Lose the House, but Not Your Credit
According to sources in the mortgage industry, people who agree to a short sale with the lender do far less damage to their credit rating than those who go through foreclosure.
While in both cases, short sale and foreclosure, the delinquent mortgage will negatively affect their credit rating, at least short sellers avoid having a "debt discharged due to foreclosure" on their credit reports. Mortgage and credit experts say that, after bankruptcy, having a foreclosure on your credit report is the worst result and will reduce your credit score by over 250 points. You could also have to wait up to three years to qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable rate.
Short sales show up on a credit report as a "pre-foreclosure in redemption" status and can result in a credit score reduction of 100 points or less. After the sale, the mortgage may show up as "discharged." People who successfully complete a short sale may also qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable interest rate in as little as 18 months. So, if buying a home is a future goal, then a short sale is the better option for many.
Homeowners cannot simply decide that they want to unload a home with a short sale; the lender must agree to it. The key to getting a lender to go along is to demonstrate two things: that you have no other financial resources to pay the mortgage, and that the sale price the buyer is willing to pay is the fair price the market will bear. If a lender believes it can get more for the house by taking possession of it and selling it themselves, then they will not go along with a short sale.
To begin the process of a short sale, you first need to call the lender and speak directly with the person in the loan workout or short sale department. At GMAC ResCap, a large residential mortgage lender, there is a "foreclosure prevention department" with people trained to work with homeowners in exactly this situation. Their motivation is summed up by Steve Nelson at that company: "We pretty much know what our loss is going to be if we foreclose. If a short-seller results in a payoff that's better than that number, we're talking all day long with people who want to put a short sale together." Some lenders report a three- to four-times rise in the number of short sales over the past year.
People who want to go this route should contact a local real estate firm and ask to work with a real estate agent who has actual experience with short sales. These specially trained agents will know the process and deliver the documentation that the lender requires to authorize the short sale. The agent can also find a buyer that is qualified to complete the transaction.
If all goes as planned, the lender will receive all of the proceeds, typically not enough to pay off the loan. The remaining balance of the loan is discharged. But a homeowner agreeing to a short sale should also get legal advice to protect his or herself from future claims of the lender. In some states, only purchase mortgages are fully discharged. For all other types of debt (equity loans, refinancing, etc), the homeowner can be held personally liable for repayment in the future. For this reason, a lawyer's advice will include getting the lender to agree to fully discharge all mortgage debt involved in the short sale.
For Help with a Short Sale, Click Here
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
434-975-9000
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
Showing posts with label Real Estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real Estate. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Lose the House, but Not Your Credit
Lose the House, but Not Your Credit
According to sources in the mortgage industry, people who agree to a short sale with the lender do far less damage to their credit rating than those who go through foreclosure.
While in both cases, short sale and foreclosure, the delinquent mortgage will negatively affect their credit rating, at least short sellers avoid having a "debt discharged due to foreclosure" on their credit reports. Mortgage and credit experts say that, after bankruptcy, having a foreclosure on your credit report is the worst result and will reduce your credit score by over 250 points. You could also have to wait up to three years to qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable rate.
Short sales show up on a credit report as a "pre-foreclosure in redemption" status and can result in a credit score reduction of 100 points or less. After the sale, the mortgage may show up as "discharged." People who successfully complete a short sale may also qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable interest rate in as little as 18 months. So, if buying a home is a future goal, then a short sale is the better option for many.
Homeowners cannot simply decide that they want to unload a home with a short sale; the lender must agree to it. The key to getting a lender to go along is to demonstrate two things: that you have no other financial resources to pay the mortgage, and that the sale price the buyer is willing to pay is the fair price the market will bear. If a lender believes it can get more for the house by taking possession of it and selling it themselves, then they will not go along with a short sale.
To begin the process of a short sale, you first need to call the lender and speak directly with the person in the loan workout or short sale department. At GMAC ResCap, a large residential mortgage lender, there is a "foreclosure prevention department" with people trained to work with homeowners in exactly this situation. Their motivation is summed up by Steve Nelson at that company: "We pretty much know what our loss is going to be if we foreclose. If a short-seller results in a payoff that's better than that number, we're talking all day long with people who want to put a short sale together." Some lenders report a three- to four-times rise in the number of short sales over the past year.
People who want to go this route should contact a local real estate firm and ask to work with a real estate agent who has actual experience with short sales. These specially trained agents will know the process and deliver the documentation that the lender requires to authorize the short sale. The agent can also find a buyer that is qualified to complete the transaction.
If all goes as planned, the lender will receive all of the proceeds, typically not enough to pay off the loan. The remaining balance of the loan is discharged. But a homeowner agreeing to a short sale should also get legal advice to protect his or herself from future claims of the lender. In some states, only purchase mortgages are fully discharged. For all other types of debt (equity loans, refinancing, etc), the homeowner can be held personally liable for repayment in the future. For this reason, a lawyer's advice will include getting the lender to agree to fully discharge all mortgage debt involved in the short sale.
For Help with a Short Sale, Click Here
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
434-975-9000
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
According to sources in the mortgage industry, people who agree to a short sale with the lender do far less damage to their credit rating than those who go through foreclosure.
While in both cases, short sale and foreclosure, the delinquent mortgage will negatively affect their credit rating, at least short sellers avoid having a "debt discharged due to foreclosure" on their credit reports. Mortgage and credit experts say that, after bankruptcy, having a foreclosure on your credit report is the worst result and will reduce your credit score by over 250 points. You could also have to wait up to three years to qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable rate.
Short sales show up on a credit report as a "pre-foreclosure in redemption" status and can result in a credit score reduction of 100 points or less. After the sale, the mortgage may show up as "discharged." People who successfully complete a short sale may also qualify for a mortgage at a reasonable interest rate in as little as 18 months. So, if buying a home is a future goal, then a short sale is the better option for many.
Homeowners cannot simply decide that they want to unload a home with a short sale; the lender must agree to it. The key to getting a lender to go along is to demonstrate two things: that you have no other financial resources to pay the mortgage, and that the sale price the buyer is willing to pay is the fair price the market will bear. If a lender believes it can get more for the house by taking possession of it and selling it themselves, then they will not go along with a short sale.
To begin the process of a short sale, you first need to call the lender and speak directly with the person in the loan workout or short sale department. At GMAC ResCap, a large residential mortgage lender, there is a "foreclosure prevention department" with people trained to work with homeowners in exactly this situation. Their motivation is summed up by Steve Nelson at that company: "We pretty much know what our loss is going to be if we foreclose. If a short-seller results in a payoff that's better than that number, we're talking all day long with people who want to put a short sale together." Some lenders report a three- to four-times rise in the number of short sales over the past year.
People who want to go this route should contact a local real estate firm and ask to work with a real estate agent who has actual experience with short sales. These specially trained agents will know the process and deliver the documentation that the lender requires to authorize the short sale. The agent can also find a buyer that is qualified to complete the transaction.
If all goes as planned, the lender will receive all of the proceeds, typically not enough to pay off the loan. The remaining balance of the loan is discharged. But a homeowner agreeing to a short sale should also get legal advice to protect his or herself from future claims of the lender. In some states, only purchase mortgages are fully discharged. For all other types of debt (equity loans, refinancing, etc), the homeowner can be held personally liable for repayment in the future. For this reason, a lawyer's advice will include getting the lender to agree to fully discharge all mortgage debt involved in the short sale.
For Help with a Short Sale, Click Here
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
434-975-9000
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
This Month in Real Estate - February 2010
This Month in Real Estate - February 2010
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
This Month in Real Estate - February 2010
This Month in Real Estate - February 2010
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
This Month in Real Estate - January 2010
This Month in Real Estate - January 2010
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
This Month in Real Estate - January 2010
This Month in Real Estate - January 2010
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com/
http://www.forestlakesliving.com/
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com/
http://www.theaverygroup.com/
Friday, January 15, 2010
How New Governemnt Regulations Can Impact Your Closing
Karla Floyd of Closure Title has shared this document with you about how new governement regulations can impact your closing.
Govt Regulations[1]
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Govt Regulations[1]
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
How New Governemnt Regulations Can Impact Your Closing
Karla Floyd of Closure Title has shared this document with you about how new governement regulations can impact your closing.
Govt Regulations[1]
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Govt Regulations[1]
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
New Hud 1
Karla Floyd from Closure Title was kind enough to provide these documents explaining the changes to the New Hud-1 for Real Estate Closings after January 1, 2010.
New HUD-I[1]
Closure Title is located at :
1885 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
New HUD-I[1]
Closure Title is located at :
1885 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
New Hud 1
Karla Floyd from Closure Title was kind enough to provide these documents explaining the changes to the New Hud-1 for Real Estate Closings after January 1, 2010.
New HUD-I[1]
Closure Title is located at :
1885 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
New HUD-I[1]
Closure Title is located at :
1885 Seminole Trail
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Given this background, you can imagine my amazement when I came across several practical suggestions which could instantly impact the housing market — and for the better. The source of these ideas is Bruce Norris of The Norris Group in Riverside, Calif., a real estate investor and analyst.
Essentially what Norris wants to do is bring more investors into the marketplace, a concept favored here since the earth first began to cool. Given that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses, and given that we now have a gross surplus of unsold properties, there’s a certain inherent sense to any concept which encourages more real estate investment. What makes the Norris ideas stand out is that they could be implemented in an afternoon and impact the marketplace immediately.
Investors
For a country where a lot of people express a great and unfettered support for capitalism, we sure do a lot to inhibit real estate investors.
You can buy real estate with one to four units and finance with an FHA mortgage, but only if you live in one of the units. Pure investors do not have access to FHA-insured financing.
If you run into tough times and must sell your home through a short sale, any unpaid mortgage balance is untaxed. If an investment property is sold with a short-sale then the unpaid mortgage debt is regarded as taxable income. In effect, investors are penalized if the economy turns upside down.
Communities have higher property tax rates for properties owned by investors. The result is that two identical homes can have different tax bills if one is owned by an investor and the other is owner-occupied.
Investors are specifically banned from the government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan. Only owner-occupants may participate.
“The absurdity here is that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses and right now we have a huge inventory of unsold homes,” says James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and data. “That inventory pushes down home values — including the value of your home and mine. The one sure way to raise property values is to have more buyers and less inventory, goals which could be readily accomplished if we encouraged more property investments.”
Added Saccacio: “Think about it this way, imagine that a home down the street is foreclosed. Does the value of your home go up or down? Does it matter if the foreclosed house was owned by the occupant or by an investor? Discriminating against real estate investors is self-defeating; it’s not the way to restore the housing market.”
We too-often describe investors as “speculators” and imply that buying investment real estate is somehow less worthy than buying stock or bonds.
For example, last year our then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, explained that “as our economy works through this difficult period, we will look for additional opportunities to try to avoid preventable foreclosures. However, none of these efforts are a silver bullet that will undo the excesses of the past years, nor are they designed to bail out real estate speculators or those who committed fraud during the mortgage process. These efforts are to help American families who both want to and can, through a loan modification or re-financing, stay in their homes.”
Translation: Investors are not American families and they may well be crooks. They are the “other” and not like you and I.
Paulson, of course, is the former head of Goldman Sachs, a company not known for discouraging either speculation or excess.
Four Ideas
Mr. Norris has four ideas to bring investors back into the real estate marketplace, each of which merits serious consideration.
1. Increase the number of loans made available to well capitalized investors. In other words, expand Fannie and Freddie loan programs from a maximum of 10 loans per investor to an unlimited number of loans for qualified investors.
The cap on real estate loans has never made much sense. Under the current rules you can have 10 properties with ten loans and a total of ten units. You can also have 10 properties with ten loans and 40 units. How is this more risky then having 12 mortgaged properties with 12 units?
The standard should not concern how many loans you have, but whether you're financially qualified. If your loans are being paid in full and on time why should anyone care if you have 10 houses or 20? No stockbroker will deny a margin loan because someone wants to purchase 200 shares rather than 100.
If we have investors who want to buy more houses, and if they can make their payments, then bless their hearts we ought to encourage every purchase they want to make. If the unlimited cap suggested by Norris is regarded as too risky, then how about raising the cap to 15 properties or 20 properties?
2. Make the 203K FHA loan program available to investors. The 203K program is a real estate rehab loan which allows buyers to first acquire an existing property and to then make repairs and improvements. The attraction of the program is that both the acquisition and improvements are funded up-front with a single mortgage, thus eliminating the cost to refinance or get a second loan.
It was back in October 1996 that HUD banned investors from the 203K program. The ban was supposed to be a temporary “moratorium” which would “allow the Department to consult with the industry and affected communities to explore legislative and policy reforms that will result in a program which will provide the neighborhood rehabilitation benefits of the investor program without the abuse and risk to the insurance fund.”
Thirteen years later as nearly as anyone can tell HUD is still consulting, which is unfortunate because the 203K program would allow a lot of entry-level investors to purchase and improve homes. In effect, opening the 203K program to investors would not only reduce the inventory of unsold residences, it would also improve neighborhood housing stocks thus allowing local communities to increase property tax revenues.
3. Eliminate the 90-day waiting period before a repaired property can be sold to a buyer using an FHA loan. Since 2003 HUD has had a prohibition on property flipping. The concept has been that quickly buying and selling a home by itself constitutes “flipping” and flipping by its nature is nefarious and evil. Of course, if you buy stock in the morning and sell the next day, that’s okay.
In basic terms, the rule works like this:
FHA financing is unavailable for homes re-sold within 90 days.
If a home is re-sold within six months the FHA can require a second appraisal.
For a home re-sold within a year HUD can require additional paperwork.
The date of sale is defined as the date of closing, not the date of recordation.
In 2007 HUD determined that the anti-flipping rule should not apply to properties sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, properties acquired by inheritance, properties sold by non-profit groups or governmental agencies, or properties located in presidentially-declared disaster areas.
In 2008, HUD changed the anti-flipping rule again, saying that it did not apply to foreclosed properties sold by lenders.
What really remains of the anti-flipping rule is this: Lawful investors are penalized for quickly and efficiently refurbishing homes.
If HUD is worried about illegal flipping which often involves fake repairs, fraudulent closings and predatory loans, then it ought to take steps to limit those particular activities rather than merely buying and selling property with speed. Requiring two appraisals for homes sold in less than six months should resolve the problem.
4. Allow loans to be taken over by credit-qualified new buyers with no down payment.
Norris says “through this process, which was successfully used in the 1980s, new buyers simply step in and take over the loan payments. The only stipulation is that the loan has to be made current at the close of escrow. The U.S. currently has about one million owners who will not be capable of keeping their homes without a huge discount on the principle balance. Many of these properties have fixed rates at very favorable rates. Allowing willing and capable buyers to come in and take over these loans would help contain the spread of foreclosures across the country.”
In this case an investor can buy a property for the outstanding loan balance. Lenders and mortgage insurers ought to love this approach because it's better for them than a short sale and losses.
The practical problem is that many foreclosed properties are upside down, the value of the property is less than the remaining mortgage balance. In essence, then, the idea would be to trade “no money down” for ownership, meaning that in many cases the down payment would actually exist in the form of an above-market price for the property. While this approach would not work for many investors, it could be attractive for those able to rent the property for enough to cover most or all costs and who see rising values ahead.
All in all, Norris has four reasonable, practical, credible ideas. That’s not bad, especially in a marketplace which needs investors — and needs them now.
_________By Peter G. Miller___________
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Given this background, you can imagine my amazement when I came across several practical suggestions which could instantly impact the housing market — and for the better. The source of these ideas is Bruce Norris of The Norris Group in Riverside, Calif., a real estate investor and analyst.
Essentially what Norris wants to do is bring more investors into the marketplace, a concept favored here since the earth first began to cool. Given that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses, and given that we now have a gross surplus of unsold properties, there’s a certain inherent sense to any concept which encourages more real estate investment. What makes the Norris ideas stand out is that they could be implemented in an afternoon and impact the marketplace immediately.
Investors
For a country where a lot of people express a great and unfettered support for capitalism, we sure do a lot to inhibit real estate investors.
You can buy real estate with one to four units and finance with an FHA mortgage, but only if you live in one of the units. Pure investors do not have access to FHA-insured financing.
If you run into tough times and must sell your home through a short sale, any unpaid mortgage balance is untaxed. If an investment property is sold with a short-sale then the unpaid mortgage debt is regarded as taxable income. In effect, investors are penalized if the economy turns upside down.
Communities have higher property tax rates for properties owned by investors. The result is that two identical homes can have different tax bills if one is owned by an investor and the other is owner-occupied.
Investors are specifically banned from the government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan. Only owner-occupants may participate.
“The absurdity here is that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses and right now we have a huge inventory of unsold homes,” says James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and data. “That inventory pushes down home values — including the value of your home and mine. The one sure way to raise property values is to have more buyers and less inventory, goals which could be readily accomplished if we encouraged more property investments.”
Added Saccacio: “Think about it this way, imagine that a home down the street is foreclosed. Does the value of your home go up or down? Does it matter if the foreclosed house was owned by the occupant or by an investor? Discriminating against real estate investors is self-defeating; it’s not the way to restore the housing market.”
We too-often describe investors as “speculators” and imply that buying investment real estate is somehow less worthy than buying stock or bonds.
For example, last year our then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, explained that “as our economy works through this difficult period, we will look for additional opportunities to try to avoid preventable foreclosures. However, none of these efforts are a silver bullet that will undo the excesses of the past years, nor are they designed to bail out real estate speculators or those who committed fraud during the mortgage process. These efforts are to help American families who both want to and can, through a loan modification or re-financing, stay in their homes.”
Translation: Investors are not American families and they may well be crooks. They are the “other” and not like you and I.
Paulson, of course, is the former head of Goldman Sachs, a company not known for discouraging either speculation or excess.
Four Ideas
Mr. Norris has four ideas to bring investors back into the real estate marketplace, each of which merits serious consideration.
1. Increase the number of loans made available to well capitalized investors. In other words, expand Fannie and Freddie loan programs from a maximum of 10 loans per investor to an unlimited number of loans for qualified investors.
The cap on real estate loans has never made much sense. Under the current rules you can have 10 properties with ten loans and a total of ten units. You can also have 10 properties with ten loans and 40 units. How is this more risky then having 12 mortgaged properties with 12 units?
The standard should not concern how many loans you have, but whether you're financially qualified. If your loans are being paid in full and on time why should anyone care if you have 10 houses or 20? No stockbroker will deny a margin loan because someone wants to purchase 200 shares rather than 100.
If we have investors who want to buy more houses, and if they can make their payments, then bless their hearts we ought to encourage every purchase they want to make. If the unlimited cap suggested by Norris is regarded as too risky, then how about raising the cap to 15 properties or 20 properties?
2. Make the 203K FHA loan program available to investors. The 203K program is a real estate rehab loan which allows buyers to first acquire an existing property and to then make repairs and improvements. The attraction of the program is that both the acquisition and improvements are funded up-front with a single mortgage, thus eliminating the cost to refinance or get a second loan.
It was back in October 1996 that HUD banned investors from the 203K program. The ban was supposed to be a temporary “moratorium” which would “allow the Department to consult with the industry and affected communities to explore legislative and policy reforms that will result in a program which will provide the neighborhood rehabilitation benefits of the investor program without the abuse and risk to the insurance fund.”
Thirteen years later as nearly as anyone can tell HUD is still consulting, which is unfortunate because the 203K program would allow a lot of entry-level investors to purchase and improve homes. In effect, opening the 203K program to investors would not only reduce the inventory of unsold residences, it would also improve neighborhood housing stocks thus allowing local communities to increase property tax revenues.
3. Eliminate the 90-day waiting period before a repaired property can be sold to a buyer using an FHA loan. Since 2003 HUD has had a prohibition on property flipping. The concept has been that quickly buying and selling a home by itself constitutes “flipping” and flipping by its nature is nefarious and evil. Of course, if you buy stock in the morning and sell the next day, that’s okay.
In basic terms, the rule works like this:
FHA financing is unavailable for homes re-sold within 90 days.
If a home is re-sold within six months the FHA can require a second appraisal.
For a home re-sold within a year HUD can require additional paperwork.
The date of sale is defined as the date of closing, not the date of recordation.
In 2007 HUD determined that the anti-flipping rule should not apply to properties sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, properties acquired by inheritance, properties sold by non-profit groups or governmental agencies, or properties located in presidentially-declared disaster areas.
In 2008, HUD changed the anti-flipping rule again, saying that it did not apply to foreclosed properties sold by lenders.
What really remains of the anti-flipping rule is this: Lawful investors are penalized for quickly and efficiently refurbishing homes.
If HUD is worried about illegal flipping which often involves fake repairs, fraudulent closings and predatory loans, then it ought to take steps to limit those particular activities rather than merely buying and selling property with speed. Requiring two appraisals for homes sold in less than six months should resolve the problem.
4. Allow loans to be taken over by credit-qualified new buyers with no down payment.
Norris says “through this process, which was successfully used in the 1980s, new buyers simply step in and take over the loan payments. The only stipulation is that the loan has to be made current at the close of escrow. The U.S. currently has about one million owners who will not be capable of keeping their homes without a huge discount on the principle balance. Many of these properties have fixed rates at very favorable rates. Allowing willing and capable buyers to come in and take over these loans would help contain the spread of foreclosures across the country.”
In this case an investor can buy a property for the outstanding loan balance. Lenders and mortgage insurers ought to love this approach because it's better for them than a short sale and losses.
The practical problem is that many foreclosed properties are upside down, the value of the property is less than the remaining mortgage balance. In essence, then, the idea would be to trade “no money down” for ownership, meaning that in many cases the down payment would actually exist in the form of an above-market price for the property. While this approach would not work for many investors, it could be attractive for those able to rent the property for enough to cover most or all costs and who see rising values ahead.
All in all, Norris has four reasonable, practical, credible ideas. That’s not bad, especially in a marketplace which needs investors — and needs them now.
_________By Peter G. Miller___________
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Given this background, you can imagine my amazement when I came across several practical suggestions which could instantly impact the housing market — and for the better. The source of these ideas is Bruce Norris of The Norris Group in Riverside, Calif., a real estate investor and analyst.
Essentially what Norris wants to do is bring more investors into the marketplace, a concept favored here since the earth first began to cool. Given that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses, and given that we now have a gross surplus of unsold properties, there’s a certain inherent sense to any concept which encourages more real estate investment. What makes the Norris ideas stand out is that they could be implemented in an afternoon and impact the marketplace immediately.
Investors
For a country where a lot of people express a great and unfettered support for capitalism, we sure do a lot to inhibit real estate investors.
You can buy real estate with one to four units and finance with an FHA mortgage, but only if you live in one of the units. Pure investors do not have access to FHA-insured financing.
If you run into tough times and must sell your home through a short sale, any unpaid mortgage balance is untaxed. If an investment property is sold with a short-sale then the unpaid mortgage debt is regarded as taxable income. In effect, investors are penalized if the economy turns upside down.
Communities have higher property tax rates for properties owned by investors. The result is that two identical homes can have different tax bills if one is owned by an investor and the other is owner-occupied.
Investors are specifically banned from the government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan. Only owner-occupants may participate.
“The absurdity here is that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses and right now we have a huge inventory of unsold homes,” says James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and data. “That inventory pushes down home values — including the value of your home and mine. The one sure way to raise property values is to have more buyers and less inventory, goals which could be readily accomplished if we encouraged more property investments.”
Added Saccacio: “Think about it this way, imagine that a home down the street is foreclosed. Does the value of your home go up or down? Does it matter if the foreclosed house was owned by the occupant or by an investor? Discriminating against real estate investors is self-defeating; it’s not the way to restore the housing market.”
We too-often describe investors as “speculators” and imply that buying investment real estate is somehow less worthy than buying stock or bonds.
For example, last year our then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, explained that “as our economy works through this difficult period, we will look for additional opportunities to try to avoid preventable foreclosures. However, none of these efforts are a silver bullet that will undo the excesses of the past years, nor are they designed to bail out real estate speculators or those who committed fraud during the mortgage process. These efforts are to help American families who both want to and can, through a loan modification or re-financing, stay in their homes.”
Translation: Investors are not American families and they may well be crooks. They are the “other” and not like you and I.
Paulson, of course, is the former head of Goldman Sachs, a company not known for discouraging either speculation or excess.
Four Ideas
Mr. Norris has four ideas to bring investors back into the real estate marketplace, each of which merits serious consideration.
1. Increase the number of loans made available to well capitalized investors. In other words, expand Fannie and Freddie loan programs from a maximum of 10 loans per investor to an unlimited number of loans for qualified investors.
The cap on real estate loans has never made much sense. Under the current rules you can have 10 properties with ten loans and a total of ten units. You can also have 10 properties with ten loans and 40 units. How is this more risky then having 12 mortgaged properties with 12 units?
The standard should not concern how many loans you have, but whether you're financially qualified. If your loans are being paid in full and on time why should anyone care if you have 10 houses or 20? No stockbroker will deny a margin loan because someone wants to purchase 200 shares rather than 100.
If we have investors who want to buy more houses, and if they can make their payments, then bless their hearts we ought to encourage every purchase they want to make. If the unlimited cap suggested by Norris is regarded as too risky, then how about raising the cap to 15 properties or 20 properties?
2. Make the 203K FHA loan program available to investors. The 203K program is a real estate rehab loan which allows buyers to first acquire an existing property and to then make repairs and improvements. The attraction of the program is that both the acquisition and improvements are funded up-front with a single mortgage, thus eliminating the cost to refinance or get a second loan.
It was back in October 1996 that HUD banned investors from the 203K program. The ban was supposed to be a temporary “moratorium” which would “allow the Department to consult with the industry and affected communities to explore legislative and policy reforms that will result in a program which will provide the neighborhood rehabilitation benefits of the investor program without the abuse and risk to the insurance fund.”
Thirteen years later as nearly as anyone can tell HUD is still consulting, which is unfortunate because the 203K program would allow a lot of entry-level investors to purchase and improve homes. In effect, opening the 203K program to investors would not only reduce the inventory of unsold residences, it would also improve neighborhood housing stocks thus allowing local communities to increase property tax revenues.
3. Eliminate the 90-day waiting period before a repaired property can be sold to a buyer using an FHA loan. Since 2003 HUD has had a prohibition on property flipping. The concept has been that quickly buying and selling a home by itself constitutes “flipping” and flipping by its nature is nefarious and evil. Of course, if you buy stock in the morning and sell the next day, that’s okay.
In basic terms, the rule works like this:
FHA financing is unavailable for homes re-sold within 90 days.
If a home is re-sold within six months the FHA can require a second appraisal.
For a home re-sold within a year HUD can require additional paperwork.
The date of sale is defined as the date of closing, not the date of recordation.
In 2007 HUD determined that the anti-flipping rule should not apply to properties sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, properties acquired by inheritance, properties sold by non-profit groups or governmental agencies, or properties located in presidentially-declared disaster areas.
In 2008, HUD changed the anti-flipping rule again, saying that it did not apply to foreclosed properties sold by lenders.
What really remains of the anti-flipping rule is this: Lawful investors are penalized for quickly and efficiently refurbishing homes.
If HUD is worried about illegal flipping which often involves fake repairs, fraudulent closings and predatory loans, then it ought to take steps to limit those particular activities rather than merely buying and selling property with speed. Requiring two appraisals for homes sold in less than six months should resolve the problem.
4. Allow loans to be taken over by credit-qualified new buyers with no down payment.
Norris says “through this process, which was successfully used in the 1980s, new buyers simply step in and take over the loan payments. The only stipulation is that the loan has to be made current at the close of escrow. The U.S. currently has about one million owners who will not be capable of keeping their homes without a huge discount on the principle balance. Many of these properties have fixed rates at very favorable rates. Allowing willing and capable buyers to come in and take over these loans would help contain the spread of foreclosures across the country.”
In this case an investor can buy a property for the outstanding loan balance. Lenders and mortgage insurers ought to love this approach because it's better for them than a short sale and losses.
The practical problem is that many foreclosed properties are upside down, the value of the property is less than the remaining mortgage balance. In essence, then, the idea would be to trade “no money down” for ownership, meaning that in many cases the down payment would actually exist in the form of an above-market price for the property. While this approach would not work for many investors, it could be attractive for those able to rent the property for enough to cover most or all costs and who see rising values ahead.
All in all, Norris has four reasonable, practical, credible ideas. That’s not bad, especially in a marketplace which needs investors — and needs them now.
_________By Peter G. Miller___________
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Four Ideas To Get Foreclosure Investors Into The Marketplace
Whenever I hear a new proposal to reduce foreclosure levels and raise home values my usual reaction is to duck. Experience has shown that “helpful” suggestions to save the housing market have an uncanny tendency to benefit whichever special-interest group is ultimately behind a given scheme.
Given this background, you can imagine my amazement when I came across several practical suggestions which could instantly impact the housing market — and for the better. The source of these ideas is Bruce Norris of The Norris Group in Riverside, Calif., a real estate investor and analyst.
Essentially what Norris wants to do is bring more investors into the marketplace, a concept favored here since the earth first began to cool. Given that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses, and given that we now have a gross surplus of unsold properties, there’s a certain inherent sense to any concept which encourages more real estate investment. What makes the Norris ideas stand out is that they could be implemented in an afternoon and impact the marketplace immediately.
Investors
For a country where a lot of people express a great and unfettered support for capitalism, we sure do a lot to inhibit real estate investors.
You can buy real estate with one to four units and finance with an FHA mortgage, but only if you live in one of the units. Pure investors do not have access to FHA-insured financing.
If you run into tough times and must sell your home through a short sale, any unpaid mortgage balance is untaxed. If an investment property is sold with a short-sale then the unpaid mortgage debt is regarded as taxable income. In effect, investors are penalized if the economy turns upside down.
Communities have higher property tax rates for properties owned by investors. The result is that two identical homes can have different tax bills if one is owned by an investor and the other is owner-occupied.
Investors are specifically banned from the government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan. Only owner-occupants may participate.
“The absurdity here is that real estate investors are people who want to buy houses and right now we have a huge inventory of unsold homes,” says James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and data. “That inventory pushes down home values — including the value of your home and mine. The one sure way to raise property values is to have more buyers and less inventory, goals which could be readily accomplished if we encouraged more property investments.”
Added Saccacio: “Think about it this way, imagine that a home down the street is foreclosed. Does the value of your home go up or down? Does it matter if the foreclosed house was owned by the occupant or by an investor? Discriminating against real estate investors is self-defeating; it’s not the way to restore the housing market.”
We too-often describe investors as “speculators” and imply that buying investment real estate is somehow less worthy than buying stock or bonds.
For example, last year our then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, explained that “as our economy works through this difficult period, we will look for additional opportunities to try to avoid preventable foreclosures. However, none of these efforts are a silver bullet that will undo the excesses of the past years, nor are they designed to bail out real estate speculators or those who committed fraud during the mortgage process. These efforts are to help American families who both want to and can, through a loan modification or re-financing, stay in their homes.”
Translation: Investors are not American families and they may well be crooks. They are the “other” and not like you and I.
Paulson, of course, is the former head of Goldman Sachs, a company not known for discouraging either speculation or excess.
Four Ideas
Mr. Norris has four ideas to bring investors back into the real estate marketplace, each of which merits serious consideration.
1. Increase the number of loans made available to well capitalized investors. In other words, expand Fannie and Freddie loan programs from a maximum of 10 loans per investor to an unlimited number of loans for qualified investors.
The cap on real estate loans has never made much sense. Under the current rules you can have 10 properties with ten loans and a total of ten units. You can also have 10 properties with ten loans and 40 units. How is this more risky then having 12 mortgaged properties with 12 units?
The standard should not concern how many loans you have, but whether you're financially qualified. If your loans are being paid in full and on time why should anyone care if you have 10 houses or 20? No stockbroker will deny a margin loan because someone wants to purchase 200 shares rather than 100.
If we have investors who want to buy more houses, and if they can make their payments, then bless their hearts we ought to encourage every purchase they want to make. If the unlimited cap suggested by Norris is regarded as too risky, then how about raising the cap to 15 properties or 20 properties?
2. Make the 203K FHA loan program available to investors. The 203K program is a real estate rehab loan which allows buyers to first acquire an existing property and to then make repairs and improvements. The attraction of the program is that both the acquisition and improvements are funded up-front with a single mortgage, thus eliminating the cost to refinance or get a second loan.
It was back in October 1996 that HUD banned investors from the 203K program. The ban was supposed to be a temporary “moratorium” which would “allow the Department to consult with the industry and affected communities to explore legislative and policy reforms that will result in a program which will provide the neighborhood rehabilitation benefits of the investor program without the abuse and risk to the insurance fund.”
Thirteen years later as nearly as anyone can tell HUD is still consulting, which is unfortunate because the 203K program would allow a lot of entry-level investors to purchase and improve homes. In effect, opening the 203K program to investors would not only reduce the inventory of unsold residences, it would also improve neighborhood housing stocks thus allowing local communities to increase property tax revenues.
3. Eliminate the 90-day waiting period before a repaired property can be sold to a buyer using an FHA loan. Since 2003 HUD has had a prohibition on property flipping. The concept has been that quickly buying and selling a home by itself constitutes “flipping” and flipping by its nature is nefarious and evil. Of course, if you buy stock in the morning and sell the next day, that’s okay.
In basic terms, the rule works like this:
FHA financing is unavailable for homes re-sold within 90 days.
If a home is re-sold within six months the FHA can require a second appraisal.
For a home re-sold within a year HUD can require additional paperwork.
The date of sale is defined as the date of closing, not the date of recordation.
In 2007 HUD determined that the anti-flipping rule should not apply to properties sold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, properties acquired by inheritance, properties sold by non-profit groups or governmental agencies, or properties located in presidentially-declared disaster areas.
In 2008, HUD changed the anti-flipping rule again, saying that it did not apply to foreclosed properties sold by lenders.
What really remains of the anti-flipping rule is this: Lawful investors are penalized for quickly and efficiently refurbishing homes.
If HUD is worried about illegal flipping which often involves fake repairs, fraudulent closings and predatory loans, then it ought to take steps to limit those particular activities rather than merely buying and selling property with speed. Requiring two appraisals for homes sold in less than six months should resolve the problem.
4. Allow loans to be taken over by credit-qualified new buyers with no down payment.
Norris says “through this process, which was successfully used in the 1980s, new buyers simply step in and take over the loan payments. The only stipulation is that the loan has to be made current at the close of escrow. The U.S. currently has about one million owners who will not be capable of keeping their homes without a huge discount on the principle balance. Many of these properties have fixed rates at very favorable rates. Allowing willing and capable buyers to come in and take over these loans would help contain the spread of foreclosures across the country.”
In this case an investor can buy a property for the outstanding loan balance. Lenders and mortgage insurers ought to love this approach because it's better for them than a short sale and losses.
The practical problem is that many foreclosed properties are upside down, the value of the property is less than the remaining mortgage balance. In essence, then, the idea would be to trade “no money down” for ownership, meaning that in many cases the down payment would actually exist in the form of an above-market price for the property. While this approach would not work for many investors, it could be attractive for those able to rent the property for enough to cover most or all costs and who see rising values ahead.
All in all, Norris has four reasonable, practical, credible ideas. That’s not bad, especially in a marketplace which needs investors — and needs them now.
_________By Peter G. Miller___________
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
First we have the National Association of Realtors which says that we’re now selling existing homes at the rate of about 5.10 million per year.
Next we have the IRS which says so far this year that 1.4 million people have claimed the $8,000 tax credit now available for first-time homebuyers.
These numbers are important because you have to wonder how many homes would be selling without the first-time credit. NAR says that the credit has created some 350,000 additional sales, but not everyone is so sure.
“Like Cash for Clunkers, the housing credit does not magically generate demand,” argues a Washington Post editorial. “It moves demand around — from the future to the present, and from other consumers, and other sectors, to homebuyers and homes. These ‘results’ don’t come for free. Cash for Clunkers added $4 billion to the federal deficit, and the housing tax credit is on track to add $15 billion.”
The worries of the Washington Post are curious. It’s entirely true that most individuals who got the first-time tax credit would have bought anyway. Such folks did not create extra sales or additional reductions in the massive inventory of unsold homes.
But if the NAR estimates are generally right, it’s also true that an additional 350,000 homes were removed from the marketplace, reducing the supply of unsold homes and thus helping to slow or halt the fall in property prices. Given tough market conditions, 350,000 extra home sales is a big deal.
But the Post is not so impressed.
“Congress,” says the paper, “should end this program while it still can. With hundreds of billions of dollars in support from the Fed, the Treasury and the FHA still in place, the housing market can survive without it. Indeed, the looming problem for the U.S. economy is how to wean housing off its dependence on federal backing. That job will be hard enough without adding yet another not-so-temporary subsidy to the list.”
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
You have to wonder how the Post figures the government provided “hundreds of billions of dollars” in support of the housing industry — or how the money might be better used.
For example:
The government in not subsidizing the FHA program — for decades the program has been entirely funded by insurance premium payments from borrowers. In fact, the FHA is a big donor to federal coffers. Between fiscal 2000 and 2001 the FHA sent checks worth $13.5 billion back to the U.S. Treasury — that’s premium money from borrowers and almost as much as the Post estimates as the cost of the first-time buyer credit.
The federal government gave out nearly $200 billion to more than 600 banks. That’s not money which has gone to the housing market, it’s generally gone to prop up banks with toxic assets that would otherwise fail.
The huge insurance company, AIG, received $182 billion from the government. Some of this money, perhaps much of this money, went to pay off various banks that held credit default swaps from AIG.
Citibank received $306 billion in federal guarantees as well as $45 billion in cash.
The government gave $45 billion to the Bank of America and “agreed to share potential losses on a $118 billion pool of financial instruments owned by Bank of America, consisting of securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, and corporate debt and derivative transactions that reference such securities, loans and associated hedges."
In contrast, the first-time buyer program is going to cost as much as $15 billion. In normal times there might well be grounds to object, but in the context of today's economy $15 billion is small change — it’s actually less than the $27 billion loss at just one company, Merrill Lynch.
The Multiplier Effect
Those 350,000 additional sales computed by NAR do not tell the whole story.
You also have to look at the “multiplier effect” for the money spent on the first-time buyer credit. For example, Smith would not have purchased unless he could get that $8,000 tax credit. He is one of our 350,000 extra buyers.
Smith bought from seller Wilson. Wilson might not have had a sale if Smith could not get the credit — there would simply be more inventory and fewer sales and no doubt lower home values.
Now we have those 350,000 additional buyers (like Smith) and then a 350,000 additional sellers (like Wilson). That’s 700,000 “sides” as they like to say in real estate. These additional transactions directly create income for brokers, lawyers, movers, lenders, tax collectors, furniture sellers and a host of other folks. All of a sudden that original $8,000 tax credit has set in motion a lot of buying and selling, the first link in a chain of financial activity which is good for the economy.
"What new federal housing program has materially helped more people in more towns and cities than the first-time homebuyer credit?” asks James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the nation’s largest source of foreclosure listings and information. “Each additional purchase helps a seller who in turn does something with the proceeds from the sale. The credit is a financial catalyst, something which sets in motion a large volume of economic activity at the very time when we need as much consumer spending as possible.”
Added Saccacio: “For decades the policy of the federal government under every administration has been to encourage homeownership and the widespread availability of credit to qualified buyers. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers follows in this tradition, and it does so in a way which does not require complicated programming or vast bureaucracies.”
But what about all the money given to banks? Hasn't it set off a multiplier effect as well? Yes and no. While the first-time homebuyer credit is based on performance — you actually have to buy a house — there’s no requirement for a specific action by bailed-out banks.
Government money has been used to simply increase reserves, pay executive bonuses, buy other banks and cover losses — an increase in lending activity is not required.
Lastly, while $15 billion is a lot of money in a general sense, it’s just a third of the money given to the Bank of America, a third of the cash given to Citibank and less than 10 percent of the money received by AIG.
How Temporary?
In 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, temporary rent control rules were established in New York City, rules which STILL apply to more than 1 million apartment units. The situation in New York is unusual but it does raise a concern: When should the tax credit for first-time buyers end? We need a benchmark, some reasonable measure at which point the credit should be discontinued, so let’s agree that the credit for first-time homebuyers will automatically terminate as soon as all bailout money is re-paid and all bank guarantees come to an end.
______________By Peter G. Miller ______
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
First we have the National Association of Realtors which says that we’re now selling existing homes at the rate of about 5.10 million per year.
Next we have the IRS which says so far this year that 1.4 million people have claimed the $8,000 tax credit now available for first-time homebuyers.
These numbers are important because you have to wonder how many homes would be selling without the first-time credit. NAR says that the credit has created some 350,000 additional sales, but not everyone is so sure.
“Like Cash for Clunkers, the housing credit does not magically generate demand,” argues a Washington Post editorial. “It moves demand around — from the future to the present, and from other consumers, and other sectors, to homebuyers and homes. These ‘results’ don’t come for free. Cash for Clunkers added $4 billion to the federal deficit, and the housing tax credit is on track to add $15 billion.”
The worries of the Washington Post are curious. It’s entirely true that most individuals who got the first-time tax credit would have bought anyway. Such folks did not create extra sales or additional reductions in the massive inventory of unsold homes.
But if the NAR estimates are generally right, it’s also true that an additional 350,000 homes were removed from the marketplace, reducing the supply of unsold homes and thus helping to slow or halt the fall in property prices. Given tough market conditions, 350,000 extra home sales is a big deal.
But the Post is not so impressed.
“Congress,” says the paper, “should end this program while it still can. With hundreds of billions of dollars in support from the Fed, the Treasury and the FHA still in place, the housing market can survive without it. Indeed, the looming problem for the U.S. economy is how to wean housing off its dependence on federal backing. That job will be hard enough without adding yet another not-so-temporary subsidy to the list.”
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
You have to wonder how the Post figures the government provided “hundreds of billions of dollars” in support of the housing industry — or how the money might be better used.
For example:
The government in not subsidizing the FHA program — for decades the program has been entirely funded by insurance premium payments from borrowers. In fact, the FHA is a big donor to federal coffers. Between fiscal 2000 and 2001 the FHA sent checks worth $13.5 billion back to the U.S. Treasury — that’s premium money from borrowers and almost as much as the Post estimates as the cost of the first-time buyer credit.
The federal government gave out nearly $200 billion to more than 600 banks. That’s not money which has gone to the housing market, it’s generally gone to prop up banks with toxic assets that would otherwise fail.
The huge insurance company, AIG, received $182 billion from the government. Some of this money, perhaps much of this money, went to pay off various banks that held credit default swaps from AIG.
Citibank received $306 billion in federal guarantees as well as $45 billion in cash.
The government gave $45 billion to the Bank of America and “agreed to share potential losses on a $118 billion pool of financial instruments owned by Bank of America, consisting of securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, and corporate debt and derivative transactions that reference such securities, loans and associated hedges."
In contrast, the first-time buyer program is going to cost as much as $15 billion. In normal times there might well be grounds to object, but in the context of today's economy $15 billion is small change — it’s actually less than the $27 billion loss at just one company, Merrill Lynch.
The Multiplier Effect
Those 350,000 additional sales computed by NAR do not tell the whole story.
You also have to look at the “multiplier effect” for the money spent on the first-time buyer credit. For example, Smith would not have purchased unless he could get that $8,000 tax credit. He is one of our 350,000 extra buyers.
Smith bought from seller Wilson. Wilson might not have had a sale if Smith could not get the credit — there would simply be more inventory and fewer sales and no doubt lower home values.
Now we have those 350,000 additional buyers (like Smith) and then a 350,000 additional sellers (like Wilson). That’s 700,000 “sides” as they like to say in real estate. These additional transactions directly create income for brokers, lawyers, movers, lenders, tax collectors, furniture sellers and a host of other folks. All of a sudden that original $8,000 tax credit has set in motion a lot of buying and selling, the first link in a chain of financial activity which is good for the economy.
"What new federal housing program has materially helped more people in more towns and cities than the first-time homebuyer credit?” asks James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the nation’s largest source of foreclosure listings and information. “Each additional purchase helps a seller who in turn does something with the proceeds from the sale. The credit is a financial catalyst, something which sets in motion a large volume of economic activity at the very time when we need as much consumer spending as possible.”
Added Saccacio: “For decades the policy of the federal government under every administration has been to encourage homeownership and the widespread availability of credit to qualified buyers. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers follows in this tradition, and it does so in a way which does not require complicated programming or vast bureaucracies.”
But what about all the money given to banks? Hasn't it set off a multiplier effect as well? Yes and no. While the first-time homebuyer credit is based on performance — you actually have to buy a house — there’s no requirement for a specific action by bailed-out banks.
Government money has been used to simply increase reserves, pay executive bonuses, buy other banks and cover losses — an increase in lending activity is not required.
Lastly, while $15 billion is a lot of money in a general sense, it’s just a third of the money given to the Bank of America, a third of the cash given to Citibank and less than 10 percent of the money received by AIG.
How Temporary?
In 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, temporary rent control rules were established in New York City, rules which STILL apply to more than 1 million apartment units. The situation in New York is unusual but it does raise a concern: When should the tax credit for first-time buyers end? We need a benchmark, some reasonable measure at which point the credit should be discontinued, so let’s agree that the credit for first-time homebuyers will automatically terminate as soon as all bailout money is re-paid and all bank guarantees come to an end.
______________By Peter G. Miller ______
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
First we have the National Association of Realtors which says that we’re now selling existing homes at the rate of about 5.10 million per year.
Next we have the IRS which says so far this year that 1.4 million people have claimed the $8,000 tax credit now available for first-time homebuyers.
These numbers are important because you have to wonder how many homes would be selling without the first-time credit. NAR says that the credit has created some 350,000 additional sales, but not everyone is so sure.
“Like Cash for Clunkers, the housing credit does not magically generate demand,” argues a Washington Post editorial. “It moves demand around — from the future to the present, and from other consumers, and other sectors, to homebuyers and homes. These ‘results’ don’t come for free. Cash for Clunkers added $4 billion to the federal deficit, and the housing tax credit is on track to add $15 billion.”
The worries of the Washington Post are curious. It’s entirely true that most individuals who got the first-time tax credit would have bought anyway. Such folks did not create extra sales or additional reductions in the massive inventory of unsold homes.
But if the NAR estimates are generally right, it’s also true that an additional 350,000 homes were removed from the marketplace, reducing the supply of unsold homes and thus helping to slow or halt the fall in property prices. Given tough market conditions, 350,000 extra home sales is a big deal.
But the Post is not so impressed.
“Congress,” says the paper, “should end this program while it still can. With hundreds of billions of dollars in support from the Fed, the Treasury and the FHA still in place, the housing market can survive without it. Indeed, the looming problem for the U.S. economy is how to wean housing off its dependence on federal backing. That job will be hard enough without adding yet another not-so-temporary subsidy to the list.”
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
You have to wonder how the Post figures the government provided “hundreds of billions of dollars” in support of the housing industry — or how the money might be better used.
For example:
The government in not subsidizing the FHA program — for decades the program has been entirely funded by insurance premium payments from borrowers. In fact, the FHA is a big donor to federal coffers. Between fiscal 2000 and 2001 the FHA sent checks worth $13.5 billion back to the U.S. Treasury — that’s premium money from borrowers and almost as much as the Post estimates as the cost of the first-time buyer credit.
The federal government gave out nearly $200 billion to more than 600 banks. That’s not money which has gone to the housing market, it’s generally gone to prop up banks with toxic assets that would otherwise fail.
The huge insurance company, AIG, received $182 billion from the government. Some of this money, perhaps much of this money, went to pay off various banks that held credit default swaps from AIG.
Citibank received $306 billion in federal guarantees as well as $45 billion in cash.
The government gave $45 billion to the Bank of America and “agreed to share potential losses on a $118 billion pool of financial instruments owned by Bank of America, consisting of securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, and corporate debt and derivative transactions that reference such securities, loans and associated hedges."
In contrast, the first-time buyer program is going to cost as much as $15 billion. In normal times there might well be grounds to object, but in the context of today's economy $15 billion is small change — it’s actually less than the $27 billion loss at just one company, Merrill Lynch.
The Multiplier Effect
Those 350,000 additional sales computed by NAR do not tell the whole story.
You also have to look at the “multiplier effect” for the money spent on the first-time buyer credit. For example, Smith would not have purchased unless he could get that $8,000 tax credit. He is one of our 350,000 extra buyers.
Smith bought from seller Wilson. Wilson might not have had a sale if Smith could not get the credit — there would simply be more inventory and fewer sales and no doubt lower home values.
Now we have those 350,000 additional buyers (like Smith) and then a 350,000 additional sellers (like Wilson). That’s 700,000 “sides” as they like to say in real estate. These additional transactions directly create income for brokers, lawyers, movers, lenders, tax collectors, furniture sellers and a host of other folks. All of a sudden that original $8,000 tax credit has set in motion a lot of buying and selling, the first link in a chain of financial activity which is good for the economy.
"What new federal housing program has materially helped more people in more towns and cities than the first-time homebuyer credit?” asks James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the nation’s largest source of foreclosure listings and information. “Each additional purchase helps a seller who in turn does something with the proceeds from the sale. The credit is a financial catalyst, something which sets in motion a large volume of economic activity at the very time when we need as much consumer spending as possible.”
Added Saccacio: “For decades the policy of the federal government under every administration has been to encourage homeownership and the widespread availability of credit to qualified buyers. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers follows in this tradition, and it does so in a way which does not require complicated programming or vast bureaucracies.”
But what about all the money given to banks? Hasn't it set off a multiplier effect as well? Yes and no. While the first-time homebuyer credit is based on performance — you actually have to buy a house — there’s no requirement for a specific action by bailed-out banks.
Government money has been used to simply increase reserves, pay executive bonuses, buy other banks and cover losses — an increase in lending activity is not required.
Lastly, while $15 billion is a lot of money in a general sense, it’s just a third of the money given to the Bank of America, a third of the cash given to Citibank and less than 10 percent of the money received by AIG.
How Temporary?
In 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, temporary rent control rules were established in New York City, rules which STILL apply to more than 1 million apartment units. The situation in New York is unusual but it does raise a concern: When should the tax credit for first-time buyers end? We need a benchmark, some reasonable measure at which point the credit should be discontinued, so let’s agree that the credit for first-time homebuyers will automatically terminate as soon as all bailout money is re-paid and all bank guarantees come to an end.
______________By Peter G. Miller ______
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Are Tax Credits For First-Time Home Buyers Too Costly?
After a number of fumbles and failures, it seems that government has finally found a way increase home sales. The trick? A little tax incentive bribery.
First we have the National Association of Realtors which says that we’re now selling existing homes at the rate of about 5.10 million per year.
Next we have the IRS which says so far this year that 1.4 million people have claimed the $8,000 tax credit now available for first-time homebuyers.
These numbers are important because you have to wonder how many homes would be selling without the first-time credit. NAR says that the credit has created some 350,000 additional sales, but not everyone is so sure.
“Like Cash for Clunkers, the housing credit does not magically generate demand,” argues a Washington Post editorial. “It moves demand around — from the future to the present, and from other consumers, and other sectors, to homebuyers and homes. These ‘results’ don’t come for free. Cash for Clunkers added $4 billion to the federal deficit, and the housing tax credit is on track to add $15 billion.”
The worries of the Washington Post are curious. It’s entirely true that most individuals who got the first-time tax credit would have bought anyway. Such folks did not create extra sales or additional reductions in the massive inventory of unsold homes.
But if the NAR estimates are generally right, it’s also true that an additional 350,000 homes were removed from the marketplace, reducing the supply of unsold homes and thus helping to slow or halt the fall in property prices. Given tough market conditions, 350,000 extra home sales is a big deal.
But the Post is not so impressed.
“Congress,” says the paper, “should end this program while it still can. With hundreds of billions of dollars in support from the Fed, the Treasury and the FHA still in place, the housing market can survive without it. Indeed, the looming problem for the U.S. economy is how to wean housing off its dependence on federal backing. That job will be hard enough without adding yet another not-so-temporary subsidy to the list.”
Spending Taxpayer Dollars
You have to wonder how the Post figures the government provided “hundreds of billions of dollars” in support of the housing industry — or how the money might be better used.
For example:
The government in not subsidizing the FHA program — for decades the program has been entirely funded by insurance premium payments from borrowers. In fact, the FHA is a big donor to federal coffers. Between fiscal 2000 and 2001 the FHA sent checks worth $13.5 billion back to the U.S. Treasury — that’s premium money from borrowers and almost as much as the Post estimates as the cost of the first-time buyer credit.
The federal government gave out nearly $200 billion to more than 600 banks. That’s not money which has gone to the housing market, it’s generally gone to prop up banks with toxic assets that would otherwise fail.
The huge insurance company, AIG, received $182 billion from the government. Some of this money, perhaps much of this money, went to pay off various banks that held credit default swaps from AIG.
Citibank received $306 billion in federal guarantees as well as $45 billion in cash.
The government gave $45 billion to the Bank of America and “agreed to share potential losses on a $118 billion pool of financial instruments owned by Bank of America, consisting of securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, and corporate debt and derivative transactions that reference such securities, loans and associated hedges."
In contrast, the first-time buyer program is going to cost as much as $15 billion. In normal times there might well be grounds to object, but in the context of today's economy $15 billion is small change — it’s actually less than the $27 billion loss at just one company, Merrill Lynch.
The Multiplier Effect
Those 350,000 additional sales computed by NAR do not tell the whole story.
You also have to look at the “multiplier effect” for the money spent on the first-time buyer credit. For example, Smith would not have purchased unless he could get that $8,000 tax credit. He is one of our 350,000 extra buyers.
Smith bought from seller Wilson. Wilson might not have had a sale if Smith could not get the credit — there would simply be more inventory and fewer sales and no doubt lower home values.
Now we have those 350,000 additional buyers (like Smith) and then a 350,000 additional sellers (like Wilson). That’s 700,000 “sides” as they like to say in real estate. These additional transactions directly create income for brokers, lawyers, movers, lenders, tax collectors, furniture sellers and a host of other folks. All of a sudden that original $8,000 tax credit has set in motion a lot of buying and selling, the first link in a chain of financial activity which is good for the economy.
"What new federal housing program has materially helped more people in more towns and cities than the first-time homebuyer credit?” asks James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer at RealtyTrac.com, the nation’s largest source of foreclosure listings and information. “Each additional purchase helps a seller who in turn does something with the proceeds from the sale. The credit is a financial catalyst, something which sets in motion a large volume of economic activity at the very time when we need as much consumer spending as possible.”
Added Saccacio: “For decades the policy of the federal government under every administration has been to encourage homeownership and the widespread availability of credit to qualified buyers. The tax credit for first-time homebuyers follows in this tradition, and it does so in a way which does not require complicated programming or vast bureaucracies.”
But what about all the money given to banks? Hasn't it set off a multiplier effect as well? Yes and no. While the first-time homebuyer credit is based on performance — you actually have to buy a house — there’s no requirement for a specific action by bailed-out banks.
Government money has been used to simply increase reserves, pay executive bonuses, buy other banks and cover losses — an increase in lending activity is not required.
Lastly, while $15 billion is a lot of money in a general sense, it’s just a third of the money given to the Bank of America, a third of the cash given to Citibank and less than 10 percent of the money received by AIG.
How Temporary?
In 1943, in the midst of the Second World War, temporary rent control rules were established in New York City, rules which STILL apply to more than 1 million apartment units. The situation in New York is unusual but it does raise a concern: When should the tax credit for first-time buyers end? We need a benchmark, some reasonable measure at which point the credit should be discontinued, so let’s agree that the credit for first-time homebuyers will automatically terminate as soon as all bailout money is re-paid and all bank guarantees come to an end.
______________By Peter G. Miller ______
Peter G. Miller is syndicated in more than 100 newspapers and operates the consumer real estate site, OurBroker.com.
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What Really Matters in Real Estate: A White Paper
Keller Williams provided this document at Mega Agent Camp last week in Austin, Texas. Has some interesting things in here.
Really Matters in Real Estate - A White Paper
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Really Matters in Real Estate - A White Paper
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
What Really Matters in Real Estate: A White Paper
Keller Williams provided this document at Mega Agent Camp last week in Austin, Texas. Has some interesting things in here.
Really Matters in Real Estate - A White Paper
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Really Matters in Real Estate - A White Paper
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Timothy Geithner Overprices Home
US SecretaryTreasurer and obvious financial genius Timothy Geithner overpriced his home listed in Feb HIGHER than 2006 values. Take 4 minutes to watch this video then get back to work :)
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Home Crisis Investigation | ||||
| ||||
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Timothy Geithner Overprices Home
US SecretaryTreasurer and obvious financial genius Timothy Geithner overpriced his home listed in Feb HIGHER than 2006 values. Take 4 minutes to watch this video then get back to work :)
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Home Crisis Investigation | ||||
| ||||
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Thursday, August 20, 2009
81% of America thinks their house will not lose value in the next 6 months!!!!!
Homeowners still don't get it. 81% of America thinks their house will not lose value in the next 6 months!!!!!
A new report from Zillow.com finds that 60 percent of homeowners surveyed believe their home lost value in the past twelve months. In reality, 83 percent of all homes lost value. Owners in the South were the most deluded and those in the West, understandably, were the least. And to make matters worse, 81 percent of all homeowners surveyed actually believe their home value will not fall over the next six months; this as foreclosure numbers rise and all of the action in the housing market continues on the lowest of the low end. I have not found one expert (and I know I will as soon as I write this) who claims that home prices have hit bottom. Sales, perhaps, but not prices.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32461957
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
A new report from Zillow.com finds that 60 percent of homeowners surveyed believe their home lost value in the past twelve months. In reality, 83 percent of all homes lost value. Owners in the South were the most deluded and those in the West, understandably, were the least. And to make matters worse, 81 percent of all homeowners surveyed actually believe their home value will not fall over the next six months; this as foreclosure numbers rise and all of the action in the housing market continues on the lowest of the low end. I have not found one expert (and I know I will as soon as I write this) who claims that home prices have hit bottom. Sales, perhaps, but not prices.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32461957
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
81% of America thinks their house will not lose value in the next 6 months!!!!!
Homeowners still don't get it. 81% of America thinks their house will not lose value in the next 6 months!!!!!
A new report from Zillow.com finds that 60 percent of homeowners surveyed believe their home lost value in the past twelve months. In reality, 83 percent of all homes lost value. Owners in the South were the most deluded and those in the West, understandably, were the least. And to make matters worse, 81 percent of all homeowners surveyed actually believe their home value will not fall over the next six months; this as foreclosure numbers rise and all of the action in the housing market continues on the lowest of the low end. I have not found one expert (and I know I will as soon as I write this) who claims that home prices have hit bottom. Sales, perhaps, but not prices.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32461957
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
A new report from Zillow.com finds that 60 percent of homeowners surveyed believe their home lost value in the past twelve months. In reality, 83 percent of all homes lost value. Owners in the South were the most deluded and those in the West, understandably, were the least. And to make matters worse, 81 percent of all homeowners surveyed actually believe their home value will not fall over the next six months; this as foreclosure numbers rise and all of the action in the housing market continues on the lowest of the low end. I have not found one expert (and I know I will as soon as I write this) who claims that home prices have hit bottom. Sales, perhaps, but not prices.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32461957
Rob Alley, Realtor at Keller Williams Charlottesville
540-250-3275 (cell)
roballeyrealtor@gmail.com
http://www.robsellscharlottesville.com
http://www.forestlakesliving.com
http://www.charlottesvillevarealestate.blogspot.com
http://www.charlottesvilleshortsale.com
http://www.theaverygroup.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)