The Good Old Days Weren’t Always Good…

Cause the good ole days weren’t always good…and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.” Billy Joel Keeping the Faith

Believe it or not…this is a post about Title Companies and Escrow Services and…my ever favorite topic: Homebuyer’s Rights. It’s a plea, really. A humble request for help from someone, or many someone’s, in authority.

In “The Good Old Days”, an agent ordered “Preliminary Title” AND “pre-opened” escrow, when they listed a property for sale. To encourage this practice, Title Companies offered the seller a discount for pre-ordering escrow so that the Title Company was guaranteed not only the Title Insurance business and money, but the right to be the Escrow Closing agent and earn that money in addition to the Title Insurance premium. A good business practice, I guess, and reasonably appropriate back when every agent represented sellers of homes and never buyers of homes.

You know…”the Good Old Days…(that) weren’t always so good”, when buyers were represented by no one, had no rights, and the Rule of the Day was Caveat Emptor.

In the present day in the here and now, meaning “The Seattle Area”, our basic Real Estate Contract has a provision for choosing Title Insurance Company that does not refer to anyone’s choice. Just a blank place for the writer of the contract (usually the agent for the Buyer – since buyers write and make the offer on this contract) to enter the name of the “Title Insurance Company”.

Then there is another line after it that says “a qualified closing agent of buyer’s choice:”

There are still some real estate agents, with the encouragements of added benefits to do so from Title Companies, who are PRE-ORDERING ESCROW before the buyer of the home is a known entity. Who CHOOSE the “qualified closing agent of buyer’s choice” in advance of the buyer being a known entity. Please stop that. And Title Companiesplease, please stop offering seller’s agents and sellers “bribes” to encourage this practice of “pre-ordering” escrow in advance of the buyer being a known entity.

I agree that the owner/seller should choose Title Insurance Company, because the seller has to procure and pay for an Owner’s Title Insurance Policy and give it to the buyer in this area, as part of the means of conveying clear title to the buyer of their home/property.

And…it’s quite OK to “suggest” that escrow be X in the Agent remarks section. But to OUTRIGHT DEMAND THAT ESCROW MUST BE SELLER’S CHOICE instead of the obvious contract intent of “buyer’s choice of escrow”…well, frankly, it’s an antiquated and totally inappropriate activity in this day and age.

I know that Rome wasn’t built in a day and change takes time…but I urge you to at least move in the right direction so that tomorrow can, and will, be a better time.

Until then…I’m gonna Keep the Faith.

Everybody LOVES bank fraud!

Is it just me, or do loan orginators routinely encourage bank fraud? First, the background: There are a variety of federal and state laws that make it a VERY serious crime to mislead a lender for purposes of getting a mortgage. At the federal level, 18 USC sec 1014 makes it a crime to “knowingly make any false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing in any way the action of” a commercial lender. (Emphasis added). The penalty? A cool million dollar fine and/or 30 years in federal prison. Yup, not a misprint: 30 years in Club Fed. On the state level, RCW 19.44.080 makes it a crime to “knowingly make any misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission during the mortgage lending process knowing that it may be relied on by a mortgage lender.” (Emphasis added). The penalty? Its a class B felony, so 10 years in the joint and/or $20 grand.

As indicated by these laws, as a society we cherish honesty to lenders and believe very strongly that anyone who is dishonest AT ALL in order to secure a loan has committed a very serious crime. The problem, of course, appears to be that nobody in the RE industry agrees. Rather, it appears that the RE industry treats this type of bank fraud (misleading a lender in order to facilitate getting a loan) to be something akin to taking a second serving of dessert: bad form, sure, but if nobody knows…

You may be thinking: “What on earth is Craig talking about? Everyone I know is honest and abides by the law!” Well, think further, and in particular think about a buyer’s inspection contingency response. The NWMLS provides a Form 35R specifically for resolution of the inspection contingency. By its terms, the 35R and any other notices or addenda relating to any modifications or repairs becomes a part of the contract, and of course the lender has the right to receive (and buyer has the obligation to provide to the lender) the entire contract.

How many agents out there have used the Form 35R to request repairs and/or price reductions? And have you gotten any feedback from the loan originator once he or she receives a copy of the signed form? I have. The 35R had the fourth box checked (buyer proposes modifications) and the text below, “Sale price reduced to $440k.” About as simple as can be — but apparently still likely to arouse the suspicions of the underwriters, thus complicating the process. The loan originator’s request? “Toss” the 35R and instead use a Form 34 for a simple price reduction.

The problem? That clearly violates the state law above, and probably the federal law too (at least it will when the buyer signs at escrow a statement indicating that he has provided the lender with all requested information, including a complete copy of the PSA). In other words, even LENDERS encourage violation of the laws designed entirely to protect lenders.

And one wonders how we inflated the housing bubble…..

Predatory Short Sale Negotiators

I received a call the other day from a consumer who was in the process of purchasing a short sale home.  The homeowner has defaulted on her mortgage and the trustee sale auction has been postponed a few times now that this buyer’s firm offer has finally reached the lender’s loss mitigation decision-maker.  Once the offer was accepted by the seller, the homebuyer was surprised to learn that there’s a third party involved, a “Short Sale Negotiator” who is charging an additional $9,000 fee on top of the real estate commissions paid to both the agent for the seller and the agent for the buyer. The Short Sale Negotiator is demanding that the homebuyer sign an agreement that the homebuyer will be responsible for paying the $9,000 fee.  The homebuyer emailed me asking what I thought of this additional fee and could I offer some advice. 

The first thing I did was to find out the name of the Short Sale Negotiator company, the owner of the company, and the person who is doing the short sale negotiating. I discovered that the negotiation company is owned by the same person who also owns the real estate firm where the listing agent works.  I also ran the name of the short sale negotiator and discovered that this person IS a licensed real estate agent. 

Readers please note that WA State’s regulators recently changed the real estate licensing laws and there’s a great FAQ section here that answers the question: Does a Short Sale Negotiator have to be a licensed real estate agent? The answer is yes, or a licensed loan originator or otherwise exempt from licensing such as an attorney. (Clicking through from the link, scroll down to “doing business” and see the second question.)

So we have a licensed real estate agent who is earning money as a short sale negotiator who works for a company owned by the same person who owns the listing agent’s real estate company.

There are a couple of things that come to mind here. First of all, isn’t there a bit of a conflict of interest for the real estate broker/owner of that company?  Where are your duties? To the home seller, whose listing you’re charged with overseeing, or are your duties to the buyer, a client who signs the agreement to pay your other company $9K?  What are the duties of disclosure to BOTH the seller and the buyer?

For example, if I’m the seller in this transaction, charging a buyer an extra $9,000 out of pocket might preclude a number of qualified buyers to make an offer….unless I hold back this information until after the buyer has emotionally fallen in love with the home and is already arranging the furniture in his/her mind.  That seems manipulative.  Why not tell all possible prospects up front what the short sale negotiator’s fee is: Make it mandatory to display this extra fee in the PUBLIC comment section of the multiple listing service. 

You might be thinking: “Yes we could disclose this god-awful fee to the public this but that’s not in the best interest of the home seller.”  Well, okay but what happens if you end up attracting a lot of buyers but they all walk when told of this high third party fee? Now the listing agent has wasted everyone’s time.  It’s like if someone asks me out on a date and then later he tells me he’s married.  Come on! Hey, some women might say yes and it’s nice to know up front how big of an a-hole a guy is.   I say the listing agent would actually be attracting the right kind of buyer if they disclosed that their Short Sale Listing comes with baggage.  It seems to work fine for the married guys who post personal ads on craigslist day after day.

More: If there is an affiliated business arrangement going on between the two companies that are owned by the same person/people, then a RESPA-required Affiliated Business Arrangement disclosure form should ALSO be required so that the home seller and home buyer are aware of the dual company ownership. Part of that AFBA disclosure form should state that the homebuyer understands that buying this home means he/she does NOT have to use this particular short sale negotiation firm and is free to select another short sale negotiation company to do the same or similar work.  However, since a ‘short sale negotiator fee’ might not necessarily be classified as a “settlement service” then this rule might not apply. HUD are you listening? It’s highly possible that the next time a federal regulator makes it out to Washington State, the Seahawks will have won the Superbowl. Knowig this, we should look to the state regulators for assistance.

For a home buyer, a big red flag would be if the listing agent demands that you use this affiliated short sale negotiator. Demanding that a buyer use a real estate broker’s affiliated company is a licensing law violation as well as a violation of federal law when those companies are a title, escrow, appraisal company, and so forth. So why not a short sale negotiations company also?

Even more: Is the listing agent receiving part of that $9,000 fee? One way of structuring this is for the owner of both companies to promise the listing agent something like this: “if the lender cuts your commission, don’t worry, I’ll give you a portion of that $9,000 negotiator fee.”  Unearned fees are not allowed under RESPA.

Even worse: Is the short sale negotiator splitting the $9,000 with the home seller?  How fast can you say “Mortgage Fraud is now a Class B Felony in Washington State?”

The other logical problem that comes up for me when I see an additional fee of $9,000 is this: what work is being done for NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS?  That’s an awful lot of money. I could install all new vinyl windows in my 1959 house with that kind of money. I could put this in my teenager’s college fund. I could accomplish a lot with $9,000 so why would I want to pay that kind of money to a short sale negotiator?  Is this like extortion/payola in order to get that particular house for that price? 

Maybe not.  What is this third party negotiations company doing for their $9,000?  Wait, let me go find out. I’ll read their website.  Gee, there’s nothing on the website telling a consumer what their company actually does for that fee but the pictures of their team tell me they’re all good looking guys under 30. Not that there’s anything wrong with doing business with good looking guys under 30 but it should make us wonder how much experience the negotiator has at short sale negotiating.  In 2009 I believe we added ten million “short sale experts” in the real estate industry.

My advice to the consumer: Negotiate that fee down to somewhere around $1,000 to $2,000.  If the home is that close to the auction date, tell your real estate agent that you’re going to buy the home at the auction if the lender won’t approve the short sale and if the negotiators won’t go for a reduced fee.  Most of the third party short sale negotiators out there are paid much less than $9,000. 

Here’s some help with the math:  I asked the consumer to ask the short sale negotiator how many hours he’s spending on this file v. how many hours he’s working on those biceps. Consumer says the SSN said he’s spent 10 hours so far on this transation! !! !!! Wow! Well! Okay then, let’s divide $9,000 by 10 hours.  That’s a going rate of $900 per hour. That’s probably close to the hourly rate charged by the Johnnie Cochran law firm for litigation cases and I’m fairly certain that this licensed real estate agent negotiator doesn’t have as much experience or education as the JC legal team.  Counter back with $100/hour and settle around $200/hour max.

I am betting they’ll take the $2k.

Ask for the negotiator’s $2K to be put on the HUD I Settlement Statement as a seller’s closing cost.  There’s a chance the lender will pay it.  If not, the buyer needs to as himself: Is this house worth $2k out of pocket at closing?  It’s also important for the buyer’s new lender to know about this additional fee. Insist that it’s paid out through escrow and shows on the buyer’s side of the HUD I Settlement Statement if the lender refuses to pay it as a seller’s cost.

Buyers: do not agree to pay any money after closing, on the side, without disclosing this additional amount to all parties including the lender. 

Predatory Short Sale Negotiators: The world is watching you.  I wonder if your dreams are haunted the way I was haunted after watching The Hurt Locker.  Soon your predatory fees are going to explode in your face. Oh, and loan mod salesmen thinking that being a short sale negotiator is the next big way to “make six figures with no experience,” please go back to the used car lots. I’m sure there are some openings at the Toyota dealerships.

Are you “making an offer” or buying a house?

soldBuyer Beware of Real Estate “lingo”. The soft language of “making an offer” is really leading you to sign a binding contract. For some this comes as no surprise. But for others who may think they are simply making an offer, and later deciding whether or not they really want to buy the house, this is very important. If the seller signs your offer without any changes, you are in a binding contract to purchase that house.

An agent can pretty much tell what is happening when the buyer is signing the contract. That is why I think all contracts should be signed in person, in front of the agent, and not via fax or e-signing. If they are only paying attention to the offer price, signing quickly, and not asking questions about or reading the 10 or more attached pages to “the offer”, it becomes fairly evident that they are thinking they are flushing out the “true” price vs. the asking price from the seller. Not so. Another clue is if the “offeror” is asking how they get their Earnest Money back, before signing the offer. In real estate you quickly move from making an offer to actually buying THAT house, in many cases. Once the seller signs that “offer” you are quickly pushed into the queue toward closing via the escrow process that ensues.

The key is not simply to leave yourself a bunch of legal outs, but to make sure that you really ARE going to buy that house, unless new information suggests otherwise. You should not be cancelling “on inspection” because you decided not to buy the house because of the street it is on, unless you learned something new about that street (from the inspector) AFTER you made the offer. You can, but you shouldn’t. You should consider that the seller is thinking that you really do intend to buy his house, based on what you could readily see prior to making the offer. Making an offer is not really a “maybe I will buy it”. Making an offer is indicating that you ARE buying it, unless new information that was unavailable at time of offer comes forth prior to closing, and during the due diligence period of the contract.

Technically you can lose your Earnest Money if you say “I changed my mind about buying a house” when you ask to cancel “on the home inspection”. Well, let’s change that to you SHOULD lose your Earnest Money if you are cancelling merely because you changed your mind, or because you didn’t realize when you made the “offer” that you were actually agreeing to buy the house. Remember, you are causing the seller to REMOVE the home from market. You are pulling the property OFF of the public portals. You should not be doing that simply to have more time to think about whether or not your really want to buy it.

Making an offer means you want to buy that house. An offer to purchase is not intended to be used simply to prevent other offers from coming in, while you think about whether or not you want to buy that house.

How much home can you afford?

There are few things more important to me than a home buyer being able to qualify themselves, vs. taking anyone else’s word for the answer to “How Much Home Can You Afford?” Since I am a real estate agent and not a mortgage professional, I like to post a laymen’s view at least a couple of times a year on this topic. This simplistic approach should be any potential homebuyer’s first step in “the process”. I also think that any Buyer’s Agent should go through this detail with their clients before assisting them in making an offer on a house, so consider this an agent tutorial post as well.

There are many easy to use Mortgage Calculators like this one on Zillow. But just as you should know that 6 times 3 is 18 without needing to use a calculator, you should know WHY the online mortgage calculator is spitting out a number. If you know that 6 times 3 is 18, you will know if the calculator sums that out at 37, that you or it did something wrong. Same with Mortgage Calculators and Pre-Approval letters. You should know enough to know when the answer is outside of most people’s “comfort zone”.

Back to the online mortgage calculator. The first data field you need to fill out is “current combined annual income“. You need to know a few things to answer that question correctly.

1) When they say “income” they mean GROSS income, not your take-home pay.

2) If you are salaried, and make the exact same amount every paycheck, then your current salary is what goes in that data field. If any portion of your income is based on an hourly rate or a bonus for production, then your most recent income information is not usable. Unless it is a promise to pay (salary), then your “annual income” is determined by averaging your last two years worth of income AND is subject to subjective changes by the lender’s underwriter. Sometimes that happens a week before closing! So best to qualify yourself using projected, realistic potential outcomes.

If you just got a raise from $75,000 a year to $85,000 a year, and none of that $85,000 is subject to change based on hours worked or bonus income, then the full $85,000 a year goes in that box.

If you made $85,000 a year of which $60,000 is salary and $25,000 is overtime and/or bonus income, then $85,000 is NOT what you put in that box. If you had overtime and bonuses of $15,000 last year and $25,000 this year, then you add the two together and divide by 2, making your annual gross income $60,000 salary plus $20,000 of overtime and bonus pay. HOWEVER, if it is the reverse and you had $25,000 last year and $15,000 this year…not likely the lender is going to look at a figure higher than $15,000. They may impose a continued downward trend on that recent $15,000 earning vs. $25,000 the year before. In fact they could exclude it altogether as an unreliable source of income, unless your employer produces a letter guaranteeing that the overtime and bonus income will not drop below $15,000 for the next year or two.

3) “monthly child support payments” is the next line in that particular “mortgage calculator” and is the only additional income category. That doesn’t seem right at all to me. Best to contact a lender regarding all of your “other income” sources to determine which, if any, they will use. What if your child support payments are ending in 8 months? What about interest income, alimony payments, etc.? Unless you need to use these other income sources to qualify, and expect them to continue for the life of the loan, or at least for 10 years, I would suggest not including this “other” income. It will give you a “cushion” of extra monies if needed. Buy a home you can afford without these extra income considerations, if at all possible. More on this when we get to “back end ratio”.

Back to the handy but not so accurate online mortgage calculator it makes no sense to me why they would ask for HOA dues in the “income-debt” portion and then again when getting to estimated monthly payment for the new loan. In fact the whole “income and monthly debt obligations” section is poorly worded for accuracy. Once you get past income, you want to calculate your monthly “debt” payments. The most common of these are”

Car payments, Student loan payments, credit card payments, alimony or child support payments (though technically not “debt”). What you do not include are regular living expenses like utilities, gas, car insurance…all of these are not “debt’ payments.

Now skip all the way to the bottom and see the terms “front end” and “back end”. The calculator has a pre-set for 28% front end and a 36% back end. it allows you to change these pre-sets, but do not do that until you understand the numbers using the pre-sets. Assume that the pre-sets are the Average Comfort Zone for most people.

“Front-end” is your housing payment. “Back-End” is your total debt PLUS your housing payment. Old school rules work like this:

You make $10,000 a month gross at 28% = $2,800 a month for housing payment “front-end”
You make $10,000 a month gross at 36% = $3,600 a month for housing plus debt payment “back-end”.
IF your debt payments are $1,000 vs the $800 allowed, then your front end should be $2,600 vs. $2,800. $3,600 back end minus $1,000 = $2,600, so your “back end being out” reduces the amount available for housing payment by $200.
BUT that does not work in reverse. If you have NO DEBT, your housing payment stays at $2,800 and DOES NOT increase to $3,600. This based on how likely is it that you will have no debt for 30 years?

That last paragraph is the most important paragraph in this post, so take the time to understand it well.

28% front end and 36% back end has been the long term conservative approach since forever. It is also very rare that a lender will use these ratios when qualifying you for a mortgage, so YOU must do it yourself. Then when you know your payment should be $2,600 and the lender qualifies you for a payment of $3,500, you know just how much your lender is stretching you outside of conservative standards. That tells you how difficult it may be for you to actually make that payment for the next 3-5 years. A family with 4 children might only be able to spend 20% to 25% of their gross income on housing payment. A single person with a high income may be able to stretch to 33% of their gross income on housing payment. If you are a VA buyer…this is very important, as VA uses one ratio and not two (last I looked) allowing you to spend your full back end allowance on housing payment if you have no current debt.

One of the things that prompted me to write this post today was this comment I saw from a lender on Zillow:

The rules are still tightening-to a fault. Fannie Mae will soon be announcing that they are going to a 45% back end ratio and any borrower with a 620 fico score has to put down at least 20 percent. I can live with the 20 percent for a 620 fico,but the 45% back end ratio is going to make it even more difficult…

As you can see, lenders are not used to people qualifying at a conservative standard of a 36% “back end ratio” and are complaining that the rules are too tight when requiring a 45% back end ratio. OUTRAGEOUS! Remember we are using GROSS income and not net income. So 45% of your gross income on housing payment and debt is clearly NOT too “tight” of a rule.

Knowing how to qualify yourself using 28% front end and 36% back end, will help you know for yourself what monthly payment you truly can afford. Here’s my suggestion: If conservative ratios say you can afford $2,800 for a housing payment, and your lender says that number should be $3,500, test it first. If your current rent payment is $1,700, try putting $3,500 minus $1,700 in the bank every month (not on average). If you can’t put an additional $1,700 a month in the bank easily, each and every month for at least 6-9 months, don’t consider buying a house at the max your lender “says” you can afford.

In fact regardless of the ratios, it’s a very good idea for you to pretend you have that new housing payment well in advance of making an offer to purchase. Test for yourself, by banking the difference, before taking on that 30 year obligation to pay.

What’s Happening with the $8,000 homebuyer credit?

Post Updated based on Info available as of 11/5/09 – No significant changes, but a few minor ones, so if you first read this back when I wrote it on 10/29/2009, take another look at the updates.

$8,000There are a lot of rumors flying around suggesting that the $8,000 credit has been extended. While that is not the case, as nothing has been signed yet, there seems to be strong support for:

1) Extending the $8,000 credit for 1st time buyers, including people who have not owned a home for 3 years

2) An added $6,500 credit for move up buyers who have owned their current home for at least 5 consecutive years of the last 8 years. (this provision is still under heated discussion and most subject to compromise before the bill is passed.) Updated 11/5/08

3) Expansion of the income requirement to $125,000 for an individual and $250,000  $225,000 for a married couple.

4) Extension to contracts entered into by April 30, 2010 that are also closed by June 30, 2010 (before July 1, 2010)

The most credible “rumor”/story going around [IMO] is CNN Money’s “$8,000 Credit Still in Play“.

In my opinion #1 and #4 make the most sense in that it seems senseless to drop the credit at the end of “Spring Bump” vs. just before 2010 “Spring Bump”.  Closing the door on the credit on Nov. 30th never made any sense, as seasonal factors will make it appear that the credit going away is having more of an adverse affect than it really is, given November through February sales are almost always lower as to price and volume.

Cutting the cord on the credit at the end of April (end of March even better) makes perfect sense, and gives the market the opportunity to compensate during its most robust season.  If the market can transition from 1st quarter 2010 with a credit, to 2nd and 3rd quarters without a credit on a flat market basis, it will be easier to get rid of it altogether. And yes…eventually…it really must go away. I certainly hope the industry isn’t going to keep lobbying indefinitely for its continuation. That would NOT be a good thing.

While it seems that “Senator’s Have Agreed” this credit is still not signed sealed and delivered, (Update 11/5/09 at last step, needs to be signed by the President) so stay tuned for the final version as I think the wheel may still be spinning with regard to the $6,500 move up buyer credit, as well as the expansion of the  income requirements.

Buyer Beware – “great deals” may come with other “issues”

big new houseWhen you get the opportunity to buy a house “worth” over a million dollars, for fifty to seventy cents on the dollar, you have to ask yourself if you can “afford” it before you say WooHoo!

#1 –  Real Estate Taxes may be too high

Often people ask why so many pending sales don’t close.  There are many reasons, one of which is that lender pre-approvals show a purchase price vs. a monthly payment.  Reality is that your lender is NOT qualifying you for a purchase price, but for some reason they think it is easier for you to understand a price vs. a monthly payment. They then make assumptions as to other costs, and convert their communication to you, the agents and the seller, to a Purchase Price. (This was not so when I started in real estate, and someone should change that.)

So you have a pre-approval to buy a house for $650,000 with a 20% downpayment.  What that really means is the lender “assumed” taxes of approximately $6,500 a year and homeowner’s insurance of $650 a year. Now you go out and find an amazing, super-great deal! You have the opportunity to buy a house assessed at $1.2 million for “only” $650,000! WooHoo? Maybe not.  The annual real estate taxes are $11,000 a year vs. $6,500 a year and the homeowner’s insurance is $1,100 vs. $650. That means your monthly payment is $412.50 more each month for that particular “$650,000 house”, than your lender assumed when you were pre-approved.

Your income needs to be $15,000 to $18,000 more per year, for you to be able to afford that particular $650,000 house.

There are two possible consequences. One is that the loan will “kick out” early enough for you to get your Earnest Money returned, assuming you have a good Finance Contingency. The other is that you planned to buy with a payment of  $3,400 a month, but end up being approved for a payment of $3,800 a month, with no recourse.

It’s possible that you could appeal the assessed value with the County, but I’m not hopeful that will work this year. I clearly wouldn’t recommend anyone promising you can have the taxes reduced to a level commensurate with the lower Purchase Price,  unless you are buying in California. In King County Washington this is NOT a good year to bet that you can prove that the purchase price of $650,000 is a good reason for the County to lower your assessed value of record. Nor is it a good year to think that lower assessed value will equal lower taxes. The County has already notified owners that they are dramatically reducing assessed values (not taxes). 2010 is a particularly bad year to rely on being able to get that tax bill dramatically reduced, in my opinion.

The only sure course is if the bank-owner would have the assessment and taxes reduced prior to sale, in order to obtain a buyer for that home. But I strongly doubt that will happen. Anyone who can’t afford the $11,000 tax bill that comes with that “great deal”, should not be buying that house.

 

#2 – The “carrying costs” may be too high

When a lender pre-approves you for a Purchase Price of $650,000, they do not consider annual use and maintenance costs. Unlike real estate taxes and homeowner’s/hazard insurance, the lender makes no assumptions as to utility bills and other maintenance and repair/replacement costs. In King County a $650,000 house is generally about 2,900 square feet. A house for $1.2M is usually about 4,400 square feet, and often on a much larger lot.

Before you buy that 4,400 sf home on an acre+ lot for $650,000, instead of a 2,900 sf home on 1/4 acre, be mindful of the extra cost to heat and maintain that larger home on that larger lot, in good condition, over a period of years.

 

#3 – Cheaper, bank-owned, new construction may not be “complete”

Most recently we are seeing builders losing their construction projects to the bank. The bank then puts the house on market “as-is”.  Yes, the prices can be awesome! But will your lender finance the “new home” without it being completed? There are programs available to provide funds for purchase and rehab or completion, but are you ready to be your own “general contractor”? Even if you think you can handle it, will the new lender allow you to be your own “general contractor”?

Again, two possible consequences. One is you don’t qualify for the new financing, including cost to complete the home. Again, hopefully that consequence “kicks in” early enough for you to get your Earnest Money back under the Finance Contingency. Another possibility is that the things that need to be completed do not cause the sale to fail, but you end up with a house like the one pictured above. No landscaping, temporary construction fences or barriers, no garage doors…and no money to comply with the neighborhood rules to get your new home in good order in the timeframe required by the CC&Rs.

Once you enter into a Contract to Purchase, you may not be protected against “biting off more than you can chew”. Before you enter into a contract to purchase that “screaming deal”, make sure you can handle all the “issues” that come with.

Distressed property rental income: Who’s money is it when a home goes into default?

This is both a legal question and an ethical issue.

I’ve bumped into this, not in the workplace, but out looking at property :   A home that is in process of either a short sale or heading to foreclosure has tenants.  It is not that a homeowner does not have a right to rent a home or even part of their home, but when a homeowner is involved in a short sale, is in arrears (default), most lenders require substantial paperwork from the owner justifying their hardship. My guess is that the rental income could be kept under the radar.   Many homes in default are the result of job loss or other hardship due to medical reasons or other life issues.   In some cases though, defaults are a result of excessive equity withdrawal from serial refinancing.

Homeowners in a short sale are typically not allowed any proceeds from the sale as a condition of approval.  But, if the homeowner is receiving rental income from the property, should that money be forfeited to the lender to help cure the debt?

I have not been able to find the languange in a standard Washington State Deed of Trust form, but I thought I read somewhere that rents are collectible by the lender to help cure the debt when a default has occurred.   I could be very mistaken.

Starter homes you can STAY in

First Time Buyer Big Red Flag = “I plan to sell in 2 to 3 years”.

Many people are out buying homes right now because of the $8,000 1st time homebuyer credit. Unless the credit is extended, these people have until mid to late October to find a a house and get into escrow, so they can close by the deadline of November 30, 2009 (“before December 1”). My best guess is there will be a 2010 homebuyer credit, but it will be a new one with different parameters, and not merely an extension of the current one. But all we know for sure at the moment, is the homebuyer credit we have at present will expire, if you don’t close by the end of November.

The credit is not the ONLY reason people are out buying homes. The fact that you can more readily buy a “starter home” for $350,000 or less in many areas, is likely a larger part of the reason people are buying. The linked post will show you that in the current market you are almost EIGHT times more likely to find a starter home for $350,000 or less in Kirkland, Bellevue or Redmond, than you were in 2007. In Bothell and Kenmore, homes selling for $350,000 or less represent more than a full third of all homes being sold.

This market is a blessing in disguise…lots of sadness for sellers, but an opportunity for some young families to get into a starter home for less.

My caution is this:  I don’t want to hear “I will probably sell it in….”. In the data sample I used in the link above I did not include any homes with less than three bedrooms or less than 1.5 bathrooms. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t move in less than 5 years, I am saying don’t buy a house that you can’t stay in for more than 5 years. When choosing a home, you should have the option to stay in the home, as many people who are suffering today and must sell their homes, are doing so because they have grown out of them.

The moment I hear someone say “this will hold us for a couple of years”, that is a big red flag! The home below was purchased by one of my clients who already had a small baby. It was purchased in a great school district in Kirkland for about $310,000 and it is not likely they will “grow out of it”…well, maybe ever.

Moral of the story: If you can’t see yourself living in the house five years from now…don’t buy it.

starter home

Are We Facing A Housing Shortage?

In looking at the latest Northwest MLS statistics for King County, it would be tempting to say that our housing market is recovering.  But it is an odd mix of data.  Single family home sales volumes are up (even better than last year), inventory is down sharply from last year, prices seem to be starting to rise again, and average days-on-market is dropping.  That all sounds pretty good.  (larger residential stats charts)

Residential stats 750

(Note that the Northwest Multiple Listing Service neither prepares nor is responsible for these charts – the interpretation is my own.) 

But condominium sales are still slow (though rising some), inventory is staying high, and median prices are not rising.  That doesn’t sound quite as good.  (larger condo stats chart)

Condominium stats 750

What are we to make of this seemingly conflicting data?

 What it looks like to me is that we are in the early stages of a housing shortage.  While Seattle and the west side have been built out for decades, Bellevue and the east side communities have been absorbing most of the region’s growth for the past 50 years or so.  But we passed the Growth Management Act in 1990, and then we added the Critical Areas Ordinances.  As a result, it has become harder and harder to get permits for housing developments of any significant size.  In fact it appears that over the last 10 years or so it has become far easier to get a permit for a 100-unit condominium high-rise than for a 100-home residential development.  The rate of application for new building permits “fell off a cliff