Category Archives: Investing

How Long is a Preapproval Letter Good For?

Posted on by
11

I recently had a newly preapproved client ask me that question.  It’s quite a timely one!  Before this market, I would say that a preapproval letter used to be good for about 90 days assuming that none of the information on provided on the loan application has changed.  Now-a-days, you have to factor in guideline changes and interest rates.   You’re really not approved by the sales price or loan amount, it’s based on the total mortgage payment and funds for closing (down payment, closing costs, prepaids/reserves, etc.) along with any other conditions (such as having a certain amount in your savings account after closing).

Assuming that the loan program you’re preapproved with does not have guideline changes and still exists, before you write an offer on a home, I recommend that you contact your mortgage originator to make sure you’re still approved based on that home’s property taxes and current interest rates.  In fact, it wouldn’t hurt to get an updated Good Faith Estimate with current rates and actual property taxes.  If you’re asking the seller to pay closing costs, let your mortgage originator know so they can verify the amount will be allowed per guidelines.  If you’re offering less than you’re preapproved for, your real estate agent may want to have a preapproval letter that is written specifically for the offer (especially if you’re asking the seller to pay closing costs).

Program changes? Boy, we’ve had a few.  There are also changes with private mortgage insurance and various lender guidelines too.  I recommend that people who are in the market right now as “preapproved” buyers, check in with their mortgage originator on a weekly basis (if you’re actively looking) and before you present that offer to make sure it meets current guidelines and that you are still qualified based on the present rate.

Don’t be surprised if your mortgage originator requires you to provide your most recent paystubs and copies of your asset accounts (where your down payment is coming from) before providing an updated preapproval letter.

Last note: Be careful when searching blogs for information on mortgage programs and guidelines.  If the posts are even a few months old, the information may very well be outdated (if it was correct in the first place).

Note: I have modified this post.  I had incorrect data (kind of ironic).

Draft Proposal on Financial Rescue Regulation

Posted on by
162

The House votes on Monday and the Senate apparently will vote on Wednesday.  Here is the “Draft Proposal on Financial Rescue Legislation”

From Office of Speaker Nancy Pelosi — Sept. 28, 2008
REINVEST, REIMBURSE, REFORM
IMPROVING THE FINANCIAL RESCUE LEGISLATION

Significant bipartisan work has built consensus around dramatic improvements to the original Bush-Paulson plan to stabilize American financial markets — including cutting in half the Administration’s initial request for $700 billion and requiring Congressional review for any future commitment of taxpayers’ funds. If the government loses money, the financial industry will pay back the taxpayers.

3 Phases of a Financial Rescue with Strong Taxpayer Protections

Reinvest in the troubled financial markets … to stabilize our economy and insulate Main Street from Wall Street

Reimburse the taxpayer … through ownership of shares and appreciation in the value of purchased assets

Reform business-as-usual on Wall Street … strong Congressional oversight and no golden parachutes

CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RESCUE PLAN

Democrats have insisted from day one on substantial changes to make the Bush-Paulson plan acceptable — protecting American taxpayers and Main Street — and these elements will be included in the legislation

Protection for taxpayers, ensuring THEY share IN ANY profits

Cuts the payment of $700 billion in half and conditions future payments on Congressional review

Gives taxpayers an ownership stake and profit-making opportunities with participating companies

Puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if participating company fails

Guarantees taxpayers are repaid in full — if other protections have not actually produced a profit

Allows the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families

Limits on excessive compensation for CEOs and executives

New restrictions on CEO and executive compensation for participating companies:

No multi-million dollar golden parachutes

Limits CEO compensation that encourages unnecessary risk-taking

Recovers bonuses paid based on promised gains that later turn out to be false or inaccurate

Strong independent oversight and transparency

Four separate independent oversight entities or processes to protect the taxpayer

A strong oversight board appointed by bipartisan leaders of Congress

A GAO presence at Treasury to oversee the program and conduct audits to ensure strong internal controls, and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse

An independent Inspector General to monitor the Treasury Secretary’s decisions
Transparency — requiring posting of transactions online — to help jumpstart private sector demand

Meaningful judicial review of the Treasury Secretary’s actions

Help to prevent home foreclosures crippling the American economy

The government can use its power as the owner of mortgages and mortgage backed securities to facilitate loan modifications (such as, reduced principal or interest rate, lengthened time to pay back the mortgage) to help reduce the 2 million projected foreclosures in the next year

Extends provision (passed earlier in this Congress) to stop tax liability on mortgage foreclosures

Helps save small businesses that need credit by aiding small community banks hurt by the mortgage crisis—allowing these banks to deduct losses from investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stocks.

Brad DeLong has a better idea: nationalization and “it’s the best way to deal with the moral hazard problem.”

Paul Krugman agrees with Brad DeLong but ponders whether nationalization has broad political support.

Nouriel Roubini says the bailout is a “Disgrace and Rip-Off.”

This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer – the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy.

Seems like the only people who are happy with the draft proposal are the politicians. Seems like both presidential candidates are supporting it.

“This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with,” Republican John McCain said in an interview with the ABC television network. “The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”

Democrat Barack Obama said he was likely to back the package. “My inclination is to support it,” he told CBS television’s “Face the Nation.”
 

Update: Here is the 108 page PDF of the bill, now called the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’.

The Bad Reputation of RMBS

Posted on by
180

I was in Mill Creek earlier this evening having sushi with my daughters and everytime we drive down into Mill Creek I say the same thing: “I remember when this whole place was nothing but trees!” They’ve already heard the stories about how I use to leave the house at dawn with the neighborhood boys and play in the woods all day until dinner time.  But they haven’t heard the stories about the banks.  As I was driving back up the hill, I was stopped at a horribly long stop light which gave me time to ponder the bank to my left, a Wells Fargo, and educate my children: “That bank use to be a First Interstate Bank.  Before that it was an Olympic Bank.” Before that it was something else.

With so much shock and awe over the past few days about the possible imending doom headed our way unless we quickly pass Paulson’s bailout plan, and all the taxpayer backlash on the blogs as well as being reported in the MSM, the new question becomes, well what are some other worthwhile ideas for how to get us out of this mess?  Today, Dr. Krugman suggests that we consider anything coming out of Henry Paulsen’s mouth to be a lie.  This might be a good way to solve the financial crisis extremely fast.

“So, this morning Hank Paulson told a whopper:

“We gave you a simple, three-page legislative outline and I thought it would have been presumptuous for us on that outline to come up with an oversight mechanism. That’s the role of Congress, that’s something we’re going to work on together. So if any of you felt that I didn’t believe that we needed oversight: I believe we need oversight. We need oversight.”

What the the proposal actually did, of course, was explicitly rule out any oversight, plus grant immunity from future review. Read more here.

 
Want to see Henry Paulson in action? Watch this quick video. When he’s testifying, at the part where he says “I want oversight” watch his head go back and forth in a “no” motion.  I tend to believe people’s nonverbal signals over the words they say. 

The Paulson/Bernanke bailout plan details are starting to rise to the surface:

One thing is clear – something we all guessed correctly – is that the intention of the plan is to pay premium prices for troubled assets to recapitalize the banks. It’s still not clear how the price mechanism will work, and unfortunately Paulson and Bernanke are unable to describe how this will work..

This means the TARP plan would buy assets from banks at a higher price than what the banks could get if they tried to sell them at fair market value. Bernanke and Paulson believe the assets are being unfairly underpriced in the free market because of their bad reputation so instead, they’re proposing that the taxpayers subsidize the re-capitalization of the banks.

One analyst says it would take at least 5 trillion for the proposed plant to work.

Why not let the banks come clean and sell their assets at today’s prices, and we can spend taxpayer money building back up the FDIC insurance fund. Weaker banks will fail and stronger banks will buy the assets of the weaker banks from bankor from the FDIC after failure.  Big banks like WaMu could be split up into smaller entities which will be easier for many different banks to absorb. 

Eleua, a frequent commenter on this blog, has been working with a group of other like-minded individuals and he has penned an outline for a solution here:

There is a solution that costs the government nothing, eliminates “moral hazard,

Has the Distressed Conveyances law curtailed foreclosure rescue scams?

Posted on by
34

In this Sunday’s Seattle Times there was an article on “foreclosure rescue scams.” I found the timing interesting given the recent enactment of the Distressed Conveyances law effective in June of this year. This law was specifically enacted to curtail these practices and even provides a rather large “stick” to use in convincing people that they should not lure owners into such transactions (in the form of punitive damages of up to $100,000).

Does anyone have any insight into whether these scams continue unabated? Unfortunately, I have no direct personal insight into the issue. [CAUTION: Plug Ahead.] Although I offer a very affordable consultation that is well-suited for anyone who has been approached by a “rescuer,” I have yet to generate much business. So, I really have no idea whether the new law is having the desired effect. Unless the Seattle Times is behind the curve, it would seem that the new law has yet to achieve the desired impact (i.e., make this practice less common).

Blog Roundup on the Bailout Proposal

Posted on by
56

Calculated Risk
Paulson Plan: Will it Work?

The primary goal of the Paulson Plan is to get the banks to lend again – or “unclog the system” as Secretary Paulson put it. Secondary goals are to “protect the taxpayer” and hopefully minimize moral hazard.

Will the plan achieve the primary goal? I think the answer is yes. By removing these troubled assets from the balance sheets of the financial institutions, the banks will able to lend again without lingering doubts about their solvency and viability. At first glance, the size of the plan seems sufficient.

It is almost guaranteed that there will be unintended and unanticipated consequences, but the plan will probably achieve the primary goal. And making sure the banks continue to lend will minimize the impact of the credit crisis on the general economy.

Unfortunately the Plan fails to address the secondary goals….

Yves at Naked Capitalism:
Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Propsal

the shockingly short, sweeping text of the proposed legislation has lead to reactions of consternation among the knowledgeable, but whether this translates into enough popular ire fast enough to restrain this freight train remains to be seen.

First, let’s focus on the aspect that should get the proposal dinged (or renegotiated) regardless of any possible merit, namely, that it gives the Treasury imperial power with respect to a simply huge amount of funds. $700 billion is comparable to the hard cost of the Iraq war, bigger than the annual Pentagon budget. And mind you, $700 billion is not the maximum that the Treasury may spend, it’s the ceiling on the outstandings at any one time. It’s a balance sheet number, not an expenditure limit.

But here is the truly offensive section of an overreaching piece of legislation: Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Dr./Prof. Paul Krugman
Thinking the Bailout Through

…the plan does nothing to address the lack of capital unless the Treasury overpays for assets. And if that’s the real plan, Congress has every right to balk.
So what should be done? Well, let’s think about how, until Paulson hit the panic button, the private sector was supposed to work this out: financial firms were supposed to recapitalize, bringing in outside investors to bulk up their capital base. That is, the private sector was supposed to cut off the problem at stage 2.

It now appears that isn’t happening, and public intervention is needed. But in that case, shouldn’t the public intervention also be at stage 2 — that is, shouldn’t it take the form of public injections of capital, in return for a stake in the upside?

Let’s not be railroaded into accepting an enormously expensive plan that doesn’t seem to address the real problem..

Housing Wire
U.S. Taxpayers to Bail Out Foreign Debtholders too?

“Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,

Are you ready for FEMA Mortgage?

Posted on by
72

Congress and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson are working this weekend to hash out details of the proposed $700,000,000,000 bailout during this amazing time in American history.  My brother-in-law is an adjuster for FEMA, spending months away from his home evaluating damaged property across the country.   FEMA Mortgage could be created to essentially do the same thing.

Now that Uncle Sam will be buying bad mortgages, they could utilize FEMA mortgage adjusters to evaluate the borrowers current situation:

  • Can they afford their mortgage payment? 
  • Is this a situation worth modifying their existing loan?
  • Was income over-stated or not verified with the mortgage?
  • Was the property purchased as owner occupied and it’s now an investment property? 
  • Are there signs of mortgage fraud?

Home owners in trouble who have financial ability to stay in their home, would have the opportunity to re-qualify at either a lower rate and/or reduced loan amount with a silent second that would be called due if the home owner sold the property within a certain period of time (similar to State bond programs).   This would be available to home owners who were having difficulty due to an ARM adjusting or perhaps a financial set back that is now resolved (such as temporary loss of employment).    Loan modifications with Uncle Sam owned mortgages would be streamlined, very low cost  and legit.

Home owners who could not re-qualify based on their actual income, may have the opportunity to rent a property at a payment they can afford.  Having property occupied as a rental is better than abandoned–for that home and for the neighborhood.   Perhaps Uncle Sam will start FEMA Property Management…they can even re-use some of the trailers they bought for Huricane Katrina.  

If fraud was used on a mortgage now owned by Uncle Sam, the FEMA Loan Adjuster would determine if it was caused by the borrower or loan originator and proper actions would be taken.

A plan such as this, could provide jobs for out of work Loan Originators (of course they would have to pass the National Licensing requirements) and employ Real Estate Agents, builders and contractors, too.   FEMA Adjusters could also determine which foreclosed properties, owned by Uncle Sam, need repair before it can be resold at a higher value or if they should just be sold “as is”.

Your thoughts?

Thanks for the great time, Zillow!

Posted on by
4

As one of the presenters put it, last night Zillow took a page from real estate agent’s marketing tools and conducted an “open house.”  A certain number of agents were invited to attend, some mortgage professionals, and there were even invites out to buyers and sellers that frequently are on the site. Part of the open house involved sessions where the attendees could learn more about how Zillow functions – one session for marketing and another for the more technical side of the site.  So, my business partner and I split up to cover as much ground as possible.

For me, the marketing session didn’t produce anything new.  But, I guess I hadn’t realized until being there what a “power user” me and my team are with their site. Somehow I thought that the invites had said that they would be introducing new features, but as far as I could tell it’s stuff that we have found and started using as each new feature was introduced.  Plus, we also had already figured out that syndication sites (like Point2, vFlyer) weren’t the best way to get an individual agent’s info maximized for SEO. Although we do still use syndication sites because the go out to a lot of other sites that we just don’t want to spend the cycles having to re-enter each listing over and over and over.  It is very time consuming.  Gotta love widgets, that’s for sure!

Speaking of technical stuff… I was interested to see the data that they gave about the various sites and the stats for user activity.  Part of what was shown here also filtered over into the conversation at the after-function with regard to Zindexes ( and how that is measured and it’s rate of accuracy.

Afterward there was a soiree down at the Waterfront Grill in their private function locale in the former Rippa’s space.  (I’m curious to know where those photos they had taken will end up…. no, nothing tawdry, just lots of PR stuff) Good times had by all and some great debate between agents and Zillow employees alike.  Thanks to David Gibbons, Drew, Mike, and Scott Huber for all of your discussions with us and for being wonderful hosts along with your other employees.  It was really great to meet all of you and we look forward to seeing what else is “up your sleeve.”

WaMu Endgame

Posted on by
234

Surprise: WaMu is looking for a buyer.  From the New York Times:

Goldman Sachs, which Washington Mutual has hired, started the process several days ago, these people said. Among the potential bidders that Goldman has talked to are Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and HSBC. But no buyers may materialize. That could force the government to place Washington Mutual into conservatorship, like IndyMac, or find a bridge-bank solution, which was extended to thrifts in the new housing regulations.

Citigroup is also considering an offer, but would likely be able to buy Washington Mutual only if it emerged from a receivership, according to a person close to the situation. JPMorgan is maintaining its posture that it will not bid unless it receives government support, according to another person briefed on the matter.

I’m not so sure that any bank is in shape to purchase WaMu in its current form. Perhaps it could be broken up into smaller pieces. Its deposit base is probably worth more than anything else on its books right now.

I’m sad. I can remember walking into Washington Mutual Savings in Downtown Everett on the corner of Colby and Pacific with my dad to open up a passbook savings account.  I’ve had an account there just about my whole life.  My daughter’s school savings accounts are there.  I know many people who work at WaMu.  I worked at WaMu as a bank teller many years ago under a very smart, savvy woman named Margaret Bradley who was a very fine role model for a young woman like me in the early 1980s.  Washington Mutual was “The Friend of the Family.”  I bought that old commercial line and repeated it for years.

I know. It’s just a bank.  I’ll get over it. 

There are many WaMu employees that live and work here in the Seattle area who had much of their retirement investments within WaMu’s stock options.  Whatever the outcome, this can’t bode well for our employment numbers here in the greater Seattle area.  I’m under the FDIC limit and will keep my accounts open, and will not be moving them to a new bank. I’ll be seeing this through with them. 

This makes me wonder if it will be easier for homeowners to get their short sales and loan modifications approved. 

Wall St Journal: TPG Move Opens Doors for WaMu

Bloomberg: WaMu’s Biggest Shareholder Waives Compensation Pact

Calculated Risk: WaMu For Sale

Seattle Times: With Stock Sinking, WaMu Appears Headed for Sale

Seattle PI: WaMu Puts Itself up For Sale

King County Median prices fall over 10% YOY. Quite frankly, maybe today's Seattle Times headline will help the market.

Posted on by
56

This has been on my mind for a while, so I’ll throw it out there for people to discuss.  Sometimes a non-agent can introduce topics that the real estate community may be uncomfortable in discussing with their clients.  So, here goes…..

The topic:  Is this lousy news for sellers just the spice to get them to realize that the white- hot markets of 2005-2007 are long gone?

Price reductions have been taking place for sometime.  Months and months.   But, many have been token reductions and the conversations I hear and read on blogs is that,  in some instances, resistance has been fairly strong.

What good does it do when a seller who reduces a price by $3K on a $650,000 listing that has been languishing on the market for months?  If today, after weeks of small incremental reductions, the listing is priced at $550,000, there is no agent on earth representing a buyer that will take it seriously.  Especially after seeing the price reductions go on and on for months.   I don’t know who is torturing who:  the homeowner doing this practice or an agent who can’t pull the plug on the listing?  I’ve heard that not taking a listing is not in the DNA of agents (I’m teasing of course.)

I know of some agents who have broken their backs and have spent a lot of money on listings only for the seller to eventually pull the plug on the listing out of frustration.   And then, (drum roll please) have the $500K+ listing end up renting for under $2000.00/mo.  Any sellers out there understand the rent-to-price ratio relationship over the history of residential real estate?  Now, on the other hand, many of today’s agents have little experience in working through a correction and pricing and marketing a home effectively.  If we are honest, there was not a lot to do in a white-hot market to generate the offer: place the listing on the NWMLS and arrange a time with the seller to accept multiple offers.  I hear some were even nice enough to offer coffee and pastries to the agents sitting in cars outside of a property waiting for their turn to submit their offer.  How times have changed.

I have seen a couple of examples of the substandard work ethic and marketing in my neck of the woods in Snohomish Co:  outrageously poor marketing, only to have another professional agent come to the rescue and have a successful sale.  Good for that agent and good for the seller to recognize when a change is needed.

Will agents bring the Seattle Times clipped article to listing presentations?  When is real estate bad news good for moving sellers in the right direction and getting the market moving?  Perhaps today.  Or, maybe we still have a long way to go in understanding how damaging the excesses of next to zero lending standards will turn out to be and the artificial appreciation it fostered.

PS.  Those who are currently in the market to buy should be in conversations with your loan officers regarding the recent drop in interest rates.   Just today, our office is hearing that there are 30 yr fixed rates at 5.5% at par, some even indicating a small rebate at that rate.  Consult with your loan officer.

Seller financing options

Posted on by
92

As a bit of a follow up to Ardell’s post below about lease purchase options, another option may be seller financing or a seller carryback.  But, if you choose to go this route how will you handle payments?  One of the best ways to make this less of a burden for the seller is to bring in a third party to handle all of the details associated with servicing the loan terms.

Most traditional transactions with conventional bank financing use an escrow service for handling things such as taxes and insurance.  This is similar but the escrow firm is also handling the servicing of payments, calculating interest and principal payments and such.

An example of a company that provides such a service is Contract Servicing.

Always do your due diligence for any company you will hire, but this might be a good place to learn a bit and find that these services exist for a variety of property contract sales and the myriad ways in which they are negotiated.