts does not exist. Not in the entire world, let alone in the United States. Meanwhile, the demands of those siphoning from the public trough will continue and add to the bill. There will therefore come a day when the government falls short, as their constituents clamor ever more loudly for what they were promised and finally even law enforcement isn't getting what is due to them. It will take some time - years, maybe decades, but when law enforcement stops getting paid the end will be almost here.
What it's about now is mutual support networks that enable individuals to survive government economic persecution. Once upon a time we had such networks in place. They atrophied when the government outcompeted them for resources by holding a metaphorical gun to the donor's heads and saying "Give us your money instead." We need to rebuild them so that when one person is victimized by the government's ever more voracious appetite, we can somehow get them what they need to survive.
It's not about fighting. It's about banding together to help one another survive while the now-inevitable government collapse plays out. Because every last one of us is going to be a target - a victim - at least once before it's all over.
PS: All of this does assume we will not be successfully invaded as the government comes apart. But that's not something we can reasonably hope to forestall as the government becomes unable to modernize, then to maintain, then even to pay the military. Frankly, at some point the government will probably hold a fire sale on military equipment and our only real protection at that point will be a perception that we don't have enough left to make it worth the invader's while.
You see it all the time at open houses and elsewhere. People who desperately need buyer's agents, but think of Buyer's Agents in the same way they think of automobile sales folk, and that's the complete opposite of the way it is.
They don't want to deal with an agent, because an agent will use high pressure tactics, convince them that this property is the one they want even if there's better stuff out there cheaper, and trick them into signing on the dotted line. Or so they think.
Actually, the person they fear is already part of the transaction. They're called the Listing Agent, and they're the one you're going to deal with regardless of whether you want an agent or not. It is their job to get that property sold. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the owner of that property to get it sold for the best possible price in the shortest amount of time. They only responsibility they have to the buyer is that they're not supposed to lie, mislead, or conceal the truth. Any of those are tough to prove even for egregious violations. If they can sell the property for $100,000 more than neighboring properties in better shape are selling for, they have done nothing else except their job. They have no responsibility to tell you there's a better deal around the corner. To a listing agent, the only importance of a better buy three blocks over is to hope you don't discover it. Despite all of this, many people will insist upon making their offers through the listing agent.
Lest you think I am kidding or in any way exaggerating, consider this: Within five miles of my office are at least 100 Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) built within the last three years. These are legally condominiums, but they have detached walls. Most often, the developer puts up a 1700 to 2000 square foot two story dwelling, separated by maybe six feet from the next dwelling over. In many of these, the first thing most of the inhabitants do every morning is greet their neighbors in the next unit over, then get out of bed. Not that I'm against condos - I'm not - but the townhome I bought in 1991 has more privacy than most of these, and it's got a shared wall. The inhabitants of PUDs usually - not always - have a small quasi-private back yard, and the units may or may not have shared walls. The garage is always within the walls of the unit, because they are packed so tight there is no room for a driveway or outside parking. The developer slapped on false granite counters and travertine floors at a cost of maybe $300 extra, and with their in-house agents who dealt swiftly and efficiently with those who come to look, sold them for $100,000 to $150,000 more than comparable dwellings sitting on 8000 square foot lots and without a homeowner's association (and association dues) to deal with. Those PUDs are not going to be new forever - and as a matter of fact there are a much larger than representative percentage of the new owners trying without much success to sell them. Whether they decided they didn't like their neighbors whom they practically share a master bedroom with, they want a place with a yard where they can build a pool or even just a horseshoe pit, or that they want to paint the place a slightly different shade of off-white (and can't), they are finding out the difficulties, and trying to sell. But they're asking the same kind of prices they bought them for, and without the massive marketing campaign the developer used, it's not working. When you're trying to sell 20 units on what used to be two lots totaling half an acre, you can afford the kind of marketing campaign that pulls in the suckers. At $520,000 each for twenty units that cost you $150,000 each to build, if you spend $100,000 on advertising, you'll make it back in spades. Not so much if you spent that $520,000 buying one of those units and now the market has declined and you need $570,000 to break even - and I'm finding my prospects single family homes on their own 8000 square foot lots for $420,000, where they can spend a lot less than $150,000 putting in travertine if they've got to have it.
A Buyer's Agent is not the person who's out to sell you their property no matter what. That's the Listing Agent's job. A Buyer's Agent is there to represent the buyer's interests, the same as the Listing Agent represents the seller's. Buyer's agents aren't car lot sales folk. They're like the folks who make a good living representing people who don't want to deal with car lot sales folk, so they charge people who want to buy a car $300 and save them a couple of grand off the sales price.
Buyer's Agents don't make their living selling one specific property. They make their living helping people to find and buy the property that is the best bargain for them. It is a Buyer's Agent's job to point out all of the little and not so little stuff I talked about two paragraphs ago, as well as a lot of other stuff I haven't talked about here. Buyer's Agents make their living getting buyers a better bargain - just like Listing Agents make their living getting sellers more money for their property. Real estate is a lot more costly than automobiles, and a lot more games get played. The Buyer's Agent is the one with the responsibility to say "Slow down, let's stop and check out everything else that's available, and consider the state that the market is really in - and where it's likely to go," not to capitalize upon the emotion of the moment and get the prospect sucker's signature upon dotted line before they walk off the lot. So long as they stick to a real budget, that Buyer's Agent gets paid about the same no matter what you buy - and the happier you are when it's all over, the more likely it is that they will get paid again when you send them your friends, or when you come back again when you're ready to move up or buy an investment property.
This is not to say that Buyer's Agent's won't play games; this is why I use and recommend non-exclusive buyer's agency agreements to stop most of them. These agreements give the buyer's agent everything they really need - assurance that if they find the property you want, they will be the one getting paid the buyer's agent commission - while not committing you to work only with them. If they waste your time, don't get the job done, if they act more like a Listing Agent, or if you just decide they're not putting your interests first, you stop working with them and that's the end of it. Unlike the exclusive agency agreement which locks you in to dealing with that agent, and four months after the last time you see them you might still be obligated to pay them a commission on a property somebody else showed you, the non-exclusive agreement lets you go your own way, and so you have nothing to lose by signing it, unless you're the sort who will stiff someone who's done work for you. Let's face it, the Buyer's Agent finds you a property you think is worthwhile, you are doing yourself no favors to ditch them in favor of your brother-in-law who didn't or couldn't do the same, or the discounter who doesn't do anything, but generously allows you to keep half the commission which they did precisely zero good for you to earn. Who do you think will get you the better deal: The agent who went around with you to ten or fifteen properties (and looked at forty others that weren't worth your time) and knows the market that property is competing against, or the agent who only leaves the office to cash commission checks? Who's going to negotiate harder? Who's going to have more negotiating power? Which agent is more likely to get your the better total bargain? There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes the long shot beats the triple crown winner, too. But that's not where smart money bets when the payoff is structured on strictly one to one odds, as it is here.
Now buyer's agents do get paid, but it's out of the commission that the seller has agreed to pay no matter who sells the property, or for what price. Buyer's Agents will make more difference to the sales price - not to mention the quality of the property you end up with - than any reduction in price you might get by agreeing not to use one. They're out there in the market all the time. They know the market you're in, and they know the tricks in ways that you, the buyer, are not going to equal, unless you spend the time it takes to learn everything they know. And unless you're a buyer's agent yourself, you pretty much can't. You've got your own living to make. What are the chances they could do better than you at your profession? The odds are not good; Even if they have the book learning, they don't have your experience. Why would you think the situation is any different when the roles get reversed?
Caveat Emptor
Original here
I haven't been talking much about the election here this time.
Instead of making an endorsement, I am going to talk about the most salient fact of the election, and the rest of our lives until it is dealt with. Neither of the campaigns has made a big deal of this, but in a rational world would have been getting saturation coverage for the last year.
The debt clock.
The number that everyone obsesses about is the cast debt. $16.2 trillion and change as I am writing this.
Our government income is $2.4 trillion per year.
Our government will spend $3.5 trillion this year
We are borrowing $1.1 trillion per year.
Before we leave the debt clock, look at one more number: Last line of numbers, first one. Total of unfunded liabilities. This is money that our government is currently obligated to spend in coming years on various entitlements - money we have already promised to people. $121 trillion and change as I'm typing this. Social security, prescription drugs, medicare. In a rational world, we would have been setting the money aside as we accrued the liability.
Until the mid-1960s, we actually were. That's when President Lyndon Johnson and the Congress of the day chose to allow themselves to spend the Social Security (and Medicare) trust money. They put a "virtual" IOU in the Social Security - not even real bonds, just a promise of reimbursement someday - and spent the money. To be fair, every congress and every president since then has had the option of fixing this - all they would have to have done would have been return every penny that had been stolen from the trust fund and drastically increase revenue or decrease spending to match. In the early years, Social Security was running surpluses that were large by comparison with the rest of the budget. If those surpluses shrank in later years, the built up debt made it practically impossible. Today, the total unfunded liabilities are FIFTY YEARS of every penny the government takes in. That's right, we'd have to shut down the entire rest of the government for fifty years to pay that off - and that's if there was no interest.
Medicare and Social Security are now spending more than they take in. That money is now due to start being actually paid out. This money stream that Johnson and the Congress fifty years ago tapped into is now a drain on the budget - and it will be one forever. Even if we did shut down the government for fifty years to pay that liability off, we're still accruing new ones.
What would happen to a person in this situation? No matter how productive they were, the people with money would eventually cut them off. There would be no way they can repay their debts, and even if the alternative was losing every penny previously loaned, the lenders would decide that's throwing good money after bad, and stop.
This is the situation as it exists today. Wikipedia isn't the most reliable resource for information, but it's got the basic idea here.
The expression "QE2" became a "ubiquitous nickname" in 2010, when used to refer to a second round of quantitative easing by central banks in the United States.[58] Retrospectively, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 may be called "QE1". Similarly, "QE3" refers to the third round of quantitative easing following QE2.[59][60]QE3 was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11-to-1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion a month, open-ended, bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities and also to continue extremely low rates policy until at least mid-2015.[61] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program which allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion dollars per month of commercial housing market debt risk with no maximum amount or time limit.[62] Ratings firm Egan-Jones said it believes the Fed's decision "will hurt the U.S. economy and, by extension, credit quality." As a result the firm once again slashed the U.S. bond rating bringing it down to AA-. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged concerns about inflation
It says the Fed is buying mortgage backed securities. What it's really buying is US Treasury securities, at auction. The share of new US debt being bought by the Federal Reserve is seventy percent, and they're being bought with fiat money, made up on the spot. Not only that, they're going on to the secondary market of existing treasury securities and buying those up.
Folks, if that's not the people with actual money cutting us off, I don't know what is.
So now the Federal Reserve is making up money - pretend dollars - to fund our continued borrowing.
But those brand new pretend dollars tap into the same pie of real world value as shared by all of the existing dollars. A known amount of goods and services - but now there is another $40 billion per month with claims on them. This means existing dollars are now worth less.
Furthermore, I cannot emphasize too strongly that the dollar is a fiat currency. Since 1973, there has been nothing providing value to the dollar but the perception that there is value there. The thing driving that is the productive capacity of the people who use dollars.
Tradition and a lot of hereditary factors from when the US was forty percent of the world economy back before most of us were born have enabled that illusion to continue to be strong.
But what happens if that perception changes? In short, what happens when the people with goods and services we want stop accepting dollars because they don't believe they will recover their value?
At that point, we have an instant crisis. A real crisis that we can't send the Marines to - they won't do any good, and they also need to be paid somehow in something they can actually use to feed their families with.
So at that point, we're going to have no choice. People are already moving their businesses offshore and even giving up US citizenship rather than pay our existing taxes. Try and increase them, and instead of paying those taxes, productive people will move their income generating activities out of the United States. Oh, not everyone. But enough so that income from taxes actually drops.
So we're going to have to cut spending. Nearly $100 billion of spending every month. $3 billion every day. And that's just so we're able to pay the bills. Scratch that. Those will be all the things we can pay for.
This is going to be politically very difficult. People demanding the government live up to what it promised it would do. People demanding the government continue things it has done for a very long time. And don't forget paying the people who run the government. The military has a lot of very powerful toys - I don't think they would turn them on the rest of us for their pay, but there's nothing physically preventing them from trying. And there just isn't money enough to go around. That's going to be damned difficult to deal with.
In the last four years, can you name me one time Barack Obama did something politically difficult?
Even when it was clearly the smart thing to do? When it would limit damage by accepting some pain now rather than more later?
Didn't think so.
That question brought someone to the site. The answer is "Yes, they can". As a matter of fact, just because they have you sign those documents does not in any way obligate that lender to actually fund your loan.
There are two sections of conditions on every loan commitment. The loan commitment is what the underwriter writes up when the loan is approved. The first section is called "Prior to Docs", meaning before the final loan documents the customer signs at closing are generated. These should be all the stuff that's substantive in nature, that governs whether or not you qualify. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. The second section is called "prior to funding," or "funding conditions." This should be limited to simple procedural stuff like a final updated payoff demand, final verification of employment (they call and make sure you still work there), etcetera. However, more and more, conditions that more properly belong in "prior to docs" section are being moved to "prior to funding."
Why do they do this? Well, once you sign those documents you are more heavily committed to them. Once you sign, and the Right of Rescission (if any) expires, you are stuck with that lender. You no longer have the right to call it off. If you go elsewhere, to another lender, because they are taking too long, they can fund your loan and force you to live by the terms of the documents you signed. Bad business all around, and you're going to be dealing with two sets of high powered lawyers that the contracts you signed basically obligate you to pay for - but they work for the two different lenders!
One fact that many people don't understand is that it's a rare loan application which is rejected completely. I don't remember when I've ever had a loan application outright rejected. Of course, being a good loan officer, I'm going to be as careful as possible that the people will qualify before I submit their loan package, but this is far from universal. Many loan officers routinely tell people about loans and programs that they have no prayer of qualifying for, but there sure are some great rates attached, for all the good they will do you. Then the loan gets rejected but they sit on the rejection while they work the loan they had in mind for you all along, and come back and say, "This is the best I could do" at closing time, and an extremely high percentage of people will sign on the dotted line because they think they have no choice.
What happens much more frequently is that the loan gets approved, and the underwriter writes a loan commitment, but with conditions that cannot be met in this particular instance. The borrowers need to prove more income than they make is probably the classic example, but these "killer conditions" occur in every area of loan underwriting. More often than not, the loan officer is not really surprised by these, and most often, they won't ever tell you about them if they can avoid it. Why? Because that gives you a "heads up" that you're not going to get the loan you thought you were, and at a time when it's still very possible for you do go loan shopping elsewhere.
A good loan officer - both competent and ethical - will not tell you about a loan they don't think you're going to qualify for. My ambition is always to have the list of conditions, both "prior to docs" and "prior to funding", to be as short and unsurprising as I can possibly make it. This saves work and it saves time. Remember, every time that underwriter touches the file they can add more conditions, and they can also discover something that causes them to essentially reject the loan, by adding conditions the consumers in question cannot meet. If I can submit a file and the underwriter writes a commitment with only the standard and unavoidable prior to funding conditions, I am much happier because now I can request documents, have them signed, and get this loan done. You get this kind of commitment by sending all of the documentation they need in every loan all at once, in the beginning, but only that documentation. It's not necessarily a sign of incompetence if the underwriter puts some other conditions on it - probably somewhere close to half of my commitments have some condition the underwriter took it into their heads to require in this instance. Like any good loan officer, I avoid arguments with an underwriter if I can, so when they give me a condition I didn't anticipate, I figure out what I need to satisfy it and whether I can get it. But you learn when extra documentation will be required.
Since this was originally written, underwriting has gotten completely paranoid. I have had clients in the lender's ideal situation - high credit scores, low debt ratio, steady income, plenty of equity - given the underwriter runaround. Actually, this is basically every client. It has to do with investor paranoia, as the lenders are doing everything they can - not merely everything they reasonably should to persuade the investors these loans are not going to lose money and are therefore worth paying a higher price for. But in my experience the additional conditions seem to be falling almost entirely on the "prior to documents" (before you sign) side, rather than "prior to funding"
Many loans, particularly sub-prime, are done completely in the reverse fashion. The loan officer submits a bare application, without supporting documentation, and waits for the conditions, and boy do they get a blortload of conditions. Not too long ago I helped an experienced real estate agent in my office with his first loan. He insisted on doing it "the easy way," by which he thought he meant, "The lazy way," but he really meant, "The hard, stupid way." Despite my warning, he submitted a bare application to the lender and got seven pages of conditions, which were added to as time went by and he submitted documentation piecemeal. Took him two months and four times the work of just taking another day and submitting a complete loan package in the first place. If he had done that, the loan probably would have been finished in two and a half weeks. Some of the conditions were for stuff I had never encountered before. What was going on, of course, was that the underwriter had gotten it into his head that this was probably a dangerous loan to approve, and he wanted to be extra careful on the approval.
So what can the average person do to safeguard themselves against this happening? Well, you can't - not completely. The underwriter can always add conditions, and so can the funder. Even if the loan gets funded, they can pull the money back right up until the moment that trust deed gets recorded with the county. That's just the way it is. What you can do is ask for copies of the loan commitment, and of the outstanding conditions, those that have yet to be met. Refusal on the part of a loan officer to provide this is always a bad sign. Ditto the inability. I definitely wouldn't sign the loan papers without a copy of the outstanding conditions in my possession, and it may be smart to ask for copies of the conditions at several points in your loan. Yes, they can be faked, pretty easily, but then they are ammunition in your lawsuit if something goes wrong, and most of the bad loan officers are too lazy to fake them anyway. Before you even apply, you can ask questions about necessary income, what the program guidelines for debt to income and loan to value ratio are, etcetera. Much of the stuff in my article Questions You Should Ask Prospective Loan Providers is aimed at defusing that kind of situation. Remember, at sign up you have all the power, but at closing, the lender has all the power. They have the loan, and nobody else does. Many times, the loan they deliver at closing will have nothing in common with the loan that got you to sign up. I used to advise people to sign up for a back up loan, but even I can't do them anymore because of the high cost failing to deliver a locked loan carries.
Loan officers have people sign loan documents every day that there is no hope of actually funding a loan on. It doesn't make sense to me, but they do it, mostly because they are afraid if they break down and tell you they can't fund this loan, you will go elsewhere and they won't get paid. Signing loan documents more strongly commits borrowers to this loan, and as long as they keep trying, there's always the possibility that they will get paid. I have talked with people that were strung along for three months before they finally gave up and realized that this loan was not going to happen.
Caveat Emptor
Original here
One of the things people keep asking about is first time buyer programs. They exist, but lenders are not the first place to ask. Why? Because many, if not most lenders, actually charge a quarter of a point or so for first time buyers, in addition to their regular rates. They do this because so many of them fall out, and they want some money for their trouble. Also, interfacing with local first time buyer programs is a bit of a hassle, and it often takes much longer to close the loan, if it does close. Yes, you need to tell them if you are using a first time buyer program, but if you start at the lender you may get hit with the charge for your loan, and then find out at the last minute that that particular lender does not participate on the first time buyer program for that city.
The place to ask about first time buyer programs is the government of the city that you intend to buy in, usually the housing department, but sometimes the planning department. If you intend to buy outside of city limits, call the county housing department. Yes, you do need to know ahead of time where you're intending to buy. I know how many people hate to plan, hate to "limit themselves" and hate to do preparatory work, especially multiple sets with multiple cities if they're not certain where they will buy, but it's necessary if you want their assistance money.
Most first time buyer programs are funded with money that the municipality gets from the federal government. You'd think they would be similar, that funding would be consistent, and that participating lender lists would be mostly compatible. You could not be more wrong.
Once each city gets the money, they are still subject to federal oversight, but that is broad and there's a lot of latitude. One of the things that all of them have in common is that they charge a fee for a lender to participate every year. Unless that lender gets a lot of business through that program, it's not cost effective to automatically renew every year. I only routinely pay the fees for the much broader Mortgage Credit Certificate program every year - I wait until someone wants a given city's program before I pay the fees associated with that program. So the list of approved lenders is going to concentrate heavily on major direct lenders with offices in that city. This has the effect of limiting the competition, although brokers who are willing to sign up still have all of the advantages of brokers, because for the vast majority of these programs, it only matters that the originating office participate, not that the funding office does. Once I'm signed up with most programs, it does not matter what funding lender I use because originating office is what's important, not the actual funders of the loan.
Each and every first time buyer program will be different. Any similarities between any two programs are basically coincidence. Income limits, qualifying properties, amount of funding, how long it lasts into the fiscal year (or quarter), how much money they get from the federal government relative to the population and cost of living, and most importantly, whether they have any funds at the time you want them and qualify.
Even the form that the first time buyer program takes is wildly variable. Most common is a second (or third) mortgage with nominal payments and a nominal rate. For instance, one east county city requires a 3% interest only payment. Also very popular is a "silent" second (or third) mortgage with no payments, but it needs to be paid back in full if you sell, and in many cases, if you refinance. Some first time buyer programs work off of a "shared equity" basis, with no payments and no interest charged, but they own a fixed share of the property and are entitled to payment in full at sale, and in many cases, of the base loan amount plus appreciation if you refinance. This lessens the financial benefits of home ownership, because normally the appreciation belongs entirely to the homeowner. Nonetheless, without the program, you wouldn't have had any of the benefits of ownership, economic or otherwise. Still other cities have programs geared towards maintaining a pool of limited income housing in that area, and the price you sell for when you sell will be restricted, negating most of the financial benefits of ownership. Some programs are even tiered based upon income, and those making a lower amount will get more favorable terms that those who still qualify, but make more than people in the first group, and there may be more funding available for the lower tiers.
It all depends upon the locality where you buy, and if you apply and qualify for a first time buyer program in City A but end up buying outside of that City limits, you are out of luck. For this reason, you need to work with a buyer's agent who knows the programs and their boundaries and is careful about them. Just because it has the appropriate ZIP Code or telephone prefix does not necessarily mean anything, and I find properties with the wrong ZIP Code in MLS quite often. For instance, properties that are actually in northern Pacific Beach here in San Diego will quite often have the more upscale La Jolla Zip in MLS. Before making an offer, you can always call to make certain the property is within the boundaries covered by the program, of course. You want to double check, because you will pay a fee, usually several hundred dollars, when you apply to the first time buyer program, and I don't know of any that refunds the money if you don't qualify, if you are outside the area, or if you just don't get the funds because they are out of money right then.
Please note that one other feature all first time buyer programs have in common is that they require owner occupancy of a single occupancy dwelling. These are not intended to help investors grow their real estate empire. These programs are intended for people who would not otherwise be able to afford the property and intend to live in it. In some cases, moving out triggers a requirement for immediate repayment in full (and just when it got more expensive to refinance because it's now investment property, too!). In others, so long as you live in it for a given number of years, you can keep it going providing you don't break other rules. Every program has it's own little twists on the owner occupancy requirement. None of them permit you to buy residences suitable for more than one family, either. Duplexes, apartment buildings, and other multi-unit housing are disallowed from every program I've worked with.
First time buyer programs are not grants. I've dealt with them all over southern California, and I don't know of any that are outright grants. In many cases, that would be more cost effective, not only to the buyer but to the city as well, than the hoops that have to get jumped through. So I suspect that outright grants are prohibited by the enabling federal legislation, although I've never read the regulations.
Some first time buyer programs do have mechanisms for forgiveness of the loans after a certain period of time. The requirements and length of time vary. I've seen those that have the forgiveness feature be as short as five years and as long as fifteen.
Prospects for subordination if you refinance are also variable depending upon where you buy. Some require payment in full if you refinance at all, while others will allow themselves to be subordinated to new First Trust Deeds providing certain requirements are met. Chief among these are usually requirements that essentially prohibit cash out refinancing unless you pay off the first time buyer program.
One final caveat to these programs is that most of them will not pre-approve you. In other words, they won't look at your application before you've got a fully negotiated purchase contract. I know of only one program that will pre-approve applicants, and none that will commit funds before you have a fully negotiated purchase contract. If they run out of money in the meantime, that's just too bad. - you're out the application fee. For this reason, you need to stay on top of not only the program requirements and boundaries, but also the funding status as well. If they don't have any money when you actually have a contract to buy, you are wasting the time and money to apply.
Now I don't mean to say these programs are not worthwhile. They can and do make the difference between being able to afford the property and being forced to continue to ride the rest escalator. I should also note that they are basically a band-aid to treat the gaping economic wound caused by artificial restrictions to the housing supply. But if the conditions are right for the band-aid to help you, it certainly is nice and there is no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of it.
Caveat Emptor
Original here
This is a temporary program, launched by President Bush and Congress at the beginning of 2008. Its goal is to prevent as many homeowners as is reasonable from losing their homes through foreclosure. It won't help you if you bought a property that was far beyond your real means, but it is likely to help a lot if you didn't stretch very much.
In order to qualify for FHA secure, you need to have a non FHA ARM that has "reset," which is lender talk for "passed the end of the fixed period, if there was one." FHA Secure probably isn't going to help you anyway if you already have a fixed rate mortgage. The limit on the loan is the current conforming limit ($417,000 unless you're in one of the high cost areas like mine).
FHA Secure mortgages are not like those "free magazine - take one!" offers. You do have to qualify for the mortgage under the normal FHA rules. This means full documentation of income on a fully amortizing loan with a debt to income ratio of 43% in the textbook case. They also have Loan to Value limits of 97.15%. The programs that refinance to 125% of value are different, and require that your loan already be held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. FHA Secure is something that even people who got subprime and Negative Amortization loans are theoretically eligible for.
The ONLY "normal" mortgage qualification that the FHA Secure is willing to overlook is whether you were current on your loan after it hit the adjustable period. You must have been current on your existing mortgage for six months before it hit the adjustable period, but if you made late payments or no payments after the loan hit the adjustable period, FHA is willing to waive the usual requirements to have your loan current. They're even willing to consider your loan if you are currently in default.
Another way that FHA Secure mortgages are different from most FHA mortgages is that there is no CLTV limit, and the FHA will allow secondary financing for FHA Secure loans. The primary form this takes is second mortgages carried by previous lenders for amounts over the FHA limits, either in terms of Loan to Value or absolute dollar value. Be aware that in some states, this is going to change your loan from a non-recourse loan into a full recourse loan.The protections given by non-recourse loans are generally over-rated, but it's something you should be aware of. Since the FHA normally funds up to 97% Loan to Value ratio, and conventional lenders and second mortgage holders don't want to go that high right now, they are not going to agree to fund the difference unless they understand the choice they have is between funding the difference and going straight into foreclosure. For example, let's say you've got a $500,000 loan on a property that you purchased for $500,000 with 100% financing on an interest only 2/28. You still owe $500,000, but the property may only be worth $440,000, and the FHA will only fund to $417,000 until the new limits are implemented. This leaves $83,000 (at a minimum) that the new loan is short. If the prior lender can be convinced that it's a choice between write a loan contract for that $83,000 and go straight to foreclosure, where they'll lose a lot more than $83,000, they may agree to carry that second mortgage. Of course, they also may not. It's their money and their choice, and there's no way to compel them if they won't listen to logic.
FHA Secure is otherwise similar to "regular" FHA loans, and it's not free. There's a funding fee of 1.5% charged up front, and an annualized half a percent charged on a monthly basis. The FHA's "Naughty List" also applies.
FHA Secure is not any kind of a cure-all. You do have to qualify for it as regards both Debt to Income Ratio and Loan to Value Ratio. If you stretched way too far beyond your real means - as evidenced by income documentable by tax returns and W-2 forms - this program is not going to help you. If you were late on your mortgage even before it hit reset, this program is not going to help you. If you're a member of that group that's always with us, people who have lost their jobs, careers, or otherwise seen a decline in income, it may not help you even if you originally qualified full documentation. It's also not going to help you if your loan was for $900,000, which is way over any FHA limit. But if you're a middle class borrower who only stretched a little, figured you'd be okay with a hybrid ARM because of it, and now you're not, this may be the program that saves you.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
I want to state that I am in no way shape or form an FHA loan guru. Between my general knowledge of loans and this information from someone who is an FHA guru, I think I can make some sense on the subject. Besides, one of the best ways to understand something better is trying to explain it to someone else.
FHA will guarantee loans up to 96.5% of the purchase value, not 100%. This means that you do need a minimum of 3.5% down from some source. The FHA will allow seller paid closing costs only of up of 6%, and the really cute thing is that they will also allow the down payment component to be a gift from family members or government agencies (provided they are not otherwise involved in the transaction). FHA loans can also be interfaced with some types of locally based first time buyer programs, although whether there is money in the budget at the time you apply for those programs is subject to funding, which usually goes quickly.
The first thing you need to understand about FHA loans is that they are intended to enable people to transition from renting to ownership of a primary residence. They are not intended to help anyone grow a real estate empire. For this reason, they will not work with investment property except in the case of non-profit organizations. Individuals looking to buy property via FHA loan must plan for it to be owner occupied. Second homes are only allowed where you already own a home elsewhere and can show an employment related need. Vacation homes are not allowed.
Refinancing is possible for existing FHA loans, up to a maximum of 95% (see Mortgagee Letter 2005-43) loan to value ratio, provided it was purchased via FHA owner occupied loan. The only exception allowing FHA refinance of non FHA loans is the FHA Secure plan. There is no prepayment penalty on FHA loans, and they can be refinanced into conventional loans anytime you can qualify for conventional financing. Most folks do refinance FHA loans into a conventional conforming loans as soon as they can, because FHA rates aren't as good as conforming and conforming loans don't carry financing insurance. It's something to be decided on a case by case basis, on the basis of what is best for a given homeowner.
I did say conforming loans. FHA had loan limits which has precluded them being a big player in most areas for at least a decade. With the decrease in housing prices that has hit many areas and new legislation raising the conforming and FHA loan limits, they are now a major player for first time buyers and people getting back into the market. Especially since traditional lenders are seemingly more fearful every day. Truthfully, I anticipate FHA loans as being what saves the bacon of traditional lenders and provides the upwards impetus to the market that will cause traditional lenders' fears to ease and relax their restrictions.
With loan limits preventing them from lending upon most single family residences these past few years, you'd think FHA would be friendlier to condominiums. Unfortunately, government bureaucracy being what it is, condos have to be approved by the FHA before they will fund loans upon them. Since relatively few developers care to do that, that means that most developments don't have blanket approval from the FHA. Some people think that if theirs is one of the few with FHA approval, this gives them a lock on FHA buyers and they attempt to extort a huge premium in the form of purchase price. I have seen people who intend FHA loans advised to get a list of FHA approved projects and work only from that list. This is nonsense.
Just because the FHA hasn't issued blanket approval to a condominium development doesn't mean that you can't get spot approval. The requirements, in addition to the usual ones, are no ongoing class action suits open or pending, and 60% or more owner occupancy for the complex. This last tends to be the most difficult requirement, as it's a little unusual that a particular complex has 60% owner occupancy, but there are many condominiums out there that can qualify even though the complex does not have pre-existing approval.
Like all government programs, FHA loans require full documentation of sufficient income to afford the loan. No stated income or lesser documentation loans will be funded or ever have been by this program. This is another reason they were unpopular in the Era of Make Believe Loans, as mortgage products for those with eyes bigger than their wallets proliferated, and agents and loan officers became accustomed to qualifying people for properties and loans far beyond their means. Now that that's all over and we're all back to solid fundamentals as far as loan qualification, you can decide to stay within the budget for a loan you can prove you can afford, you can put a significantly larger down payment on the property to qualify for conventional financing, or you can do without buying any property at all. But FHA does not do stated income loans and never has.
Matter of fact, the FHA doesn't do "interest only" financing, either. All FHA loans are fully amortized. However, the FHA does accept some hybrid ARMs as well as fixed rate financing. But no interest only, no stated income, no negative amortization. You must qualify for an FHA loan based upon the fully amortized payment and full documentation of income only, which eliminates most of the ways that people were being qualified for loans beyond their means during the Era of Make Believe Loans, and is one more reason why the FHA was not a major provider of loans in for several years.
Allowable debt to income ratios are 31% front end and 43% back end, according to the written guidelines. However, both can be individually waived upwards, higher even than conventional loan qualifying ratios of 36 and 45% respectively in the case of strong credit , high reserves, and a stable job, with high reserves being probably the most important factor. For instance, owner of a stable business of long standing. Nobody fires owners. Large amounts of money in retirement accounts is one way of getting the default debt to income ratio increased. The range of 45-49% is supposed to be reasonably possible to get the FHA to approve. Beyond that, exceptions are fewer and significantly harder to get.
There is no requirement for reserves with an FHA loan at all. With that said, however, having reserves can be a major point in your favor, particularly above 43% back end ratio. People with hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement accounts that they could fall back upon if they had to is something the FHA will consider while traditional lenders would not. They'll even allow non-monetary reserves, the most memorable example given to me being a collector of old motorcycles which could be sold. Jewelry, automobiles, and other non-liquid assets may be considered. Of course, it's a very good idea to source and season every dollar you're using to justify the transaction, but the FHA has even been known to accept "mattress money" for down payments (not generally reserves), which is unheard of in other loans.
Here's the really cool part about an FHA loan: It's not FICO driven. You technically don't even have to have a credit score in order to be approved. With that said, however, even when underwriting was at its loosest a sub-600 credit score made it difficult to get approved, and these days we're looking at 640 to 680 as a reasonable minimum. You can also use alternative credit , of which utility bills are probably the best example. Especially in some cultures, credit can be a thing that people aren't accustomed to having or using, so these capabilities are very helpful. You don't even have to be a citizen, but you do have to have the right to work in the United States.
Prior bankruptcy is allowable. Chapter 7 with two years of seasoning and re-established credit, chapter 13 with one year payment history and court approval.
Even prior foreclosure is not an automatic disqualification from an FHA loan. They will, however, require documentation of extenuating circumstances such as major illness. Job transfer is explicitly disallowed as an acceptable extenuating circumstance, so people who walk away from properties thinking they're going to get an FHA loan are going to be disappointed. What the FHA really seems to be looking for is debilitating illness, either one which you personally went through, or one where you had to care for an immediate family member.
For how easy they are to work with for individuals, however, loan providers find themselves with many additional requirements, which is yet another reason FHA loans had been less popular while there were other choices. As of right now, in addition to everything else, in order to originate FHA loans, originators have got to go though an annual audit with an accountant who's specially certified FHA auditor. This audit costs a minimum of about $5000 just for the auditor, never mind the cost of the originator's own time or that of anyone else they may have to pay. The audit requirement is in the process being relaxed for originators (finally). The FHA does not permit an agent to hang their license with one broker for real estate and another for loans, either, and your FHA loan officer can not be your real estate agent. If your broker does both, however, it may be permitted. The extensive paperwork means fewer providers - especially discount providers - are interested due to the increased costs, which drives things exactly opposite to what you'd expect the government to want - it drives prices of FHA loans up, by restricting the supply of those willing to do them. It is hoped by many that FHA modernization will change some aspects of this, but that has been stalled in Congress for a very long time. It's pointless to speculate as to what will and will not be included in FHA modernization until Congress sends an actual bill to the president.
One thing not likely to change is the FHA's blacklist. It's not called that, but that's what it is. Once a real estate agent or loan provider is on their list, they are on it for life, and the FHA scrutinizes all transactions for anybody affiliated with it being on their "naughty" list. If someone should default on an FHA loan, the insurer is going to look for a reason not to pay the guarantee, which insures that every FHA foreclosure gets scrutinized for fraud and a number of other offenses. If the agent or loan officer was involved in such an offense, onto The List they go, and they are forever barred from transactions involving an FHA loan. For this reason, it's probably a good idea for consumers to ask about this in their first meeting with a prospective loan officer or real estate agent - on the phone would be better. Just say that you're going to be needing an FHA loan, so if they're on the FHA's "naughty" list, they might as well tell you now, because they're going to be wasting their time. If they try and talk you out of an FHA loan, well, that should tell you everything you need to know. FHA loans are equal or superior to anything that isn't conforming A paper, and if you haven't got the qualifications for that, FHA beats Alt A, and beats subprime like a drum (OK, so the VA is a better deal than FHA as well).
The FHA does not normally permit secondary financing, either in the form of second trust deeds or seller carrybacks. The one exception to this is in the FHA Secure program, which will have to be another article.
One final thing: FHA loans aren't free. There is an upfront cost of 1.75 points to fund the loan. This is over and above all other loan related fees. This pays for an insurance policy that insures the lender against loss, much like private mortgage insurance on conventional loans. In addition, there's an annualized cost of 0.55% on top of principal, interest, taxes, insurance, etcetera - and this is included in debt to income ratio calculations. This will continue until the loan to value ratio is 78% or less, and if the loan period is over 15 years, cannot be removed for five years. If the loan period is 15 years or less and the loan to value ratio is initially less than 90%, there will be no continuing (i.e. the annual component) mortgage insurance charged, but the only way to elude the 1.75 point initial charge is by having a loan to value ratio of 80% or less. Since in any of these cases, it's overwhelmingly likely there will be better choices available to the consumer, essentially all FHA loans are going to have this financing insurance. The continuing cost is one of the main reasons people refinance to non-FHA mortgages, incidentally.
With lenders fearful and paranoid about the state of the market, FHA loans are an excellent way to qualify someone for financing that's at least close to 100%. Given the state of the housing market, particularly the starter market, and the legislation increasing FHA limits, the FHA loan is a very powerful force for market stabilization, leading to market recovery. It's a good alternative for consumers who cannot currently qualify for conventional loan financing.
When I originally wrote this, there were down payment assistance programs in effect to enable what was essentially 100% financing. Those have been essentially dead since April 2008, when Congress did away with the provisions that allowed it except in the case of government agencies. Figure you're going to have to come up with your down payment out of your own funds somehow.
Finally, a caveat. Many sellers don't want to work with FHA or require higher offers in order to do so. They aren't as bad as they used to be, but FHA requirements for financing are still tougher than conventional financing rules - especially if you've got a condo that needs so-called "spot approval". This costs sellers money, and means their transaction isn't as certain as a conventional loan. If you're looking for a bargain or even just a better than average deal on purchase price, it's a good idea to avoid an FHA loan for that reason. Furthermore, many agents still have their heads in the old days when FHA financing was a nightmare for the seller. Especially if there are competing offers, expect seller preference to work against you if you're making an offer that includes FHA financing, and be prepared to need to offer significantly more than the competition if you want them to choose your offer over theirs. When I'm listing a property and the offers are otherwise equivalent, I would still prefer the buyers who are intending any other sort of financing over FHA loan buyers - and I explain why, in detail, to seller clients who are evaluating multiple offers.
Caveat Emptor
Original article here
blog advertising
--Blogads--
blog advertising --Blogads--
C'mon! I need to pay for this website! If you want to buy or sell Real Estate in San Diego County, or get a loan anywhere in California, contact me! I cover San Diego County in person and all of California via internet, phone, fax, and overnight mail. If you want a loan or need a real estate agent
Professional Contact Information
Questions regarding this website:
dm (at) searchlight crusade (dot) net
(Eliminate the spaces and change parentheticals to the symbols, of course)
Essay Requests
If you don't see an answer to your question, please consider asking me via email. I'll bet money you're not the only one who wants to know!
Requests for reprint rights, same email: dm (at) searchlight crusade (dot) net!
Add this site to Technorati Favorites
Subscribe to Searchlight Crusade
blog advertising
--Blogads--
My Links
-
Heavy Lifters
- Instapundit
- Hot Air
- Wizbang
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Q and O L Places I get to as often as I can
- Soldier's Angels
- The Anchoress
- Argghhh! R
- Armies of Liberation R
- Asymmetrical Information
- Belmont Club
- Tim Blair
- Dr. Sanity
- Eject! Eject! Eject!
- Jihad Watch
- Michelle Malkin
- Mudville Gazette
- Neo-neocon
- WSJ OpinionJournal
- Powerline
- Protein Wisdom
- Real Clear Politics
- Mark Steyn
- Strategy Page
- Don Surber R
- Vodkapundit
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Michael Yon Personal Finance, Economics and Business Sites
- Bloodhound Blog
- Blueprint For Financial Prosperity
- Eidelblog L
- Expert Real Estate Louisville
- Financial Rounds
- Free Money Financea>
- In Cash Flow We Trust
- I Will Teach You To Be Rich
- No Credit Needed
- Personal Finance Advice
- pfblogs.org
- Students for Saving Social Security Other sites I've linked and visit
- Accuracy In Media
- Ace of Spades
- The Agitator
- Ann Althouse
- The Anti Idiotarian Rottweiler
- Atlas Shrugs
- Professor Bainbridge R
- Baldilocks
- Beldar
- Blackfive
- Classical Values R
- Combs Spouts Off L
- Coyote Blog
- Daily Pundit R
- Drudge Report
- DUmmie FUnnies
- IMAO
- Iowahawk
- The Jawa Report R
- Just One Minute
- Libertarian Leanings R
- Liberty Papers
- Normblog
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Riehl World View
- Right Wing Nut House
- Samizdata
- SCOTUS Blog
- Stop the ACLU
- Texas Best Grok L
- Unalienable Right
- Willisms
- The World According to Nick R San Diego Bloggers
- Ducksnorts
- Matt Browne Link Exchanges, etcetera
- A Dollop of Sour Cream
- Heartless Libertarian L
- Kesher Talk R
- Leaning Toward The Dark Side R
- Random Fate R
- Tel-Chai Nation
- TF Sterns Rantings L Consumer and Research Sites
- Better Business Bureau
- Consumer Reports
- NASD Home
- California Department of Real Estate
- California Licensee Lookup
- California Department of Insurance
- National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
- Do Not Call Homepage
- IRS Charities Search
- Internet Fraud Complaint Center
- SEC Home Page
- Stop Mortgage Fraud
- Report Mortgage Fraud Debunking Many so-called Real Estate Gurus
- John T. Reed Other research
- FactCheck.org
- Babel Fish Translation
- Snopes Worthwhile Web Comics
- Sluggy Freelance
- Day by Day It is site policy to list the main page of every site I reference. Sometimes the real world intervenes and I haven't gotten to it yet, or one falls through the cracks on a long post with multiple references. It is also site policy to list the main page of every site that lists this one on their equivalent roll, as well as the main page of all sites that are members of any of the same groups this site is a member of. Please send me an email with a link to the main page of your site if I've overlooked you (dm at the domain name). For the clue-challenged, note that it is a requirement for your link to appear on every page of your site, just like mine does, and I will not link to spam sites.
Photos
********** Advertisement **********
