Searchlight Crusade

If a home for sale has a refrigerator included on the listing report, and the buyer's agent does not write that it goes to the seller in a contract, is the buyer actually entitled to the refrigerator. I am actually going through this right now.

The listing does not matter. What does the purchase contract say? That is the complete controlling fact of the whole entire transaction.

If the contract is silent, what matters most is whether the refrigerator in question is appurtenant to the land or not. Appurtenances are things which are physically and structurally attached to the land which is always the primary thing being sold in a real estate transaction. For a standard house, nobody would seriously argue that they have the right to remove it, because it is attached securely to the property. There are service pipes coming out of the ground attached to the ground and a foundation it is attached to. There are electrical service wires, telephone wires, and cable TV wires. All of which would come up if you pulled the house away. So the house is appurtenant to the land. This is how all real estate transactions are really structured, by the way. You are buying the land, and the house, if there is one, comes along because it's attached to that land.

So if the refrigerator is somehow built in, such that removal would be a nontrivial project, then it's appurtenant to the land. If all you have to do us unplug it and push it away on a dolly, that's not appurtenant, and there is no more reason why they should have to leave that than why they should have to leave their dog, cat, or child.

Now this is not to say that you can't build an excellent court case based upon the fact that there was an implicit promise made in the listing, and everything else in the contract was built off of what that listing said. Talk to an attorney for more information than I can ever give you on that score.

Even if they're not obligated, the seller might leave the refrigerator anyway. Maybe they've got another, maybe they are just living up to what they promised even though they might not be legally required to do so. It's not like most people go around looking for ways to be evil. I've never met anyone who acted like a Disney villain. I have met some pretty shady characters, but mostly they're more sophisticated about it.

The thing to do, if you're concerned about the refrigerator or anything else where you want it to stay, is to put it in the purchase contract. If the listing says these appliances stay, putting it into the purchase contract won't offend the owner - it should be something they expect.

In any of these cases, the seller can force you to go to court by being an obstinate donkey, even when they haven't got a leg to stand on, legally speaking. It's not like you have the magic power of enforcing agreements. That power belongs solely to the executive branch of government, which will take no action in cases like this without a court order. Whatever the court says is final. Unless it's some $25,000 wonder fridge, however, it is not likely to be worth going to court over. Much cheaper to buy a new refrigerator, and your expected return on investment is much higher.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Sorry I'm too busy to write these but have to link this week's carnivals before any more time goes by

Carnival of Real Estate

Carnival of Personal Finance

I am seeing a very disturbing trend these past few months. Rather than do the work they should be doing, listing agents are treating the entire short sale process as a kind of "Black Box", delegating the negotiations with the lender to a negotiations firm, treating the negotiation firm's advice as if it were handed down from on high, and expecting buyers (and their agents) to blindly follow along in profound indifference to the buyer's interest. Sadly, they're getting a lot of cooperation from buyer's agents who should know better but are acting more like sperm donor agents than real agents.

I have seen the following demands from these knuckleheads in the past couple of months:

• trying to require buyers to pay repairs, termite etc before they own a property, when in fact the transaction may never come off
• requiring buyers to pay the negotiation firms that they had no role in hiring, because the lenders allegedly won't allow it to come out of sale proceeds. Maybe you should take the hint the lenders are giving you - these negotiators and their recommendations do not serve the interests of any of the three principals to a short sale transaction. The interests they serve are those of a lazy (and horrible) listing agent
• Agreeing to keep the offer open at least sixty days without an accepted purchase contract

The answer to any of these demands is short, simple, and to the point: No.

You want my client to pay for repairs to a property they don't own (and most often the sellers don't want to take it off the market)? How can agreeing to this not be a violation of buyer fiduciary interest?

You want my buyer to give keep an offer open two months without a valid purchase contract?

You want my buyer to pay a firm that they have no role in hiring and does nothing to represent their best interests?

First off, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have a valid purchase contract, the thing to do is walk away. There is a world of difference between "offer accepted pending lender approval of short sale" and "we have submitted your offer to the lender" In the first case, you have a contract with one contingency - kind of like a loan or inspection contingency on the buyer's side, only from the seller's side instead. Nothing wrong with that. Transactions with seller contingencies happen every day. But it also means you have an accepted offer. There can be only one accepted offer, and once there is an accepted offer, the property needs to be removed from the market and no other offers may be considered until this one falls apart. In other words, the seller is stuck with the buyer every bit as much as the buyer is stuck with the seller.

But if you don't have an accepted offer, what you have is "Hope I get it". Kind of like the Little Engine That Could, except there is no defined end to the process and it's not under your control. It's just repeat the mantra of "Hope I get it' until you get told that you didn't. That choice of phrasing was very considered, by the way. Under this scenario, listing agents submit multiple offers to the bank - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one from both the perspective of the buyer and the seller. If the bank keeps getting offers, what are they going to do? That's right, keep the property on the market hoping for a better offer. Whereas if you show them some hard back and forth negotiation and one or more prospective buyers dropping out of the process until only one is left, that's good evidence that that is all the property is worth.

Understand this in your bones: That short sale lender wants one thing above all else: Their money. As much of their money as they can possibly arrange to get back. The owner's job transfer, illness, etcetera, are not their problem. That lender needs to see conclusive evidence that there is no way they are getting any more money out of this property and this owner before they will approve the short sale. They need to understand that this is all the market will support, and that the current owner cannot pay them any additional money, and that if they don't get off their fat backsides and approve this pronto, not only are they going to end up with less money when this buyer walks, but they're going to have to pay the expenses of getting it sold as well as the penalties for having a nonperforming asset on their books.

The way to approach that is to negotiate hard with prospective buyers, as if the lender weren't part of the picture. The best evidence that this is what the property is worth is that you tried to convince multiple people to offer more, and this one you picked is the one that's the best for the lender. Submitting more than one offer to the lender is a recipe for Delay and two different forms of Denial from that lender. They are going to want to wait until they get still more offers.

The lenders do have a secondary concern to getting their money, and that is time. It may be difficult to believe for agents and buyers and sellers who wait three months waiting for the bank to make up their mind, but the bank really would rather move quickly. Time costs them more money. It's just that most listing agents do not and will not do the work of actually getting the offer approved by the short sale lender - which they accepted responsibility for when they took that listing. "Short sale specialist" means a lot more than hiring a negotiating firm!

This nonsense about asking buyers to fork over cash for repairs before closing, asking them to keep offers open without an acceptance of that offer, and asking them to agree to pay the negotiating firm are all things that an appropriately represented buyer is going to ask for concessions for. Concessions on price, concessions on indemnification, concessions just for putting up with the ridiculous nonsense on stilts. This all translates to the buyers who are well-qualified and have plenty of resources walking away, while the ones who are marginal or even below qualification level are perfectly willing to hang around in the hope that a miracle will happen. What else this means is that the property sells for a lower price. But the Broker's Price Opinion has no way to reflect these unattractive things making the property worth less to the buyers. It is therefore going to come in higher than the sales price. So we have two additional ways that the transaction falls apart because the listing agent couldn't do the correct thing in the first place. With stuff like this happening, is it any mystery why four out of five short sales fail? Is it any wonder that the better buyer's agents advise their clients to avoid short sales?

Short sales done correctly are really pretty much like regular sales, albeit with one long, difficult and thoroughly unpleasant step added. But what happens before that step shouldn't be any different for a short sale than any other property. Nor should what comes after be any different, except that the seller cannot get any cash out of the deal. The one extra step that is actually necessary does impact buyer desirability, but not nearly so much as all of the unnecessary nonsense (euphemism alert!) that some listing agents insist upon adding.

All of this is, incidentally, one more piece of evidence that most major real estate brokerages are built around the seller and listing property for sale for minimum effort on their part, especially of any actual licensed agent involved. The buyer can go hang. In some cases, literally. No buyer's agent worth what comes out of the south side of a northbound cow is going to counsel their buyers to put up with this stuff, at least not without a lot of concessions including a major downwards adjustment on price (and as I covered above, the lenders will deny such sales when the broker's price opinion comes in too high). But people still keep calling listing agents about their property without having a buyer's agent to advise them. Given that, the agents think they'll find some clueless victim to sell it to. All too often, someone proves them right. In the meantime, like Tina Teaser, the worthless listing agent who is really impeding the sale of the property uses the listing to make contact with as many buyers as possible.

Buyers can't force sellers to sell, much less to sell to them in particular. But sellers and listing agents shouldn't be blind to things that cause buyers to walk away or to be willing to pay less simply because the sellers are not getting cash out of the deal. Especially in a short sale situation. They may not get cash, but soon enough they will be back to getting 1099s for forgiveness of debt, a taxable event. Every dollar they can prevent the lender from losing is going to help them.

The general statistic is that one short sale in five actually comes off. Given the nonsense listing agents expect buyers to put up with, it's no wonder that buyers getting disgusted and walking away is right at the top of the list of reasons for fall out. Sellers need that buyer - without a buyer, they don't have a sale, and nobody sells their property on a short sale without a need. Nor does this nonsense on stilts motivate the bank to get off their backside and approve the short sale. Quite the opposite, actually.

Caveat Emptor (and Vendor)

The guidelines for this carnival.

As always, I arranged the entries that met guidelines into three levels, based upon originality, usefulness to the consumer, and how much thought and effort and research went into an entry.

STRONGLY RECOMMENDED

We have an editor's choice award! What If The Real Estate INDUSTRY Didn't Control The Real Estate Market? I have some disagreements with Brian about the demand side of the market and its disclosure, but he's got a valid point. Actually, the NAR controls the market for the benefit of the major chain brokerages, not sellers.

You host presents They Told Me Not To Make My Loan Payment

RECOMMENDED

11 things to ASK about when buying a new home in Colorado Springs The whole thing is worth reading no matter where you're thinking about buying, but 4, 6 10, and 11 need to be greatly expanded upon. You wouldn't believe the problems that come in those areas - unless you've dealt with aftermath a time or two.

Eight reasons why you should invest in residential real estate makes a couple of errors but is a good recap for those who came in on this reel.

Living In A Small Home: Pros and Cons of Downsizing Our House talks about living in a smaller home. Even her smaller 1600 foot square home is twice the size our grandparents raised large families in.

MET GUIDELINES

Save Money On Property Taxes With Appeal Very vague, but met guidelines

A Buyer's Guide to Home Security Camera Systems begs the question of why you would buy a home where you need them.

The One Main Reason Why This Bear Market In Stocks Is Not Over actually meets guidelines by talking about real estate and mortgages. Nonetheless, there are a lot of misunderstandings and omissions in his article.

Gold Investing Info submitted an article that barely mentioned real estate. I dug for gold in his article and only came up with Iron Pyrite.

SPAM AND OTHER RIDICULOUS SUBMISSIONS

A site named Apply for Credit submitted an article called, "Your Monthly Credit Card Statements Are Not Junk Mail" Well, no. However, the article did not so much as mention real estate. If he wants credit for being correct, denied.

A site named Online Spyware Removal submitted something about online spyware removal that did not so much as mention real estate. His online spyware has been purged.

For those who might object to the treatment their submission received, the relevant information has been in the guidelines since before submissions were being accepted for this carnival. Having been told to read the guidelines, you willingly submitted these posts. Live with it.

Consumer Focused Carnival of Real Estate will return in one month on July 30, 2009, here at Searchlight Crusade, unless someone else wants to host. Deadline for submissions will be Midnight July 28th.

I've heard this story, in all of its variations, at least hundreds of times.

Someone will send me an email and say "They told me not to make my loan payment because I was going to skip one. So I spent the money on something else. Now they're telling me they can't fund my loan and I can't come up with the cash to make this month's payment!"

First off, engrave this into your soul: You will never skip a mortgage payment. The interest accrues every month and it must be paid every month. What many loan providers do is plan to add an amount equal to your monthly interest charges to your loan balance. This gives the illusion of skipping that payment, but you not only made the payment, you're now paying interest on the extra amount you borrowed.

I never tell people not to make their loan payment. At most I will tell them to wait a few days to give the loan a chance to fund. This lets them know it is still a concern, still an item they need to stay on top of. This way, if there's a funding issue they still have the ability to make their payment. I'm pretty certain I've never had a funding issue like that, but I'm also certain if I said anything different, the universe would bite both me and my next client. The universe is hostile and you always want a Plan B (and Plan C if practical).

Here's how it works: At the end of every month, you've got a fifteen day grace period to make your payment (i.e. by the 15th of the following month) before any penalties begin. So if your new loan was funded any time prior to the 16th, everything is at least under control. If you pretend you're skipping a month's payment, you've just added an amount equal to the principle you pay in six months back into your loan (on top of all the other closing costs if you didn't pay them in with cash out of your bank account)

So quite predictably what happens is at the end of every month there is a massive wave of loan fundings to take advantage of this as unscrupulous loan officers pretend this month is free. Escrow gets so busy at that time of month that things get lost in the shuffle quite often. It's for this reason that I prefer to avoid funding loans in the last two or three business days of a month. If you're not trying to pretend your client is skipping a payment that they aren't skipping, things become much easier.

Let's say we fund your loan on the 28th of the month. Actually, this works anytime between the first of the month and the 15th of the next month, but the last few days of the month is typical. You can pay for the interest due in cash or by rolling it into your new mortgage. Either way will get the job done. It depends upon which is more important to you: having the cash from pretending you didn't need to make a payment, or not losing about six months worth of principle payments. By paying this interest, in either case you are covering the payment that would be due for that month.

Here's where it gets a little tricky, but not much. If you fund on the first of a new month or before, the interest paid is for the ending month, and the new loan starts accruing interest immediately. There will be a payment due at the end of that month. If you fund from the second to the fifteenth of the new month, the new loan needs to cover the interest for two months (either by rolling it into your balance, paying it cash, or some combination). In this case, the new loan (or cash you put into the deal) covers the ending month and the new month just beginning. It's also for twice as much money, by the way. This is why some very unscrupulous loan officers can advertise "Skip two payments!" even though there is never a single second on any loan when it is not accruing interest.

As long as everything goes well enough for the new loan to fund by the 15th of the new month, everything is at least under control. Yeah, you might have chosen to roll all the costs into the new loan but that's okay as long as you go into it with your eyes open having made a conscious choice.

But what happens if they tell you "Don't worry about your loan payment!" and then it doesn't fund? (or doesn't fund in time!)

Well, problems. If you're fifteen days late on your mortgage, expect to get hit with a penalty of at least 4% and more likely 6%. Work out the interest rate, and you'll see the interest rate on payments late that sixteenth of the month is 96 to 144 percent!

If that were all there were, that would be bad enough but livable. Usually it puts people a full month behind on their old mortgage. That noise you just heard was your credit score being nuked. I have seen a single 30 day late make a difference of 150 points on the Fair-Issacsson (FICO) model. Plus if you think you had difficulty qualifying for a prime mortgage before, wait until you see what happens after you've got a thirty day late! This usually ends up becoming what subprime calls a "rolling thirty" for several months until you get the extra money from some other source, but A paper doesn't have a "rolling thirty" category - every single one of those late payments hits you again as yet another late payment within the past 24 months.

Then there's the problem of where you've going to get the money to replace what you've spent because you were told you didn't have to make a payment this month. It's not coming out of some hyperspatial vortex. My clients would have to get it from somewhere. What if they really don't have it?

This sorry little charade that many loan providers play even has an ultimate downside. There is no need to skip a month's payment. You, the client, will get full and complete credit for any cash you put into the transaction or your loan. It may take a little while to get back to you, but you will get it. In the meantime, however, it may spell difficulty for your cash flow. You made that payment but your old lender hasn't yet credited it (or it cannot be confirmed that you made the payment)? You will get the money back when the accounting all finalizes. The reason we tell people they might want to hold off is that quite often it takes a few days between mailing the check off and the time that the old lender admits that they got it. You can't close the old loan off unless you pay the full amount the old lender is asking for right now. If you can't close the old loan off, you can't fund the new loan. Escrow has to pay the loan off in full by the old lender's payoff demand. If more money comes in later, the old lender needs to send it back to you when it does.

So if someone ever tells you not to make your loan payment, ask them if what they really mean is to wait. Because if they really mean "Don't make your loan payment this month": they are risking an awful lot of potentially bad consequences to you, the borrower, if they can't actually fund your new loan. And judging by the amount of email I've had on this subject, it really does happen pretty much every day to someone.

Caveat Emptor

One of the things I'm seeing a lot of these days is blanket advice on bridge loans.

A bridge loan is a loan that you take out with the explicit intention of having it be short term. The most common situation is a loan against property A, which you own but plan to sell, so that you can put a down payment on property B (or buy it outright) right now.

The motivation for this comes from the fact that people get paid to do bridge loans, and they are typically very easy loans to do. Frankly, the people making the recommendation make more money by doing the bridge loan than by not doing it, and they are not motivated to do the calculations and legwork to see which is the better deal for the consumer.

When it comes to money, blanket recommendations of any sort are automatically suspect, and usually wrong. Every situation is different, and there can be factors that cause an ethical professional to recommend something in one case where they would recommend against in another superficially similar one.

Bridge loans are no exception. In the example above, the advantage is that they make you a more qualified buyer, and can get you better rates on the loan for the new property. The disadvantage is that their closing costs are just as high as any other loan. So you're spending about $3500 extra plus points plus junk fees (if any). They are also, by definition, cash out refinances. The rate-cost tradeoff for cash-out refinances is less favorable than for purchase money loans. In plain english, they cost more.

The next major issue that arises is that they can make it more difficult to qualify for the loan on the new property, which can often mean that you need to go stated income or NINA when you might otherwise have qualified full documentation, which means you got a higher rate on the new property anyway, and that you're going to want to refinance your new purchase as soon as Property A sells anyway, sending another set of loan costs down the drain. Don't get me wrong, I love to do loans, and my pocketbook loves for me to do loans, but it's a good loan officer's job to look after your interests first.

Finally, choosing a bridge loan can force a choice upon you: A good loan that puts you in the position of having a need to sell within a specified time frame, and a mediocre loan that may not. The best (lowest) rates are for short term loans. Always have been, always will be. However, if the market sours, this can cause you to either accept an offer you would not have otherwise considered, or flush another set of closing costs down the toilet, when if you had chosen the mediocre loan, you would have been okay indefinitely.

Let's crunch some numbers. Let's say you have a property currently worth $250,000 that you bought for $125,000 and have paid down to $100,000. You want to upgrade to a $400,000 property now that your promotion and raise have settled in.

The first thing you do is pull cash out to 80 percent. On a 30 day lock of a 30 year conforming fixed rate loan, assuming you've got good credit, when I originally wrote this was about a 6.5 rate without points, and you'll actually get about $96,500 of that $100,000 you take out. I looked at shorter term fixed rate loans as well, but with the yield curve inverted right now since you're planning to sell, anything without a prepayment penalty is about the same, and a prepayment penalty is contra-indicated, as it means you'll have to pay thousands of dollars when you do sell.

You take and put that $96500 down on a new home purchase loan on a $400,000 home. It's over 20% down, so no PMI concerns, and no splitting into a second loan. But because you've got that $200k loan sitting over there, now you have to go stated income on the loan for the new home.

Actually, at this update, I don't know of any stated income loans. What that means is there's no way to qualify without coming up with more cash or waiting for the first property to sell. This means moving twice or hoping your buyer will let you lease the property back long enough to find a new property. Or simultaneous closings, a massively stress-inducing plan, because you're betting your ability to close upon someone else being on-the ball.

But when we had it, stated income was one way of making this work. This means your rate was about 6.75 without points. Soak off another $3500 in loan costs, plus purchase costs of maybe another $1000. You now have two loans, one for $200k at 6.5 and one for about $312,000 at 6.75. Now the original home sells. Let's say you got full value of $250,000. You pay 5% in real estate commission, and maybe 2% more in other costs. That's $17,500, so you get $32,500 in your pocket. You have three choices, two of them productive. You can 1) Spend the money, 2) Invest the money, or 3) Use it on the other mortgage. A paydown, where you just plop the money down and keep making your same old current payment is a good idea (Unless there's a "first dollar" prepayment penalty), but most folks are obsessed with lowering their payment. So they take that $32500, and of which $3500 is loan expenses, and (because now they can do full documentation), they end up with something like a $283,000 loan at 6.25 percent, assuming rates don't move. Total cost of loans: $10,500 assuming you pay no points for any of your loans. Perhaps possible for someone with above average credit. Not likely if your credit is below average.

Suppose instead, that you just leave that $100,000 loan sit on your original property. You're still going to have to do stated income on the new loan on the new property. But instead, you go with a 80 percent first, 15 percent second (another thing you can't do at the update because no second mortgage holder will go over 90% loan to value ratio) because you can come up with $25,000 until the first property sells. Same 6.75 rate on the first, and the second is an interest only at about 10.25, just to use the same lender whose sheet I happened to pull from the stack for the exercise. Loan costs, $4000 without points, which I priced the loan to avoid. First house sells, you get $132,500, replace the $25,000, and pay off that second, leaving you a $320,000 loan and about $47,500, holding cost assumptions constant ($1000 in non-loan costs). You could do a paydown, leaving $272,500 balance on a 6.75 loan, or you could take $3500 in closing costs and refinance to 6.25, just as above, leaving a balance of $276,000 if you don't pay any points. Total loan costs, $7500 and you only have to avoid paying points twice (once, as opposed to twice, if you take the paydown option. It takes a little under 37 months to break even on your interest savings). Furthermore, in less than hot markets, it gives you greater leverage with your seller to pay some part of your closing costs: "Do this, or I don't qualify". They have the home on the market for a reason, and they can help the buyer in hand or they can hope for another buyer to come along.

In this example, not doing a bridge loan saves you about $6500, less the additional interest (about $512/month) for the second mortgage until your first home sells, but plus approximately $541 per month interest every month between the time you initially refinance your original property and the time it finally sells, a longer period of time. Plus one set of possible mortgage points. So it's not difficult to construct scenarios where it's a good idea not to.

Let's look at a different scenario, however. Let's say instead of upgrading, you're already in the $400,000 home, and looking to downsize to a $100,000 condo. Furthermore, let's say you bought for $200,000 and are now down to $160,000 owed, just to keep the proportions consistent. You borrow out to $265,000 (paying $3500 in loan costs), which you qualify for full doc at 6.25. You then pay cash for the condo (including $1000 for purchase transaction costs, and you've still got $500 in your pocket). Furthermore, an all cash, no contingency transaction is a powerful negotiating tool for a seller to give you a good price. Then when your original property sells, costing you say 7%, or $28,000, in selling costs. You net $107,500 in your pocket. If you did no bridge loan, let's still assume you can come up with $25,000 on the short term, and you still qualify full documentation. Your rate on the condo is 6.375 without points, holding assumptions consistent. Then you sell the first property for the same $400k, paying the same 7% ($28,000) and paying off the $80,000 loan on the condo as well as replacing the $25,000. Net still $107,500 in your pocket, less additional interest charges for a little longer period, but you cut your stress level and put yourself in a stronger bargaining position, which is likely to be worth doing.

There are any number of reasons and factors to do a bridge loan or not to do a bridge loan. You may not have a minimum down payment without a bridge loan. That's probably the most common, as not all properties and purchases are eligible for 100 percent financing, and some require as much as a forty or even fifty percent down. The way a necessary transaction is structured. The presence or absence of 1035 exchange considerations is often a factor. Your credit score may limit you, or your ability to qualify full documentation may dictate the advantage lies in a different direction. Every situation has the potential for factors that may dictate an answer other than that given by pure numerical computation, and there are therefore, no valid blanket answers to the question of whether or not to do a bridge loan.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

What is a good interest rate for a house that is for someone with low income?

Well, if you make enough to afford the property, your income isn't a factor on the interest rate you get! You either qualify or you don't. Banks may charge a fee for low loan amounts, but your income is not the issue, except as to whether or not you qualify for the loan as it is submitted. The lender does not care if you just barely scrape through, or if you have a hundred times the minimum income to qualify. Kind of like there's no such thing as "a little bit pregnant." You either are or you aren't. Same thing with loans: You either qualify or you don't. It's possible you might qualify for a better program than you got, or that you might qualify with another program where you don't qualify with this one, but those aren't questions that the underwriter or the underwriting process are going to address. They're questions your loan officer needs to get right before the loan is submitted.

There may be programs you are eligible for, such as Mortgage Credit Certificate or a locally based first time buyer assistance program. These programs can make it easier to qualify, in that they effectively raise your take home pay, they keep you from having to borrow so much, or even that the save you from the choice of PMI or splitting your loan. However, be aware that every single one of these programs requires full documentation qualification for a loan that's fixed for at least three years and fully amortized, or fixed and interest only for at least five years. Stated Income and negative amortization loans are not permitted with any of these programs that I am aware of. The idea is that you buy a property you can afford and stay in it for a long time, not a property you cannot afford, and get foreclosed upon. These programs also have income limits that many people might not consider "low." Up to $96,000 per year here locally can still qualify, and the big concern is whether there's money still left in the budget for these programs.

There is no special magic wand that enables low income people to stretch beyond their normal means in purchasing a home. There's a lot of unscrupulous people who have gotten paid a lot of money pretending that there is, but there isn't. Nobody is really going to give you money at a lower interest rate than someone else, just because your income is lower. If this means you have to settle for a condo when you want a single family detached property, or a less expensive home than you would like, well, that's what everyone else has to do.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I want to sell my home for sale by owner. Is 1.5% a good amount to co-broke? Or will agents avoid me?

In most of the country, this is a buyer's market right now. You need to compete more strongly for that buyer's business than anyone else in order to win the sale.

When I'm working with a buyer, the contract says that my brokerage gets a certain percentage of the sales price. So it doesn't matter what your co-broke (aka CBB, paid to a buyer's agent by the listing agent or seller) is to me. If you don't pay it, my buyers will. Furthermore, my contract is non-exclusive, so I have incentive to get them into whatever property is going to make them happiest, as soon as possible. If I won't (or can't) do it, somebody else will, and that's how it should be, so if your property really is the best property for that client, the low co-broke won't stop me. As I said, I get my minimum percentage from any property I help the client with. Better the minimum off yours than nothing when somebody else turns them onto yours. So you're not going to be eliminated by good agents on that scale alone. However:

Even to agents in situations comparable to mine, a low CBB like that is very indicative of an owner who is overly greedy, has over-priced the property, and won't negotiate it down to anything reasonable. I've seen this at least dozens of times, probably hundreds. No exceptions to this rule yet. Better I just don't waste my time or worse, that of my clients.

This is on top of the constant issues of dealing with a For Sale By Owner (FSBO), 99% plus of whom want me to act as their agent. or at least do the work of their agent and assume that liability, as well as the buyers'. Well, I don't do dual agency anyway, and I certainly don't do it unpaid, and because there's nobody with E&O insurance on the other side of the equation, I can do all of my due diligence and then some, but because the seller lies, I still end up sued by an unhappy buyer because I'm the only one involved they can get money from. FSBOs have literally 100 times the disclosure problems agent represented properties do. Trying to persuade owners who think they did everything they need to by putting a sign in the yard to fulfill the rest of their legal obligations is a painful process, and getting them to negotiate in good faith is chancy. I've had - and heard from other agents - more "chiseler" episodes from trying to buy a FSBO property. The probability of dealing with the "chiseler" goes up by at least a factor of 10 for all FSBO properties. And if you think I don't cover this with my clients, you're wrong. It's part of my job to let them know the risks of what they might be getting into, before they're in the middle of them. A good percentage of all clients comes straight out and tells me that they don't want to consider FSBOs once I've explained the facts.

Yes, a lot of this is "guilt by association" type judgments. Nonetheless, it's how you are asking people to view you. People who hang out with outlaw biker gangs are presumed to be outlaw bikers. Doesn't matter if you wear a suit and tie and a $400 haircut have a nice genteel manner. You're an outlaw biker gang member, and until and unless people get to know you as an individual, that's the perception you're going to have to live with. (Lest my meaning be mistaken, I'm pulling a hypothetical example. I don't think I've ever actually met or seen an outlaw biker gang. There was a large biker club seated next to us at a restaurant not too long ago. Their clothes and haircut were a little out of the ordinary, but they were mostly like other folks. Had a great conversation about our respective kids with one couple). I'd like to have the time to individually know all of the properties available well enough to discard guilt by association, but there aren't enough hours in the day.

Finally, if my buyer's cash is a little tight in the first place, and buyer cash to close is the number one obstacle to a successful transaction, the fact that they're going to have to come up with that money out of their pocket can be a deal-killer right there. It's a "lose your license" offense for agents to attempt to negotiate a higher CBB at point of offer in my state. Agents do it anyway, but I have zero sympathy for them when they get caught. But having to come up with that extra amount of cash can drive my buyers below a breakpoint on the loan, and possibly even torpedo the loan altogether, which means it's significantly harder to convince myself your property is the best one for the client.

One more thing: For agents who get exclusive buyer's agency agreements, as opposed to the non-exclusive ones I work with, your property is not a contender. Period, end of sentence. You're making them work too hard, plus they want the highest CBB they can get, and they get paid no matter who helps the buyers buy, and they have enough control to make it very difficult for a buyer to go to a place with a low CBB. Not to mention that their usual CBB is higher and this means yet more difference between what you're paying and what their contract calls for, meaning that even if their client should somehow find your property, and love it, the cash to close issue is going to make it very difficult for them to do business with you.

So you make the call:

Buyer's market, you have to make your property look more attractive than anyone else's to even attract attention. Price, condition, location - you've got to have something that stands out above the market to attract an offer in the first place, and the others have to be competitive as well.

Add the fact that a low CBB tells experienced buyer's agents that you're someone to stay away from

Add all of the FSBO issues, and there's a lot of them. They're not minor from the agent's perspective, and they're even worse from an informed buyer's.

Then top it off with hitting the buyer's cash to close, potentially killing a viable deal, and both the buyer and their agent want to know why they should bother with your property, as opposed to the one across the street, with a CBB that pays the buyer's agent what they've got coming without the buyer having to come up with cash, with an agent on the other side who at least might know your market and price it correctly, and is unlikely to try to deceive my client by not disclosing known issues, and is going to get all of the work done in a timely fashion without me having to work them over, because they want to get paid too, and they don't want this transaction coming back to bite them any more than I do.

Which one do you think buyers and their agents are going to find more attractive? Even if they're equivalent properties priced the same?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

My husband and I are on title and loan to a piece of property with 4 homes on it. We want to add 3 people to title. Can we do this if they are not on the loan? Also, any advice as to where I can find information as to how to hold title? Each party wants their percentage to go to next of kin and not to the rest of us on title.

This is a property that my family all live on. Basically we all bought it but we couldn't put all of them on loan for various reasons. We do have a sort of "operating agreement" going for maintenance and stuff like that, so I just want to know if they can be added to title so it's all official.

There are significant perils in this, especially since you're the only one on the loan. I can envision half a dozen scenarios where you end up liable for the loan even though you no longer own the property, or end up only owning a smaller piece of the property. Nobody likes to consider ending up in court opposite a family member, but family members are much more likely a legal adversary than complete strangers. This stuff happens every day. Partition suits aren't exactly uncommon. I suspect a certain number of them may even be manufactured, because a multi-residence property may be more valuable as multiple legally separate lots. But even if you manufacture such a suit, there's no way to insure that the other party will remain loyal to you.

Quitclaiming is easy, and requires no permission from anyone, but you really need to understand the consequences of what you intend to do before you do it. Furthermore, there's more than one way to hold title, each of which means different things. Joint Tenants, Tenants in Common, trust, corporation, partnership, etcetera. You need to choose a form of ownership that protects you, while still serving your needs.

I'd seriously suggest getting a partnership or corporation agreement executed first, and quitclaiming that way, but you really need to pay a real estate attorney for some advice, first, and you'll be better off following their advice than mine.

Not that I'm a big fan of lawyers. But the hour of time you pay for now will likely save you at least a million dollars down the road, from the type of property you're talking about. Ounce of prevention and all that.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I just got off the phone with an agent who claims to have three offers on the property, but he doesn't want to counter the offer. He just wants my client to voluntarily throw more money (or more something) onto the table.

We're going to decline to do that.

The offer we made was good. The other agent, if they knew what they were doing, would just be fishing - or rather, hoping to get us to go fishing voluntarily, adding more and more bait until they finally decide they had better hit it. Not really a horrible strategy, but wickedly vulnerable to agents who understand negotiation. The only reasonable way to respond is to ask the other side to take it, leave it, or tell you what they really want. Someone who understands negotiation is going to tell them exactly what I did - which is "You can take it, leave it, or counter. But we're not going to go on a fishing expedition. Tell us what you want and we'll talk about it."

However this particular agent either didn't know what they were doing or were pretending not to know. As a rationalization for his actions, he said, "I've had multiple offers and lost them all when I countered."

So?

Every listing agent gets desperation checks. Sometimes they're flippers looking to turn a quick buck. Sometimes they're serious investors. Sometimes they are even people who intend to live there forever and ever. What all three of these (and many other situations) have in common is that they say to themselves, "Let's see if we can get it for that."

The intelligent way to respond is usually to counter offer. Below a certain point, of course, you want to respond with, "Offer rejected - do better!". But if they're in the right general ballpark, the way to get what you want is to tell them what you want. You won't get everything. That's what negotiation is all about. But you would be amazed at how often terms that are quite important to one party are something the other party can meet without any downside.

Furthermore, you don't want to sell to a "Let's see if we can get it for that" offer. Yeah, some folks will walk away if you counter. Those are the folks that you don't want to sell to anyway. Even if every single one of ten offers walks away, you haven't lost anything - because those people weren't willing to offer a reasonable price. If you price the property correctly, it will get offers, and you will be able to sell to one of them for right around the market price. If you over-priced your property, desperation checks are all that you're likely to get. If you underprice the property, you will get hordes of offers, but it's unlikely to be bid up as far as where it should have been in the first place.

(How can a consumer tell if their property is over-priced or under-priced or priced just right? By the offers you get and their timing, of course! It's one of those zen things like the chicken and the egg. It's also why the discussion of list price should not be easy for anyone - because by the time it becomes apparent you went with the wrong answer, fixing it will only repair some of the damage)

You never know which offer is and isn't going to come back with something better. So you give them a reason to offer you something better by telling them what you really want. Yeah, number one on the list is usually money. But sometimes it isn't. And sometimes subsidiary concerns can make all the difference, even getting the property for fewer dollars than another offer.

Being unwilling or unable to counter without losing good offers is the mark of a very weak agent. Unfortunately, by the time you find out they're a weak agent in this fashion, it's probably too late. When I'm the buyer's agent, I don't really want the first offer accepted, and those few of my clients who've had it happen can testify that I really am mortified when it happens. I want to talk about what my client wants, and how we can go from the first offer to something both sides are happy with. Whatever happened to "never take the first offer"? Don't they teach that anymore? The first offer is just an opening, like opening a conversation with a member of the opposite sex you're interested in.

One legitimate fear is that an unqualified buyer may sign a counter exactly as it is, creating a purchase contract that ties the property up for months while you find out they can't really qualify. That is the only situation where I delay the actual counter until I am certain the buyer can qualify. But I do call the offering agent and ask for more evidence the buyer will be able to qualify. This is in line with the precept of "ask for what you want, and explain why they should give it to you" precept. After they provide information that persuades me these folks will qualify for the necessary loan, they'll get a counter.

If a qualified buyer signs one of several counters I make, that's not a disaster. That's exactly what I want. Every counter I put out there is something that would make my client happy. Do I care which offer gets signed? Well, sometimes when something about their situation (like having a known problem agent representing them) makes me hope it isn't them. But that doesn't stop me from putting the offer back out there. It's my clients needs that are important, and if my client needs me to deal with these issues, that's part of why I'm getting paid.

Not being willing to counter is like hoping the fish is going to jump right into the boat. Yes, you know they're out there in the lake, but you haven't hooked them and you definitely haven't landed them yet. The counter is the hook - it lets them know exactly what you want, and why they should give it to you. You're more likely to get what you want by telling a buyer what that is.

Caveat Emptor

Sorry, I've been really busy but I have to at least link the carnival for the week!

Carnival of Personal Finance

It's a well known fact that not all factors in real estate are equally important, and not all property investments perform equally well. A critical part of successfully choosing the right property, whether it's for investment or personal use, lies in realizing that some things about a given property are completely under your control once you purchase, some things are only controllable by large groups of people acting in concert, and a few things can't be changed at all.

There are graduations among the three, in fact, it's more or less a continuous spectrum from picking up a piece of trash to weather and earth movement. Just because you can't control it doesn't mean you can't take it into account before you decide on where to spend your money. Once you've bought, of course, you're stuck with what events happen to have an effect upon that given location. Just because there hasn't been an earthquake there in 6000 years of recorded history doesn't mean it's impossible for there to be an earthquake. But if the area has a history of earthquakes, fires, landslides, you name it, or even just a known susceptibility, you're wise to take it into account. This extends into human controlled areas as well. Never been so much as loitering within ten miles? Nice, but that doesn't stop the head of the local mob from buying the house next door to yours later on, or the FBI from renting it for their Witness Protection Program (and no, that's one neither you nor I am likely to find out unless and until gunfire starts, but that doesn't stop the crooks looking for those witnesses!). One of the aspects of this being a free country is that bad people are pretty much equally free to go where they want unless they're actually in confinement somewhere.

There are, however, all sorts of known factors about a property that you can consider, and a good agent can really hep you with. Sometimes it's a matter of capability (whether you can), sometimes of knowledge, sometimes of willingness, and sometimes, of visualization, whether you can really visualize the place with the changes made.

Knowing that difference is money.

Serious money, especially in a high cost area like mine. Knowing what you can change and what is beyond your control. Knowing what stuff costs, in general, is a really valuable piece of knowledge for an agent, and whether it's likely to be worth the money you spend.

Some stuff, like trash in the yard, paint on the walls, and carpet on the floors, is so easy to change it doesn't hardly register. Yes, good carpet costs thousands of dollars, but it's worth every penny at sale time. Paint is cheaper. Window coverings, All of this is superficial, and can be changed easily, but unless you're an experienced agent you would not believe how many times I've heard arguments against purchasing a property that amount to "I don't want to have to spend $4000 to save $40,000!" Then they go out and buy another property for that $40,000 more, and stillspend that $4000 - or more - changing out the already good looking stuff that was already there for other good looking stuff, when they could have saved $40,000 off the purchase price by simply realizing they were going to replace it anyway, and buying the property with trashed carpet in the first place. I don't care how often I've seen it. It still blows my mind, every time. And if you're looking to sell, by all that's holy, you'll make a lot more dealing with it yourself than giving Martha Stewart Jr. a carpet allowance. The idea is that you want as much of Martha's money in your pocket as possible! With an allowance, you not only pay several times over in the sales price, you're also volunteering to pay some of the money you do get right out again!

Appliances. Why in the nine billion names of god are some buyers so particular about the appliances? The vast majority of appliances are personal property and are going to go away with the current owner. Who cares if the refrigerator is avocado green now? It's going away. If the owners do leave it, I know places that will pay you money for the privilege of hauling away functional appliances, and then you can put your burnt orange one in its place. Even if the appliances are attractive, unless they're built into the property, they're going away. It's not like it's going to be hard finding a flat black or stainless steel replacement. But when you're selling, it really is a good way to sucker more money out of people, and unless you build it in or agree to leave it in the sales contract - a concession the buyers will pay dearly for - you get to take them with you! How cool is that?

Surfaces are a little harder, but I do not understand why people are willing to reward current previous owners who built in things like granite counter tops or travertine floors. Actually, I do. It's all part and parcel of that same desire that Mr. and Ms. Middle Class want to have their home be beautiful, so they'll spend $50,000 more to buy the property that's beautiful now, and then they'll come along and replace all that beautiful stuff with equally beautiful stuff that's more in line with their taste. But granite counter tops, travertine floors, etcetera aren't all that expensive to put in (why do you think they're so popular with developers now?) and they do age. If you stay in the property twenty years, you're going to want to put in new ones before you sell. But guess what? You paid all of that opportunity cost, and interest on all of that cost, all of these years, and now you're having to install new ones just to come close to breaking even on what you've already spent. Smart Investors are looking for the properties where they can get those bumps up in value themselves by putting them in and flipping the property off to Mr. and Ms. Middle Class.

Similar to all the preceding examples, lighting is a relatively cheap investment that pays off. Lots of nice bright soft lumens. Some people will pay big bucks without realizing why, not to mention that light bulbs are both cheap and easy to change and the wiring lasts basically forever, so you can fix it up after you own it, enjoy it all those years you live in it, and still get the bump up in value when you go to sell. Providing, of course, you or your agent has the presence of mind to recognize the opportunity, and you don't insist on having it already in place.

Not quite so easy are windows for natural light. It's very hard to go wrong with too many windows, or too big. Nonetheless, you have to be careful not to sabotage your structural support. And of course, you're cutting through walls. This isn't cheap; but it is often worth the money. Just like electrical lights. It'll make lots of folks willing to spend big bucks without understanding why.

This contrasts to bad or old wiring. It just won't hold the load modern dwellings need to, or doesn't have enough outlets. Back in the 1930s, one outlet per room was plenty. These days, code requires one per six linear feet of wall in new housing. The house I grew up in had a thirty five amp master fuse. That may not be enough for a linen closet, nowadays, but those houses are still out there. It isn't cheap to upgrade their wiring, but if you've got to do it, overkill isn't much more expensive. If you're running all new wiring and putting in new breakers and new outlets, the cost differential to make it way more robust than absolutely necessary is perhaps 1%. Instead of 500 amp service, consider at least doubling that. As long as you're putting in one outlet every six linear feet, make it a four or six plug outlet (with wiring robust enough to match). Point of fact, investors who flip rarely upgrade wiring - it doesn't pay off in sales price. But if you need to do it in order to make your family comfortable, overdo it. It doesn't cost any more per hour for an electrician to run bigger wires, install bigger breakers, or put in a bigger socket. So you spend $1 extra per outlet - if it keeps you from having to do it again. There's been a steady increase in the amount of electrical load for the average house over the last eighty years or so. I wouldn't bet on that changing any time soon, and when you go to sell in twenty or thirty years, the electrical situation will still make buyers happy. Unless that house falls down around your ears in the meantime, you'll be glad you did. Here's another thing I don't understand: People will act like it's no big deal to upgrade the electrical service, even though it's much more costly than any of the stuff you've already read about. Maybe because they don't understand what's involved, or maybe because it's not obvious on the surface, but a house where the electrical grid will handle your requirements is easily worth $30,000 or more than one that won't - because if it won't, guess who's spending that money?

Towards the high end of the subspectrum involving personal control, you're pretty much stuck with the architecture. Put another room on that doesn't match, and people will start describing the house as "ramshackle". Houses where everything matches get more than houses where there are obvious mismatches. Short of hiring a bulldozer and starting over, your architecture is your architecture. Ditto basic construction. If it started with adobe, you'd do well to stay with adobe. If you don't like adobe, don't buy adobe.

Right at the extreme of possible personal control is the lot you're buying. Unless you can persuade one of your neighbors to sell, it is what it is. Don't count on that happening.

Getting into things you can't control, but can influence, is the homeowner's association. If there's a homeowner's association, you can influence it by getting involved. You can't control it by yourself, and you can't make it go away, except by not buying where there's a HOA. Learn the rules, and learn the neighborhood, before you buy. If your rules aren't something you can abide by, be certain Mrs. Grundy is going to do her best to harass you into doing so. This starts at letters and goes through fines, and might even include foreclosure. If your neighbors are at war with each other before you buy, that's likely to continue indefinitely afterwards. Just because there's no war right now doesn't mean one won't start the instant you buy. The more recently it was built, and the higher end the property, the more likely it is there will be a HOA. If you buy where there's an HOA, it's more likely one of my grandfathers will give birth to triplets than that HOA will go away (FYI: if being old and male in a species where it's the female who gestates and rarely to more than one child at a time isn't enough for you, my grandfathers are dead). HOAs really are a good guardian of property values, but they sure can make an ordinary person who just wants to enjoy their property miserable.

You can't do a darned thing as an individual about the surrounding property, or the neighborhood. If all around you are 3 bedroom 1.75 bath properties that sell for $400,000, that's the mean your property will tend towards and be judged by. In some areas, $400,000 is a mansion. Around here, it's nothing nearly so grand. You may be able to get a little more if you've got a fourth bedroom, or an extra large lot, but a 6 bedroom 4 bath place will not be worth twice as much, simply because of the surroundings. In fact, it's unlikely you'll get more than 25% extra, that being a relevant appraisal standard. Even if someone agrees to pay it (they won't), lenders won't lend based upon it. That property is a misplaced improvement. It's fine if you just happen to like the neighborhood, but don't expect that your house will sell for twice as much because it's twice as big or twice as nice. Three words: Not. Gonna. Happen. Keep this in mind when you're buying or upgrading your property, also. On the flip side, this can help properties that are below that neighborhood average. Everything around them pulls them up. But it also means that there's a sharp limit to the improvements that are worthwhile.

Traffic, whether you're on a busy street or a busy corner, parks, shopping and other neighborhood amenities, you can consider to be essentially fixed characteristics. No one individual controls them. Even if you get yourself elected mayor, you'll find yourself checked by the power of the rest of the government. There's nothing you can do to advantage yourself without disadvantaging someone else, and if you want the most primal scream of most suburban dwellers, talk to them about lowering property values. It sends people completely around the bend, mental health wise. Sometimes you get lucky and something good happens. Sometimes you get unlucky and the opposite occurs. But it's not under the control of any one person. Know this ahead of time. Acknowledge it to yourself, and worship at the altar of accepting these things as they are. By the way, if I were selling, I'd make certain your prospective buyer is aware of upcoming issues that may negatively influence the neighborhood. Even if you didn't know, if they can make a case that you should have, that may be good enough to win in the courts. It depends upon the jurisdiction. Talk to a lawyer in your area to be certain.

Of course, the geography of the land you can consider as fixed. Weather also. Even if you own a large enough parcel to move your house to a better location on the lot, or even to level that hill that's threatening to slide down on top of you every time it rains, your return on that investment is not going to repay the cash it costs you. Earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods. You might was well consider that the price tag includes a certain probability per year of each.

Knowing, or learning, the difference between what you do and don't control, and what is and isn't profitable to upgrade, is a large part of the battle of finding a good property to invest in, whether you intend to flip in two months or whether you intend to live there for the rest of your life. A good agent, who's not dependent upon the tollbooth model of business, will be an immense help to the selection process or the sales process, and likely to make - or save - you enough money to pay their commission several times over, and more so if you include them in your planning process.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The stock market has a phenomenon where a company's stock is "Priced for perfection." It may sound nice, but "priced for perfection" is emphatically not a good thing. It's where the stock price of a company has been bid up so much that only if absolutely everything goes the company's way is it going to be a good investment. If anything doesn't fall the company's way, their stock will prove to have been overpriced because the income stream will then not support the stock price at current market levels. In a nutshell, an analyst who tells you a stock is "priced for perfection" is telling you that it's very likely you'll lose money in the short term, and even if it's a good solid company the time to buy is not now.

Real estate has a similar phenomenon. Real estate agents aren't stock analysts, so I've never heard someone else use the phrase in this context, but it's very similar to the stock market phenomenon of the same name. I saw a property a few days ago that brought the concept to mind more strongly than any other I've seen recently.

The first thing that leaped out at you was that this property was a work of art. Someone had put a huge amount of money and labor into this property. The kitchen was almost brand new, well laid out, and had pretty much every amenity or convenience I can think of. The floors were all beautiful. The back yard pool needed to be resurfaced, but the entire thing was laid out beautifully for entertaining. The front bedroom had been converted to a very functional and attractive office. Both bathrooms were gorgeous and modern. The electrical was wonderful. Even the garage had been done up with a dozen or so tall cedar(!) storage cabinets.

But the more I thought about it, the less I liked the property. First off, it was a tiny house with tiny rooms on a tiny lot - it was only the fact it was vacant that prevented it from driving this point home on the level of a ball-peen hammer between the eyes. My clients were talking about moving walls to make it more livable, and with everything they thought of, I immediately had a reason why they didn't want to do that, relating to either eventual sale value or severely impacted livability in the meantime. You literally could not do anything to improve the house without adversely impacting something else. My clients were hung up on how gorgeous the whole thing was "But this room is small and we want it bigger" and I had to explain that you could get the room by taking it from the kitchen or garage. If you take it from the kitchen, there goes that beautiful kitchen you love and the family area goes away. If you take it from the garage, you lost half those storage cabinets you love. Want to expand the master? Same trouble. The Second bedroom? There goes a third of that yard you love, and all that's left is a small ring around the pool. There simply was no room. The current owners had done literally everything that could be done.

Then there was the matter that the neighborhood was in such a condition as led me to believe it had seen better days, and this was the smallest house on the smallest lot. The investment potential in such circumstances is limited, to say the least. The house was priced with a premium for how beautiful it was now - but new appliances get old, beautiful surfaces do age, and entropy will take its toll. The more I thought about it, the more strongly I was against my clients buying it. The only thing in favor of buying it is the same thing in favor of buying any residential property right now - the generally low price condition of the market in general.

The entire effect was a property that just oozed the "I'm beautiful! Buy me!" vibe that works so very well on the majority of middle class buyers. And if it was a "forever and ever" house where you just wanted to live there exactly as it was, and didn't care about how much your heirs get after you die, there would be no reason not to buy it. But such buyers are exceedingly rare. I can think of one such set I've had in the last three years, and the people I was with weren't them, so as I explained the property's shortcomings to them, I kept going back to what their Plan was, which included likely moving again in a few years.

Lest you misunderstand, it was neither a Misplaced Improvement nor a Vampire Property. It was in excellent shape; the only repair bill I could see coming was resurfacing the pool. And the neighborhood supported its value just fine, thank you. No, the neighborhood wasn't beautiful, but it was decent, and everywhere you looked were bigger properties on bigger lots. If they weren't so exquisitely cared for, they still supported the value of this property just fine. The problem with this property was precisely how beautiful it was, which made it attractive to Mr. and Ms. Middle class, and therefore quite likely to bid the sales price up and considerably over the real value of the property. Future value appreciation would be limited to general market increases, less the effects of time on all of the beautiful surfaces that are freshly installed now, less the effects of what looks like a neighborhood that is on a gradual downslope relative to the general market.

Would I have pointed any of this out if I were the listing agent? Are you out of your mind? When listing, my responsibility is to get the highest price for the quickest sale and the fewest issues. If I were the listing agent, I would have pointed out all of the beautiful areas and exquisite craftsmanship, and kept my mouth shut about how small it was and how their plans to move this wall or that would adversely impact everything else. That's the listing agent's legal duty, it's good business and it's even fair, honest and ethical dealing.

In this case however, I was acting on behalf of the buyers, so I had an obligation to talk to my clients and save them from being seduced by the property, or at least enter into the relationship with their eyes open. If on sober reflection they had wanted to make an offer anyway, I certainly would have done so, but it's the buyer's agent's legal duty to point out and explain any downsides they see to a property. That many alleged buyer's agents fail in this is not an excuse for me to do so. It's also a crucial difference between a discount agent who rebates a percentage of their commission and a real buyer's agent. I saved my clients a lot more than the entire agency commission by talking them out of this property; something a discounter would never do. Not to mention that they would have been miserable the entire time they were in the property. Which means I may not get paid for my work that day, but when I do get paid, I will have earned every penny before they even see the property they eventually do buy, by keeping them out of this financial disaster waiting to happen. It will happen to someone - but not my clients.

This is one more illustration of why you want a good buyer's agent, and why you want to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agency agreement. A bad or discount agent will never spot this problem, and if you don't give them the security of knowing you're willing to keep working with them as long as they do a good job, there's no incentive for even the good agent to mention it. I would have told them anyhow - what's right for my clients is right for me, period. But it shouldn't be news to anyone that there are agents who will keep quiet about such things if you're only asking them to show you one property. Find a Good Buyer's Agent and be willing to sign the standard non-exclusive agency contract. It really does protect you.

Caveat Emptor

I am buying a home, but the contract said they wont sell the oil rights, what does this means? should I buy

That was J Paul Getty's great contribution to real estate, and why he got so rich. He retained the mineral rights on every parcel he sold, and it has become standard practice in the industry nationwide, if not worldwide, with respect to most property. Such rights typically pass without any rights of ingress (meaning they can't enter your property), but it typically isn't difficult for the holders to buy rights of ingress from someone in the area. This means they can't sink a mine shaft on your property unless you sell them the rights to do so. It is to to be noted that you're not likely to be real happy if one of your neighbors sells them access, either, but you can't control that directly. Zoning boards and conditional use permits and all of that, not to mention the courts. I'm neither a lawyer nor any kind of elected official so I am not going there.

Odds are that the person selling you the property does not, themselves, own the mineral rights. Most developers have bought the property without mineral rights attached, or if they did buy them, they have most likely long since sold them to some speculator. Even if you buy from a developer, they probably don't own the mineral rights any more, let alone the property's post developer homeowners, who didn't buy them in the first place. Since they can't sell what they don't own, that's what the contract is going to say, period. If you want a parcel with mineral rights, look elsewhere. If you want a place to live, all it means is that the chances of you getting a mineral windfall change from remote to zero.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I just moved into a rental house with an option to buy. I figure I can probably save up around $40-45k for a down payment in three years. how should i save? The Roth IRA tax loophole for first time home buyers maxes out at $10k and takes 5 years anyway. It sounds dumb, but the best safe short term investment I can think of is savings bonds. There has to be something better!

When I originally wrote this, a down payment was not a requirement. For people with not too horrible credit, who can document enough income to afford the loan, at or below a conforming loan amount, 100% financing was available. Unless you've got access to a VA loan, that is no longer the case. Every other loan requires one. I'm confident lenders will start doing 100% loans again within a few years, but if you wait until then, you're going to miss the appreciation that's going to convince them to bring it back.

Now to the possibilities. A Roth IRA, along with traditional IRA, 401k, etcetera, are special accounts with tax advantages which are mostly forfeit if you intend to use them for relatively short term goals. More important is your choice of investment vehicle.

Your major constraints here are a relatively short time frame and you want a certain amount of safety. The idea of investing the money is that you want to get more money, not lose your investment savings.

So if you're going to move outside the realm of guaranteed investments for this purpose, you are going to worship at the altar of diversification. Stocks generally go up, but can go down (roughly 28 percent of all years since records have been kept), and indeed, are not anything like a panacea. Therefore, if you're going to risk the stock market or the bond market in order to obtain their higher returns, you're going to want to diversify, diversify, diversify in order to prevent anything short of a general market decline from ruining your investment.

With that firmly in mind, individual stocks are probably not a good idea. If successful, the idea is that the income will be mostly capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. Unfortunately for this idea, it's hard to get efficient and diversified individual stock investment for less than $100k. At $100,000, you've got a down payment to be extremely proud of.

The same with individual bonds to an even greater extent. When most bonds run in $10,000 to $50,000 denominations, diversifying is not really an option when you're just trying to save up for a down payment. If one of your bonds suffered a significant downgrade, bond price would take a hit, and therefore a very large part of your investment would suffer a setback.

Next on the list is government savings bonds and bank CDs. These offer a guaranteed return. The problems are that it's a mediocre return at best, and it's all ordinary income. Still, 5.5% or so for bank CDs is safe and secure, even if it reduces to about 4% after taxes. US Treasury securities have a four year minimum holding period to get their guarantee. Me? I stopped loaning the government money twenty years ago.

All of the various insurance products are a bad idea. You're saving for something you want within five years, not something forty years away or trying to insure a possible loss. Nor does the tax treatment help. Secure commodities investment is one of those oxymorons.

Finally, there are mutual funds. These are diversified by their very nature. In fact, my usual complaint is that they are too diversified, but in this case, that's actually good. Pick a good fund family that covers all of the major asset classes, including bonds. Yes, you pay management fees (and advisement fees or a sales load if you are smart to help keep you from over-reacting to short term market events), but you can average nine to 13 percent per year, pretax, seven to ten afterward. A large portion of gains will be capital gains, taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. This isn't a certain or guaranteed investment, and can lose some of your principal, even all of it in theory. Nonetheless if you're comfortable taking what is in my estimation a small amount of risk, it can really pay off.

Caveat Emptor

Original here