June 2023 Archives

Can I qualify for first time home buyer financing if I buy a duplex and live in one and rent out the other?

I thought if I bought a duplex, lived in one side and rented out the other would be a good idea to help pay the mortgage. I would live there for a couple years then move and rent the entire duplex as an investment property

It would be very popular to answer "yes".

However, the fact is that the only nationwide first time buyer program in existence, the Mortgage Credit Certificate, explicitly disallows all multiple unit property from participating.

Furthermore, I've dealt with the federally funded local first time buyer programs throughout southern California (in excess of forty different municipalities). In every single case I'm familiar with, it's a requirement that it be a single family residence. Just like the MCC, no duplexes, no apartment buildings, no "2 on 1" properties. Condos, townhomes, and PUDs are fine, but nothing intended for more than one family to live in.

People sometimes get confused because of the way residential property is defined (1-4 units), but just because something qualifies as residential property doesn't mean it is eligible for a first time buyer program.

Finally, for every first time buyer program I'm aware of, the government assistance goes away (as with the MCC), or worse, becomes immediately due should you move out. For example, in one San Diego suburb they have a very nice "silent second" program. It means you only have to actually pay the mortgage on a potentially much smaller amount, usually wiping out a need for PMI or a conventional second mortgage, while the city's second accrues at a very low rate. But if you move out, they'll call the loan, which means you've got thirty days to get them their money somehow before they foreclose.

(They also flatly refuse to subordinate, meaning you're not going to be able to refinance without paying them off, so you'd better choose a fixed rate loan that you can really afford for your primary mortgage in the first place)

There may be municipalities somewhere where this is permitted under their local programs, but I've never heard of one, and I do suspect it's prohibited in the legislation and regulations for the federal administration that funds these local programs. The First Time Buyer programs are intended to stabilize neighborhoods, and make it a little easier for people to be able to afford to buy housing they intend to live in. They are not intended to help you build a real estate empire - as a matter of fact, that's somewhat counter to their purpose.

First time buyer programs are also never free of strings. If you intend on taking advantage of these programs, it would behoove you to make certain you understand what those strings are, as well as all of the implications, before you've got a purchase contract. Some of the strings on first time buyer programs are real deal-killers. For example, a city about a half hour's drive from my office has one that looks really nice at first glance, but restricts both who you sell to and what you can sell for, eviscerating the economic benefits of ownership and making you essentially a renter who also pays maintenance and property taxes. Unless you're just going to live there forever, which may not be under your control, that's not a desirable situation. Probably better to buy in the city next door to that one, which has a more useful for your financial future "silent second" program much like the one described above. You need to be careful with first time buyer's programs, lest you end up in a situation that does not justify your expenditures with future benefits.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

There's an old saying in sales: "The best way to achieve your dreams is to help others achieve theirs". I wasn't able to run it down to the original attribution, but it is as true a saying as can be imagined. The first thing to understand about any transaction that doesn't flow from the point of a metaphorical gun is that all parties are made better off thereby. The way to get as much as possible for a property is to show prospective buyers that they are getting as much as possible for their money.

As a seller you have real property. As fantastic an investment as it is, it is also completely illiquid. You can't go up to the counter at the grocery store and pay with a couple square millimeters off your lot. You have to have cash and for whatever reason, you have decided you want cash. You can't spend real estate, just like you can't live in cash. Buyers have cash or the ability to get what is cash to you via the loan they take out to cover the difference, and they want a property. Therefore, you have the makings of a real exchange that leaves both parties better off provided that you can persuade them that your property is the one that they want.

What you want is for prospective buyers to be willing to pay you as much cash as possible. Since Make-believe loans are no longer with us, this means you have to show real value to them. At the present time, the only widely available loan that does not require a down payment is the VA loan, and selling to someone with a VA loan has its own set of issues. What this means is that the buyers need a down payment, and they are going to have to qualify for a real loan with an ongoing income stream. Neither one of these is easy. Buyers understand money they had to build up for the down payment dollar by dollar out of their paychecks is real money much more clearly and at a more visceral level than they have the same understanding about money they borrow. They understand the payments they are going to have to make at least as clearly, and neither one of these is subject to the same kind of handwaving "let's pretend you can do it" loan qualification as they were a few years ago. Therefore, buyers are aware of value today in a way they were not aware of it a very few years ago.

One thing that you must understand in your bones before your property hits the market is that buyers are shopping for the lowest possible price for the best property they can get. Nobody ever bought a property because it was that property's "turn" - quite the opposite in fact, as the longer it's on the market, the less valuable a property is perceived as being. They bought it because it was the best value for them that they could afford. If there's a better property out there cheaper than yours, that's the one buyers will want. They will not automatically come to your property when that one sells, either, unless you're the best remaining value on the market. If another property comes on the market that's a better value, that's the one people will want instead of yours. It's what you did when you bought. Understand that's what everyone else wants to do when they buy. You are competing for those buyers attention and you are competing for their desire.

Fortunately for sellers, every buyer values property in slightly different ways, and therein lies your potential for profit. Some buyers want the absolute cheapest property they can get, while most people will pay more for certain amenities. But what every single buyer has in common is that you have to offer them something that they perceive as being more valuable to them than the difference in price between yours and the cheaper property down the block or around the corner. Not more valuable to you, the owner. More valuable to them, the buyer. Otherwise, they're going to buy the cheaper property, or at least make an offer on that one instead of yours.

Each and every buyer has a mental list of amenities they are willing to pay extra for, and ones that they are not. If your property is priced higher because you expect them to be willing to pay more for something in particular and they are not, your property is stricken from their list. The more things you try this with, the narrower your marketing niche. This is why you need to understand how prospective buyers think - what marketing folks call "hitting a target market" You or your agent need to understand the target market for your property, and work to hit it. This is not to say that no property ever sold to someone who wasn't in the precise target market, but those people are not usually willing to offer as much money, which defeats your aim in properly marketing the property because you want the people who are willing to pay the most for your property. People are willing in general to pay more for beautiful kitchens, good floor plans, extra bathrooms and nicely landscaped yards they can actually enjoy, but not every person and every target market is so willing. Your area, your neighborhood, and your location also influence your target market, and most particularly, the target market's willingness to make an offer and their willingness to make a higher offer in negotiations. Practically everything else in the way of amenities means you are trying to hit a narrower target market in order to get the most money, and any time you narrow your appeal, you have to make even more effort to be more attractive to the prospective buyers who are left in your target market.

Another thing to understand is that if the prospective buyer cannot see the property with their own eyes, they are not likely to make an offer, and they are definitely not going to make a good offer. The phrase "pig in a poke" comes to mind. Fewer people who are able to see your property means a lower selling price. What this means in practical terms is make the bar to seeing the property as low as you possibly can. Yes, it's a pain when someone wants to see the property and you had a quiet day at home planned, but think of it this way: Your property is probably valued at least $600,000 (at least in San Diego that's a good ballpark mode, in the mathematical sense of the word). If it makes a difference of 1% to your sales price, you are effectively paying yourself $6000 for a month or less of making your property accessible - and 1% is a very low estimate of the difference this makes to sales price. Put the heirlooms away, put the dog in a run or a portable kennel, get a lockbox on the door so people can see it when you or your agent aren't there (both conditions make it much less likely you'll get an offer). If it's tenant occupied, anything you spend to negotiate with them to make the property completely accessible will likely more than pay for itself. When my clients ask me "can we see the property today?" and the answer is "No, because it's tenant occupied and we need to have 24 hours advance notice" what do you think happens? We go see other properties, and if they like one of those, they're no longer interested in yours. When that happens, you're left with something you don't want - an unsold property. If you still wanted it, it wouldn't be on the market, now would it?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Having done both, there's no question in my mind. For the average person and the average transaction, the buyer's agent makes a lot more difference. In the aggregate, a good buyer's agent has the opportunity to make a lot more difference to the situation than a listing agent.

There are exceptions. I don't know any rules of thumb that don't. But the leverage is all on the side of the buyer's agent. There is nothing about the situation that the listing agent deals with that does not have its roots in the purchase of that property.

That listing agent does a lot of work, and provides a lot of value. They have absolutely no input, however, on the identity of the property being sold. You can clean it, paint it, put additions in, landscape it, and stage it. It's still the same property the people originally bought, however long ago. Nothing that listing agent can do is going to change the location or basic construction. If those are a problem, it's because of the buyer's agent, who could have directed the owners to a different property. Without a bulldozer, nobody is changing the basic construction, and nobody is changing the location of the property, period.

Maybe there was no buyer's agent. The observation stands. Whether the people acted as their own agent or went along with Dual Agency, somebody did it. If a better buyer's agent, or one actually working for the buyers, could or would have brought something to the owner's attention that led to them not making an offer on that property, they wouldn't own it now. Therefore, it lies squarely in the purview of the buyer's agent.

From the first moment prospective owners consider visiting a property, the buyer's agent is involved. Even before. The buyer's agent should be working with the prospective owners on what they can afford, what they must have, and what they can live without. Everything in real estate is a tradeoff. Price versus number of bedrooms versus location versus time to buy versus literally hundreds of other characteristics. Amenities that will make a positive difference later, whether in price or in ease of sale, are a buyer's agent's responsibility, as is keeping people from paying extra for things that don't make a difference.

Your ability to enjoy a property for the period of time you live in it traces directly to how well the buyer's agent did their job. All of that time you lived in the property, whether you realize it or not, you were either praising or cursing that buyer's agent. Maybe you could have done better with a bigger budget for the purchase - but the buyer's agent can always make a difference. Maybe you could have done better with more patience - it's up to the buyer's agent to make that clear. Whether you're able to rent it afterwards, how easily and for how much, the marketability of the property when it comes time to sell, the repairs you have to make, and the differential between that property and the rest of the neighborhood as far as desirability and sale price, all trace back to how well the buyer's agent did their job.

Owners can modify property. The buyer's agent should have made clear what's likely to make a difference in the sale price, and what's more likely to end up being simply for your own enjoyment. Most major work typically does not return anything like 100% of the cost in terms of sale price, meaning the remainder of that cost had better be indicative of how much enjoyment you personally got out of it in the interim. A good agent will go over likely remodels that will do you some good, whether they're helping you buy or sell, but truthfully, in which case (right after purchase or getting ready to sell) is it more likely you'll do some significant work?

The most salient part of a buyer's agent's job is to keep you from wasting money - paying more for the property than you can get an equally valuable property for nearby. By the time the listing agent comes on the scene, that's a moot point. The property is what it is and is worth what it's worth. If it's good, the listing agent has a much better success story. If it's not, all the listing agent can do amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic so the sinking goes in a more seaworthy manner with no more casualties than necessary. On listings, it's really rare that I have have more than two weeks to work with a property before it hits the market. I can help the owners make what's there more visually attractive, but I can't really change it much in most cases. When I'm helping buyers, the vast majority of the time I can keep them from dealing with a problem property at all.

When I'm listing, my clients own a property, and they would like to exchange it for cash. I can get more people interested enough to view it, I can stage it so it's more attractive to them, and I can definitely concentrate my efforts on people fitting the property in terms of lifestyle and requirements. But the property itself pretty much already has to fit their requirements, at a price they can afford. If it doesn't do the former, they won't make an offer, and if it doesn't do the latter, the escrow will fail, as the era of make-believe loans is over. I can't really make a two bedroom structure into a three, no matter how many agents try by entering the larger number. I can't magically add another tub, or an entire bathroom, either. If the lot is 5000 square feet, steeply sloped, and planted in water efficient desert plants, that property is not likely to be attractive to the family who wants a place for their young children to play outside. Potential buyers are going to figure the basic elements of this out, and they'll do it before they make an offer. It's not like it requires any intellectual feats more impressive than Og the Australopithecus was capable of. Or even George of the Jungle. I can market the property ahead of this curve, or behind it. The former leads to fewer showings, but better, more qualified prospects. The latter leads to frustrated clients who have opened their house to dozens of prospects, but no offers. That's one of many real differences the listing agent makes.

But when I'm helping some people buy, the only limits upon the process are the number of properties that match my client requirements. My buyer has either cash, or the ability to get it, and that's what every seller wants. Consider groceries: With a few dollars you can always walk into the store and buy a loaf of bread of your choice. But if you choose the wrong loaf, changing that loaf of bread for back into dollars is a lot more problematical. The same principle applies, greatly magnified, to real estate.

Good agents can spot most of the signs of destructive settling, of likely non-permitted additions, leaky roofs, bad plumbing, ancient wiring, and the vast majority of the time, good agents will talk clients out of a problem property before it gets to the point of an offer, and steer them to a property that they're going to be much happier with (and usually for about the same price, if not less). This translates to a property that's much easier to sell, and for a higher price, than the one I talked them out of. Not to mention fewer, less costly repairs, and increased general enjoyment for the time they live there. Not to mention administrative details such as if the sellers of the Nightmare (house) on Elm Street never have my client's deposit money, we definitely don't have to go hand to hand combat in the courts to get it back, and if they don't get into a bad situation in the first place, my clients don't have to pay attorneys to get them out of it - Maybe.

If our clients want to know what my company's stake in them buying one property versus another, I think we should tell them (once we look it up). It shouldn't be relevant to the thought process of either client or agent. Either this property is the one with the better trade-offs for the buyers, or it isn't. If it's not, I shouldn't be trying to sell it to them. If it is the best possible purchase, the fact that the seller wants to pay my company eight percent of the sales price to get it sold versus two and a half or three doesn't make it not so (and no, I've never seen anything higher than five, although the ones offering more than customary are as likely to be overpriced as the ones offering too little, and more likely to have problems that will be revealed at some point in the escrow process). Still, If my client wants to weigh my motivation, they're entitled to do so. If I need to do some introspection on my own motivations, pretending I don't isn't going to help me. But the vast majority of the time, it means I need to explain myself better, and show the client so they can see what I'm talking about with their own eyes.

When you really think about who makes the most difference to the future of the prospective client, basically all of the factors line up on the side of the buyer's agent. There is usually nothing about any situation any listing agent ever deals with that does not have its roots in an issue a buyer's agent did or did not deal with. Talk with successful, experienced, long term, multiple property investors. They'll tell you the same thing - they made most of what they made because of what they bought or didn't buy. The money was really made on the purchase; the sale only formalized the exact dollar amount. This also illustrates why you need to be able to get rid of ineffective buyer's agents, hence my recommendation of non-exclusive buyer's agency agreements. It's easy for agents to talk a good game in the office, and it's easy to burn a few listings they don't really want you to buy. You want someone who will continue to be a good buyer's agent, because they haven't got you trapped by their agreement for months. The vast majority of the people I work with never go see another agent, but that's always their choice, because they know from having seen me in action that they're not likely to find anyone as good, not because I have them stuck in an exclusive agreement for six months. Show me someone who requires an exclusive agreement, and I'll show you someone who isn't secure in their own ability.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

This article started with another one of those desperate consumer fishing calls a while ago. Loan standards have tightened since then (In my considered opinion, over-tightened and the lenders and Wall Street will figure it out within a couple years). Stated Income is no longer available, and as much as I dislike stated income loans, there is a group of people for whom they are the right choice. Negative amortization (aka "Option ARM" "Pick a Pay" and many other friendly sounding names) is no longer available, and that's 99.999% a very good thing, but there was a tiny niche of people who had a legitimate use for them.

This particular phone call began with her saying said she had to have an Option ARM. I told her I had them available to me (then), but...

She interrupted me to say she had to have it Stated Income, or if necessary, no documentation. Yes, I told her, even those are still available (they were at the time), but...

She interrupted me again, wanting to know if they were no points and no prepayment penalty. I said that while I hadn't done a loan with a prepayment penalty in years, Option ARMS without prepayment penalties didn't exist. I'd looked, back then. Whereas there were no legal impediments I was aware of, it wasn't the way negative amortization lenders did business. She then said, "We've come to the end of the conversation," and hung up.

Obviously, she's been burned by someone. Just as obviously, someone else gave her a shopping checklist for a loan, or she made it up herself. She wants it all, she's not going to settle until she gets it, and she's not going to let some horrible awful salesperson lead her astray like last time. In fact, she's so determined on this point that she's not going to let anyone try to save her, either.

As regular readers have no doubt figured out by now, here's her history. She didn't tell me this, but It doesn't take much if you understand the way the market went during the relevant time period.

She either bought a property more expensive than she could really afford, or refinanced a property she already owned for cash out, and could not afford a real loan now. Not understanding that minimum payment is not the same thing as the cost of the money, and that you should Never Choose A Loan (or a House) Based Upon Payment, she signed upon the dotted line, not really understanding anything that was going on except that she wanted that house, or that cash.

Along she went, happy as a clam, until she got smacked upside the head with the real cost of money, aka the interest rate she was paying. Gravity never quhttp://www.searchlightcrusade.net/2020/03/loan_qualification_standards_l_3.htmlits, and compound interest working against you is even worse than that.

And here's where it gets really sad. Instead of figuring out her mistake, or cutting her losses, she is determined to repeat the mistake and make it worse. So determined that she's not going to let anyone stop the process before it gets even worse than it is today, however bad that is. She didn't mention anything about loan to value ratio, but I'll bet it was higher than the 80% that's the most any lender would have accepted at that time for stated income (if debt to income ratio wasn't outside of any acceptable range there would have been better loans to do in the first place). What's the definition of insanity again?

The loan she wants is not going to happen. But that won't stop people from telling her that they can do it, figuring once they get an application and psychological investment, not to mention hundreds of dollars of her cash, then they come up with something else at final loan signing, chances are that she'll sign it and they'll get paid. I went over this in The Doctrine of Delaying The Moment Of Truth. The loan they'll get her probably won't be as bad as what she wants, but it's unlikely to do her any good. She owes what she owes. If she could afford the loan, she wouldn't need stated income or negative amortization, and she probably wouldn't have needed them in the first place.

Furthermore, she's shopping her loan from a checklist of things somebody told her were good or bad, completely ignorant of the fact that she can't have them all. There's a reason I tell people they need to ask all the questions on this list from a prospective loan provider. It's not a simple matter of shopping your loan until you get everything on a shopping list. Some things do not go together at all, like negative amortization loans without a prepayment penalty. In all cases, there are tradeoffs between A and B, C and D. You decide which you want more, or which you don't want more, or, in the case of points and cost vs. rate, where on the spectrum of the tradeoff between rate and cost you want to be. Some providers may give you a better set of tradeoffs than others, but those tradeoffs still exist, and pretending they don't is a good way to end up with a putrid loan. Somebody will tell you about a loan that doesn't exist in order to get you to sign up with them.

Before you can ask the questions, however, you've got to let a professional have a reasonable chance at figuring out the best loan for your situation. In order to do that, you've got tell them enough information so they know what your situation is. After I propose a solution, then you can ask those questions and give me the third degree, and if you're smart, you're going to shop it around until you get a couple or three different opinions, and cross check the information each provides against the other. You might still get conned, especially if you don't make the effort of comparing and cross-checking answers. But as I went over in The Ultimate Consumer Horror Story, if you won't talk to sales persons, as in real conversations, I can pretty much guarantee you're coming away with your own private version of the Nightmare (mortgage) on Elm Street.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here