Dan Melson: November 2012 Archives

There's a lot that gets written on this subject, mostly by loan officers looking for business. Well, don't think I'm not looking for business, but not with this post. Or if anybody calls me because of this, at least I'll know they understand how to do it right.

The basic come-on is this: Your home has appreciated in value, and is worth more than you paid for it, so now you have equity on the one hand. On the other hand, you have loads of consumer debt, which is costing you hundreds or even thousands of dollars per month, which is impacting your lifestyle. So you borrow on the equity in your home and save money on your payments as well as causing them to be tax deductible in most cases, or at least so the traditional thinking goes. In actuality, it's only the actual purchase money where the debt is tax deductible, while cash out is not. My understanding is that the IRS has been starting to crack down on this.

Let's illustrate the situation with some numbers. Let's say Arnie and Annie have a $300,000 loan on a home that they bought in 1998, and comparable properties in the neighborhood are now selling for $600,000. This is 300,000 in equity.

On the other hand, because they are American consumers, Arnie and Annie have a hard time living within their means. They've got $15,000 in consumer credit, a $10,000 home improvement loan, and two new SUVs with associated debt of $20,000 and $30,000. These are fairly typical numbers.

Arnie and Annie's mortgage payments are currently $1720 per month, because they refinanced to 5.25% in 2003 when the rates hit bottom. Their monthly payments on the credit cards are $400. The payments on the SUVs are $500 and $600 per month, respectively. The payment on their $10,000 home improvement loan for landscaping is maybe $150. Arnie and Annie are forking out $3370 per month without taking into account stuff like property taxes, insurance, utilities, etcetera. It's really cramping their lifestyle.

Suppose they consolidate these loans into one payment on a thirty year home loan? All right, so it costs them anywhere from zero to $20,000 to get the loan done. Let's split the difference and say $10,000. That's about two points plus closing costs.

This adds up to a $385,000 loan. When I originally wrote this article, that was a jumbo loan amount, but that is no longer the case. With a 30 day lock, that would have gotten you 5.875% or thereabouts when I originally wrote this on a thirty year fixed rate loan. The new payment: $2277. Voila! Despite the higher interest rate, Arnie and Annie are saving almost $1100 per month!

Or are they? On the credit cards, their monthly interest was $225; their $400 payment would have paid the cards off in less than five years. The interest on the SUVs was $333 total on the two, and their payments would have had them done in about five years. The home improvement was a ten year loan but even so their monthly interest was only $75. Now these are all thirty year debts. The monthly interest on their old home loan was $1312. The interest charges on their home loan is now $1884, where total interest was $1945 previously. So they are actually saving money on interest.

The difference is that now they're not paying the old loans off as fast - they've spread the principal over thirty years. In the meantime, the bank is getting all this lovely money in the form of interest from them, and if they refinance about every two years as most people seem to do, this is $85,000 more that they owe on their home, and that Arnie and Annie will pay points and fees on every time they refinance! Meanwhile, Annie and Arnie are quite often out charging up more debt they'll consolidate into their home loan, and they'll keep doing this trick for as long as they can.

Let's assume Annie and Arnie beat the odds and don't refinance for five full years. This puts them ahead of 95 percent of the people out there. Let's look at where they'll be five years out if they make the minimum payment. They will owe $357,700 on their home. On the plus side, they will have had $66,000 to spend on other things (and they likely will, if they are typical Americans). Total debt: $357,700.

If they had continued making their previous payments, they would now owe $272,100. Plus they would be done with the SUV's and the credit cards and would only owe $6600 on the home improvement loan which they could now concentrate on. Total debts: 278,700.

Net difference: $79,000. Subtract that $66,000 they had real good time with (and nothing to show for), and they're still $13,000 in the hole.

They do have a $572 per month potential additional deduction, assuming they are willing to risk the wrath of the IRS as the "cash out" is not supposed to be deductible and the IRS is getting better at picking it up. Assuming they are in the 28% tax bracket and get to deduct the full amount, that gives them $9,600 less that they owe the government in taxes. Net amount Annie and Arnie are out are out: $3400, in addition to being set up for higher fees on future loans, and having a loan balance $77,100 higher. Additional interest they will pay because of the higher balance if they can get a loan at 5 percent even: $3855 per year.

Sounds like an awful bargain doesn't it? Many consumers have done this three and four times, or more. I run across people who bought their home in the early 1970s, and have mortgage balances ten to twelve times the original purchase price.

That's doing it wrong. Now I'm going to talk about doing it right. Suppose that instead of milking our equity for cash flow, where we're trying to minimize our monthly payments, we do it differently. Same situation, same numbers, but instead of spending that $993 per month, we use it to pay down our mortgage.

Actually, let's pay $3300 per month, so we still have $70 per month to spend elsewhere. After five years, we still owe $286,600. We got $4200 to spend elsewhere. And all of our other debts are gone. In addition, there's that illicit $9600 in tax reductions. Net amount to us versus the "do nothing" option: $5800, although we still owe $8000 more, and if we get a 7% loan, that'll cost us $560 per year. Notice that at this point, the benefits, while tangible, are still fairly small. Furthermore, if we refinanced or sold before this point, as ninety-five percent of everyone does, any benefits we may have gotten in the future disappear.

But: If we keep making that $3300 payment after those five years, and don't roll anything more into the loan, then the mortgage is paid off and we are debt free - the house is paid off, and the other debts are history - in less than ten more years! This relies upon us being thrifty and keeping those old SUV's going and not charging up any more credit and not doing anything else to make the debt worse. In short, not giving in to the marketing culture, not forking over money you don't have, not running up the payments on consumer stuff again. Many people say they won't. Few actually manage it.

So you see, even if you do it right, it takes years to show the benefits of this kind of refinance. This is years of doing something that they do not have to that most folks just won't do. If you have an unsustainable cash flow situation, by all means you've got to do something about it, but don't kid yourself that it's financially fantastic. On the other hand, if you're one of those who have to ability to make the scenario in the last paragraph (or something like it) happen, it's well worth doing.

Now this hypothesis is highly sensitive to initial assumptions. I previously assumed that Annie and Arnie are and always have been top of the line borrowers, able to qualify for anything. Suppose they weren't? Suppose they were in a C grade loan at 7.25%, but now they qualify A paper at 5.875. With a payment of $2070 per month formerly, of which $1812 was interest, the new loan saves them $1450 per month in minimum payments and $561 in actual interest while still saving about $1209 on their taxes over five years. You'd have owed $288,000 on the old program, now even if you put in only the same $3300 per month in payments, you're $1400 ahead of where you would have been on the balance, and you still had about $400 per month to spend. On the other hand, if Annie and Arnie were A paper but now they are applying for a C grade loan, it cannot be justified on anything except "the cash flow keeps us out of bankruptcy!" because it's financial disaster.

Some alert people will have noticed I didn't explicitly include the $10,000 cost of the loan in the computations of whether you're better off. That's because it is gone, sunk, included in the computations of where you ended up. It was part of your initial loan balance if you did it, included in the ending balance, and therefore included in the computations of whether you were better off. Now, if the cost of doing the loan were lower, there would be somewhat larger benefits a little bit faster, and indeed a lower cost loan is probably a better idea for most people, even though it means the rate and payment will be slightly higher. See my article on Why You Should Ignore APR for more.

The important thing to remember is to not get distracted by the fact that your minimum monthly payment goes down, and see if you (and your prospective loan officer) can come up with a loan and a plan that really makes you better off down the line, instead of one that sucks the life out of you financially, like the vast majority of these scenarios do.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Don Henley has a fun song off his second solo album called "Driving With Your Eyes Closed". I can't find a video performance, but here are the lyrics. It's got a chorus that ends with the line, "You're gonna hit something /but that's the way it goes."

A lot of what I read about the real estate markets reminds me of that song. Mostly, people are looking in a rear view mirror myopically, and think that's going to tell them where the market is going. Not so.

Let me tell you the most important "secret" about the real estate market - or any other market. Short term results are mostly about mass psychology. People are so into what is happening right now that they will react to it the same way as everyone else without thinking, whether it's fear and greed driving the market up or fear and greed driving it down. The short term, in real estate, is this year, next year, and maybe the year after. But the actual real estate transaction is expensive. It can cost you a couple percent just for the transaction to buy real estate, seven to ten percent to sell, so you've got to clear ten to fifteen percent higher price just to break even on the costs. Those costs will more than pay for themselves, but they are there. An average year in my market is about 5% up, and 20% up in one year is one of the best years local real estate has ever had. Short term flippers work by different parameters than most consumers, but these are the market factors most people have to deal with. It takes about three average years to break even on the costs you have to pay for the transaction.

This is enough to take the majority of real estate investing out of the frame of the short term market, controlled by mass psychology, and into the realm of the medium to long term market, where psychology is a factor, but as time goes on, more and more of your investment results are controlled by pure economics. Supply versus demand. How much people who want housing make. What the interest rate environment is like. Oh, and don't forget the effects of government and public policy. When somebody says, "The market has dropped in the last three months, therefore it's going lower" that is no more correct than the opposite which we had four or five years ago: "The market has been going up - five percent in the last three months alone! Therefore it's going to keep going up!" In either case, making this sort of claim is functionally equivalent to blacking out your windshield and driving by the rear view mirror. "You're gonna hit something, but that's the way it goes!"

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a national market for real estate. It does not exist, and anybody who claims it does is either so clueless as to the nature of real estate markets that you should pat them on the head and say, "That's nice dear. Now run along and play with your Duplos," or they are actively lying. There are factors such as the interest rate environment that influence real estate markets nationally, but there is no national real estate market. In order for a given area to be considered one market, the properties within them must be functionally equivalent for the residents as to location. Let's look at the City of San Diego: No way is San Ysidro, right by the Mexican border, functionally equivalent to Del Mar Heights, twenty-five miles away along the coast on Interstate 5 just north of all the corporate buildings in the Golden Triangle, and neither is equivalent to Rancho Bernardo, which is about that same distance north inland along I-15. All three are part of the City of San Diego, and we haven't even gotten to the suburbs yet, they are three very different markets, with different demographics, different lifestyles, different building styles and all that that implies. For my real estate work, I specialize in and around the City of La Mesa, which borders San Diego on the east, and is different from all three previously described areas, and there are areas of La Mesa which are decidedly different from other areas of La Mesa. These markets are close enough physically to have market interactions, but different enough to constitute different markets - never mind Idaho, Georgia, or Vermont, which are not part of the local commuting area. Talking about a unified countywide market is occasionally a useful fiction, as there are interactions. People are able to commute from home to work and back again, no matter their respective locations within the county. Talking of a national real estate market is blatant nonsense. At most you can talk about a national amalgamation of local markets - a statistical hash of what is going on in all of the individual markets. Even right now with real estate markets in the tank in all the headlines, though, there are local real estate markets that are doing very well, and others that are poised to do so.

You can talk about national factors influencing all of the local real estate environments. Interest rates, lender requirements, legislation in Congress, federal rule-making in general, all of these have a national influence. The markets themselves remain local.

For longer term analysis, you've got to talk about the economics of an area. Current supply versus demand, and where that ratio is going. What do people in the area make? What is the regulatory environment? How difficult is it to build more housing? What are the population trends? What is the economy of the area doing? What are the factors influencing rental price and availability? How likely is any of this to change in the future? It doesn't matter whether people are getting "priced out" or even how many people are getting "priced out." People have been priced out of Manhattan for decades; it hasn't stopped Manhattan real estate from rising in value. What does matter is whether enough people with the economic ability to pay the current prices are available to buy up the new inventory that hits the market. It doesn't matter that people who bought twenty years ago could not afford to buy their properties at current prices. What does matter is that enough people who can afford it will buy to more than balance out the people who want to sell at current prices.

So while you can talk about national trends, any given property sits in a particular local market, and any discussion of whether to buy a given property has to be rooted in the local market situation. National trends may have an influence upon its value. If interest rates go to eight percent, people can only afford about seventy percent of the loan they can afford if interest rates go to five percent, so falling interest rates are a time of rising prices, other things being equal. Of course, interest rates now are lower than when the market was going gangbusters, and prices aren't rising. The explanation is that there are stronger factors at work.

Nonetheless, if a million people want to own property in an area (say, La Jolla) and only 40,000 people can, then the price will be determined by the 40,000 people willing and able to pay the most. If twenty million people want to live in San Diego County and only three million can, the prices will be determined by the three million people willing and to pay the highest prices. End of discussion. Not all properties in all locations are equally valuable of course, but the mix will be determined by what prospective buyers are willing to pay the most for. Note that not all costs are in dollars. Sometimes it's opportunity cost, sometimes it's any number of other costs, such as the risk of earthquake, the heat when the Santa Anas roll in, etcetera. Some people absolutely require living in a six bedroom 3000 square foot house, and if they can't afford the prices those command here, they'll go elsewhere despite the fact that they could easily afford something less expensive. Others will put up with living in a broom closet so long as they can go surfing every day.

Analysis focusing on a market's short term results are largely a study in mob psychology. A few years ago when property was overpriced locally, I couldn't slow people eager to follow the other lemmings with a locomotive. The last year or so, with available property prices well below historical trendlines locally, it's taken entire battalions of wild horses to pull people off the sidelines due to media coverage. But mob psychology is a changeable thing. A co-worker and I were talking about modifying an old T shirt just before I originally wrote this. The original version has two vultures sitting on a tree limb, discussing the negative utility of patience: "Patience MY ---! I'm going to KILL something!" (pardon the vulgarity.) We're going to change the second line to "I'm going to BUY SOMETHING!" That's the mood of the market we we're encountering then. The people who had been holding off seem to have realized that this is about as good as things were going to get for them. Maybe they're tired of waiting. Maybe they realized things were more affordable for them than they were in 2000, let alone 2004. Maybe they got "priced out" during the bubble and want to move before it happens again. Once you buy, it's not like the seller can come back and ask you for more money later because it turned out to be such a wonderful bargain - you're locking in your cost of housing. Putting it under your own control forever. The vultures were starting to swoop.

(Since then, of course, we've had the federal government ruining the economy and the machinery of lending, while pretending that things are getting better. They're not fooling anyone who's making major economic decisions - as evidenced by national housing statistics. We here in California have been hit by the double whammy of a state government that is also run by special interests and so pretends not to understand basic economics because the alternative is politically offending those special interests.)

Analysis on a local market's longer term prognosis have to ignore mob psychology. It's unpredictable on that scale, and nobody ever knows just when it will turn, or how. But there's only so long mob psychology can trump practical economics, which is the norm that any particular market will follow ever more closely the longer you run the experiment. With the recent decline in values, San Diego has dropped significantly below long term value trends and was still below them even with the aborted recovery, let alone since. This means that considering current supply and regulatory barriers to increasing it, demand of people who want to live here, the values that those people can afford to pay, and increasing demand for housing in San Diego, not to mention the changing dynamics of the rental situation (be prepared for rapid increases in rental rates), right now is an excellent time to buy, as prices are below where you would expect, given the longer term factors influencing the San Diego regional housing market.

Articles which consider only short term price fluctuations are looking backwards as we go into the future. They're looking at where we've been, not where we're going. And as always when you're effectively driving with your eyes closed: "You're gonna hit something, but that's the way it goes..."

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

First off, let me make something very plain. All a CBB (Cooperating Buyer's Broker compensation) can do is give good agent an incentive or disincentive to look at the property. A high one will not, by itself, sell the property. A low one will not completely prevent it from being sold. Buyers, being interested in their own bottom line, will persist in choosing the property that offers them the best property for their purposes at the lowest price, and agents with about an hour in the business should understand this. I not only cannot sell a buyer on a property that isn't at least as good a bargain for them as the competing properties, I won't try. It's contrary not only to my client's interest, which should be the ultimate consideration of any agent, but it's not in my interest either.

With that said, you really don't want to do is give agents a reason to sell the other property instead of yours. A cheap CBB does not motivate the agents to work. Suppose a boss told their workers "You will be paid $10 for every green widget you sell. You will be paid $15 for every purple widget you sell." Assume the widgets are identical in every way except color. How many green widgets do you think would get sold versus purple? Sure, they'll sell green if the customer wants it, but that's not going to be what they suggest first. If a customer came in the door wanting a green widget, they'd get a green widget. But if they walk in the door and aren't sure they want a green widget, the sales staff will quite predictably see if they can sell them the purple widget first. If they can, the green widget sits unseen, untried, and unsold.

In real estate, the person who sets that compensation is the owner of the property. There are lots of properties out there, even in a seller's market. Do you want your property to be treated like a green widget, or a purple one?

This isn't evil. Agents have to eat, pay the mortgage, pay expenses, etcetera, and we don't make as much money as people think. Even less so than most people, agents don't get to keep every dollar their company gets paid for their services, and they don't get paid instantly for waving a magic wand. It takes time, work, and expertise - I've spent six months, hundreds of hours, and over a thousand dollars just in immediate expenses working with clients to close a deal. If the company gets paid $10,000 and the agent has an 80% split (better than most), they get $8000 gross. Less monthly desk fees, less per transaction fees, and less fixed expenses of staying in business, that's maybe $6500, and social security eats twice as much of that as normal, leaving about $5400 - and we haven't even considered income taxes or advertising yet. For a solid month of work, and who knows how much time looking before the clients made the offer that was accepted. With practically unlimited liability, and requiring continuous training and work to keep their edge. If it takes 3 months in all, that's barely minimum wage, and most agents work sixty hours per week at a minimum. Quite often, we've got to reduce our commission to put some money back into the transaction so it can close. Sound like a cushy sinecure to you?

Of course, most agents are working with more than one set of clients at a time, but as you can see, a $10,000 commission doesn't translate into a huge windfall for the agent. If the company only gets paid $8000, that translates into maybe $4100 that the agent can use to pay their family's living expenses and taxes. Which do you think they'd rather have, the bigger check or the smaller? Ask yourself what you'd do in their place. If it's a question of the smaller check or nothing at all, there's no question, but there are a lot of properties competing with yours for the available buyers, and more coming onto the market all the time. Do you want to give agents a reason to try and sell your property, or a reason why they'd prefer to sell someone else's property?

With all of this in mind, a screaming deal will sell. You don't have to worry about whether or not the agent is going to be on your side. Buyers will beat a path to your door, with or without an agent. However, pricing your property as a screaming deal is not something most rational owners want to do. They want to get top dollar for that property, and it takes at least ten percent below the rest of the market - more likely twenty - to get attention as a screaming deal. I've said this before, most notably in How to Sell Your Home Quickly and For The Best Possible Price, but this is twenty percent off the correct asking price, not the owner's fevered dreams of greed. The average CBB around here is three percent. So, save three percent to lose twenty? Not something I'd do. Furthermore, you're not going to put up a CBB of zero, no matter how low it's priced. I've explained before why the seller pays the buyer's agent. Finally, if you end up needing to give the buyer an allowance for closing costs to get the property sold, you're quite likely giving out with the other hand the same money you withheld in the first place, as buyers paying their agent is a closing cost. Why not put it out there in the first place, where it is likely to do you some good?

The differences a higher CBB makes for the seller are three: You don't have to worry whether buyers needing to come up with cash to close to pay their agent will impact buyer cash to close, you get more attention for your property more quickly and more consistently, and you don't have to worry about buyer's agents creating reasons not to buy your property. Put yourself in this situation: Most buyers are reluctant to pull the trigger on a half million dollars. They need some good hand-holding and reasons to buy, and instead, their agent is looking for a reasons to help convince them why they want to buy some other property instead. Do you think it might take longer for the property to sell? With carrying costs of somewhere around two-thirds of a percent per month for most properties, if a CBB a half percent higher gets the property sold three weeks faster, you are ahead of the game. The time difference will almost certainly be more than that, and - statistical fact - the longer your property sits unsold, the lower the price it will sell for.

If you want to offer a low CBB, that's your prerogative. The property had better sell itself enough better than anything comparable to still the doubters - and practically every buyer is a doubter. The lower it is, the worse it will be, the longer you'll have to pay carrying costs, and the lower your final sales price. A low CBB, especially in conjunction with other factors about the listing can advertise to buyer's agents that you aren't ready to sell yet, warning them of a difficult transaction. If I can find a model match with an obviously motivated seller around the corner, why should I take my buyer to yours? We're going to get a better price on the same thing with the property around the corner, there will be fewer issues with the transaction, and the fact that I'll make more money even though my client got a lower price is pure bonus for being a good agent. Call it karma.

On the other hand, offering a significantly higher than average CBB doesn't work as well as some people seem to think it does. It definitely won't sell the property for more than it's really worth. Furthermore, it raises all kinds of red flags in my mind, and, I imagine, in the eyes of most agents. "Why do they think they need to offer five percent when the average is three?" springs to mind pretty much unbidden. Most often, the property is overpriced. Almost as often, there's something wrong with it that only an experienced investor is going to be able to deal with - and experienced investors don't pay top dollar for a property. Ever. Quite often, there's something unrepairable detracting from the value of the property. It might get the property sold much more quickly - most agents have some investors I can call if we have reason to, and if you get our attention with a high CBB, both we and our clients are happy. So if you're stuck with a property that has something seriously wrong with it, a high CBB and a low price will cause it to see a lot more action. But they have to be coupled together. High CBB won't do it on its own. On its own, high CBB is pointlessly wasted money.

An average CBB or maybe slightly higher will quite likely accomplish what you want; a quicker sale and therefore a higher sales price. If you're a half percent above average, that's not enough to raise red flags, and it will get you attention. Good buyer's agents will still require that it be an above average value for the client, but they will look, where they might not otherwise. It also stands a good chance of motivating them to really take a good long look at the property.

Short Sales are worse than everything else, as far as CBB goes. Short sales usually take much longer, are more often than not overpriced, and there's a much higher chance of transaction falling apart and the agent losing the client as a result. In my area, over eighty percent of all short sales fall apart, and there's not much the buyer's agent can do to alter the odds - it's in the hands of the listing agent. The lender is going to require the agents involved to reduce their commissions. Agents know this, and they can't really fight it. If you're out there on the cheap end of CBB before the lender wants to grab money we've earned away from us, and four out of five self-destruct and lose the client without closing, what reason is there to show your property, as opposed to the one down the street that's not a short sale? Cost my client money and time to no good purpose, when I can usually find them something just as good at a better price that closes faster and without the eighty percent chance of fallout. But there's always a reason for a short sale. I've never seen one yet where the owner didn't need to sell for some reason or another. Why doesn't matter; If a short sale is the least bad thing that can possibly happen to you, the one thing you don't want is for the property to fail to sell, and a below average CBB on a short sale will practically insure that the property won't sell.

If I had my druthers as a buyer's agent, I'd rather buyer's agency commission be set as a flat amount, regardless of the actual sales price, so that the agent isn't shooting themselves in the foot if they can negotiate a better price. On the other hand, it's not a crime for the seller to structure it in a way that produces dissonance between the interests of the buyer and the interests of that buyer's agent. I may not like it, but I take shameless advantage of it when I'm listing property - I advise owners to make CBB a percentage when I'm the listing agent. Just because I understand a happier client is likelier to bring me more business doesn't mean every agent does. Maybe it's because I read Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz at an early age, and military history has always been an avocation with me. Maybe it's because I took almost enough probability and statistics courses in college for it to count as a major. Maybe I'm just competitive by nature. Whichever it is, I believe in taking every opportunity to load the dice in my client's favor before they get tossed. Anytime there are large amounts of money at stake, you're either in it to win or you are a sucker. There's a lot more money involved in real estate than almost anything else.

At higher valuations, reasonable agents expect CBBs to go down. There's not much difference in the actual work between a half million dollar property and a full million dollar one. Higher liability exposure and a little more hand holding and a little more service. Furthermore, the kind of people who buy million dollar properties tend to be better qualified to do so, leading to fewer escrows failing due to buyers failure to qualify.

One of the things I don't understand is that many agents are the worst about CBB. They should know the power, and yet when it comes to their own money they disregard the facts and try and to do it on the cheap. I make a special note when I notice those listings, because it's like they're shouting, "I'm just out for a quick buck! I don't really know what I'm doing!" to those with the ability to hear it. With that information, I keep a special eye on their listings for other clients. Just part of my desire to look for opportunities to depth charge fish in a barrel. When I find one, it always results in a happier client.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

People sometimes ask, "Why should the lender care where I got the money for the down payment? I earned it, it's mine - cash is cash!"

They're right as far as they go. In general, the lender doesn't care whether you got your cash. For all they care, it could have been by selling off your first-born child, moonlighting as a drug dealer, or embezzling the funds from your employer. It's not usually a good idea to get a real estate loan if you're facing criminal charges (and you must disclose it if you are), but if you aren't facing charges, the lenders don't really care.

What they do care about is money appearing for no known reason just prior to purchasing real estate. They want to make certain that cash is really all yours. Quite often that money is an undisclosed loan, on which you are going to have to make payments, which are going to influence your debt to income ratio. Debt to income ratio is the most critical measure of loan qualification. If you're going to be making monthly payments of $400 to pay back the person who loaned you that money, the lender is required to consider whether the money you are making is going to enable you to pay back that loan as well as their own.

So the lender is going to want to know where any sudden influx of money in the last few months came from. This is called "sourcing" the money. They want to know where it came from. Did you sell another property? Then they want evidence, in the form of a HUD 1 that shows that money. Did you get a bonus? Let's see the remittance advisory. Did you sell stock? Did you sell your collection of rare Roman gold coins? Each of these has paperwork to attest to the fact, and the lender will want to see that paperwork.

If some friend or family member wants to make an actual gift, that's fine also. What the lender will require is a letter from that person stating that this money is a gift and comes with no strings attached. What they're looking for is an explanation that doesn't involve the money being obtained through a loan.

If you've had the money for a while, or have been building it up over time, your account statements will demonstrate that fact. Six months ago, you had $100,000. Since then, you've saved another $3000, earned another $5000, and your balance is now $108,000. This is called "seasoning" the funds. Nobody wants to have a loan sitting around longer than necessary - particularly not a loan for a significant amount of money. Seasoning the funds reassures the lender that this is not an undisclosed loan.

Suppose the money in your checking account that suddenly appeared two weeks ago is a loan? That isn't necessarily insurmountable. Let's get the loan paperwork out there where the lender can see it, examine the repayment schedule, figure out what it does to your ability to make the payments on this new real estate loan you want. If you qualify by debt to income ratio with these payments included, it's pretty likely your loan will be approved. There are exceptions, but I'm going to let those go uncovered, because I'm not real big on telling the general public how to get fraudulent loans accepted. There might be politicians reading this, and letting them know all the answers to that would be irresponsible of me.

The main reason why we have to source and season cash in every transaction is quite simply so people aren't able to hide the fact that they've recently gotten a loan. It seems paranoid at first, but it isn't paranoia if people are out to get you, and lenders have gotten burned many thousands of times over this point. People quite often don't even think it's wrong to keep silent, even though it is fraud. So if the lender doesn't require sourcing and seasoning of funds, the lender grants the loan based upon known information, only to later discover that the borrower is unable to make payments due to also needing to make payments on an undisclosed personal loan. Neither the lender nor the FBI fraud unit are very happy if that happens, and neither will you be.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I just picked a random ZIP code in my local MLS, and out of the first twenty listings I came to, ten had explicit violations of one or more of the sections of RESPA regarding steering right there in the listing. This did not include lender-owned real estate, which has its own set of issues in this regard. All I did was count two common violations.

The first was "Buyer must be prequalified by X", where X was some loan originator. In a way, I understand this. Forty percent plus of all escrows locally are falling out, and the vast majority of them because of unqualified buyers who cannot qualify for the loan. This wastes a minimum of about a month, plus when it goes Active again, it looks like it's been on the market for longer than it really has. Bad thing all around for the seller. The justification used is that for some reason, the agent trusts that particular loan officer to render a real opinion. Perhaps occasionally, a lender owned property will even try to require prospective buyers to prequalify through them. While it might seem reasonable, here's some relevant law from RESPA

Business referrals

No person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.

They mean that "any thing of value" bit, if you peruse down to the definitions. It's defined very literally by about a paragraph of text that boils down to four words: ANY thing of value. You refer business to them, they give you approvals you can count on. It doesn't matter if you require "only" a prequalification - they now have the prospective borrowers information, including credit information and home telephone number. This means that even if there's no application fee, no deposit, not even a credit report fee, you have still given that loan originator a "business relationship" with the borrower. That makes for legal consideration on both sides of the equation, and both the originator and agent are guilty. This is just as hard a violation of RESPA as a fraudulent HUD 1 form. It hasn't been enforced much of late, but I believe that the State of California could probably put over half the brokerages and lenders in the state out of business over loan steering. I only counted four out of twenty actual explicit requirements to pre-qualify with a specific lender this time, while the last time I conducted the exercise it was eight. Maybe it's getting better, maybe it's not, but twenty percent of a representative sample of listings having an explicit violation of the law right there for everyone to see is not something agents should be proud of. When it comes to holding someone responsible for their representations, pre-approval doesn't mean anything. If you're a real estate agent who doesn't do loans, talk to a lender you trust about necessary information to determine whether a loan is doable. I've created a special form that I send to agents making offers on my listings. Nothing in the way of personally identifiable information except the borrower's name - no social, no contact information - but it does have credit score, late payment history, income information, etcetera, to the point where I can tell whether or not I could do the loan on the terms necessary to make the transaction fly. Furthermore, it does require the loan officer to sign a representation that they aware that a decision as to whether or not to grant credit - in the form of agreeing to enter escrow - will be made based upon this information. They don't need to make representations of opinion - all I'm asking for is verified facts. Armed with those facts, I have a pretty darned good idea if this borrower is capable of consummating the transaction. Doesn't tell me whether they will or not, but that's not what wanting a prequalification or preapproval is about.

But when I'm a buyer's agent, which is most often, I simply ignore these requests that violate the law. Furthermore, this puts me in rather a strong negotiating position if the listing agent repeats the request or brings it to my attention. Now they've compromised their client's interests, by giving the other side (me) a concrete legal issue to aim at them. Game, set, match. As I said, four out of the first twenty listings in a random ZIP code explicitly violated RESPA right in the listing, without counting the ones that say "Contact us prior to making an offer," where that's usually what they want. Four out of twenty where there is precisely zero doubt that they're violating the law.

Actually, that wasn't the most common violation, either. That goes to "Seller to select all services," at six out of twenty - thirty percent. Also from RESPA:

Sec. 2608. Title companies; liability of seller

(a) No seller of property that will be purchased with the assistance of a federally related mortgage loan shall require directly or indirectly, as a condition to selling the property, that title insurance covering the property be purchased by the buyer from any particular title company.

(b) Any seller who violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be liable to the buyer in an amount equal to three times all charges made for such title insurance.

Even though in California the seller usually buys the title insurance for the buyer, I've had more than one lawyer tell me that failure to negotiate is construed as a violation of RESPA by the courts. It works like this: In the case of simultaneous owner's and lender's policies from the same company, there's a discount for the lender's policy, essentially requiring the lender's title insurer to be the same as the owner's title insurer. Since this happens on every purchase transaction where there's a loan, you have the requirement to negotiate. Seller and buyer negotiate until they come to a mutually acceptable compromise. Neither one of them gets to dictate to the other. Furthermore, failure to consider the best bargain for the client is a violation of fiduciary duty for the agent. It's not the sellers who want to choose services. Other than corporate owned property - lender owned and corporate relocation properties - there just isn't a reason for many sellers to care. The only reason is if they're employed by a title or escrow company, and their fringe benefits include free title or a free escrow. I've seen that once in the last four years.

What's really going on here is title insurance companies providing free farms, or subsidized mailings, or any number of other freebies they use to attract real estate agent business. Or the brokerage has a captive escrow company they're required by the broker to use, despite the fact that failing to negotiate this point is a violation of the law. I've had agents or their idiot assistants tell me that they get "discounted service" even when I've got a lower quote from the competition. Furthermore, the interplay of title company and escrow company is important. If there's no common ownership between the two, the title company will charge a "subescrow fee" that I've seen be anywhere from $100 to $450 (usually about $350) because they're the ones who are actually set up to accomplish some things that are legally the escrow company's responsibility. For instance, recording. What this means is that even if the actual quote is lower from unaffiliated companies, the clients are quite likely better off choosing escrow and title companies where there is common ownership, even if the quote is a little higher - because there won't be subescrow fees, and quite likely not messenger fees between title and escrow. To paraphrase an common saying, $350 is $350, even when there's a half million dollar deal happening. Make certain you get a guaranteed total fee for services quote based upon the actual escrow and title relationship to each other. I'm quite sorry for independent escrow companies - I have no reason to believe they're any less competent or charge anything more than title company affiliated ones - but they're competing at a disadvantage because the title company wants to charge more to work with them, and this is quite reasonable given that they will be performing services that are the escrow company's responsibility. They waive subescrow for their own affiliated companies simply because, one way or another, they're responsible for the work.

I've also heard all sorts of nonsense about competence of title and escrow officers. The fact is that most of them are perfectly up to your transaction. Even corporate owned relocation properties, where there may be some complex tax issues, aren't significantly more complex than your garden variety individual buyer - individual seller, and don't get me started about 1031 exchanges, which are perfectly straightforward from escrow's point of view. Any good agent's agenda is very simple - competent service providers for the lowest total price. The vast majority of the time, this means a title and escrow company with common ownership. Note that I don't care which title company and affiliated escrow company. I'll do business with anyone that hasn't hosed a client, and even if they have, I'll simply require a different title or escrow officer - just because John has a recto-cranial inversion doesn't mean Jane, another officer at the same company, does. Even lender-owned property will negotiate service providers if you approach it right - which is how it should be. Oh, you'll end up with their choice of providers most of the time, but you can get them to pay for subescrow and messenger fees, and quite likely an allowance to meet your lowest quote elsewhere - meaning your client doesn't really have a reason to care. Essentially the same product at the same price to them. Why would most clients raise a fuss about that? Indeed, the only thing worthy of most clients raising a fuss would be if you didn't negotiate for that. Explaining the whys and wherefores of the whole service provider quandry has gotten me a seller or two working at cross-purposes to their listing agent, who had someone all picked out without informing their seller. When this happens, my buyer wins. How could I not use every weapon at my disposal?

The intent of Congress on steering is quite clearly spelled out:

TITLE 12--BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 27--REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES
Sec. 2601. Congressional findings and purpose
(a) The Congress finds that significant reforms in the real estate settlement process are needed to insure that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that have developed in some areas of the country. The Congress also finds that it has been over two years since the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs submitted their joint report to the Congress on ``Mortgage Settlement Costs'' and that the time has come for the recommendations for Federal legislative action made in that report to be implemented.
(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate that will result--
(1) in more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers of settlement costs;
(2) in the elimination of kickbacks or referral fees that tend to increase unnecessarily the costs of certain settlement services...

Whatever forms those kickbacks and referral fees may take, if your agent is violating this, do you really want to do business with them?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Racial Gap in Loans Is High in California.

I can give a variety of reasons for this.

First off, especially in Los Angeles but to a lesser extent throughout the state, there is a huge "Spanish speaking only" community. When you limit yourself to speakers of a language which isn't the nation's primary business tongue, you limit your ability to find loan officers who will treat you honestly and fairly and find you the best possible loan. I speak reasonable Spanish myself, but not nearly enough to do a loan.

Second, those who speak Spanish only are ripe pickings for unscrupulous loan officers and real estate agents. Because they do not understand English, the language the regulations are written in, they have less understanding of what is a complicated and confusing process for anyone who is not a practicing professional. In fact, I can name a lot of alleged professionals who speak English and are nonetheless limited in the comprehension of the process to judge by the evidence.

Third, those who speak Spanish only have a lesser understanding of their rights under the law, and since the vast majority of all loan documents are in English (a few lenders are starting to generate a few documents in Spanish, but not every document, and it will never be the main copy of anything), they have a lesser understanding of what they are agreeing to.

(Gee, I hope the preceding helps the "Spanish only" lobby of separatists understand what they're setting up for the people whose benefit they are allegedly advocating.)

But more importantly than all of the preceding, real estate and loans are "sales connection" businesses. Because most people do not shop for homes or home loans in a rational fashion. "I can't be rational! This is far too important for that!" Seems silly, but it's true. People buy or do business with you because you have made them more comfortable, or because they think you can do something nobody else can or will for them. They do business because they connect with you on some level, not because what you're offering is the best thing out there.

Identity politics exacerbates this. There are agents out there (often but not always necessarily of the same ethnicity) whose niche market is "black folks", or "Spanish speakers" or "Koreans". Some people will do business just because you're the same, or because they feel some kind of cultural connection. Others will do business because that agent or loan officer helped their brother, or friend, whether said brother was the toughest deal in creation or the easiest thing they ever did. And if your brother had to do something, or had something happen, it's only normal it should happen to you, too - right? One of the standard phrases in the sales lexicon is "My you were tough, but we got it done! How about some referrals." This by itself is not evil. But if you've taken advantage of someone as if they were a tough loan when in fact they were not and could have gotten a better deal from someone else, you're lining your pocket at your client's expense. Everybody deserves to get paid for a job well done. But when my contacts in the escrow and title business tell me about people who only serve this ethnic market or that ethnic market who have six percent state of California limits on their compensation externally applied to every single loan they do, or how these people consistently have a sales compensation a full percent above the market, that tells me something: that these alleged professionals are taking undue advantage of their target market. Many of these people they are targeting literally have no way of knowing there is something better out there. Are their tactics illegal? No. Unethical? In at least some cases. Taking advantage of client ignorance? Definitely.

The process of purchasing, selling, or financing real estate is byzantine, with rules and regulations that get more complex every year. The average citizen has difficulty understanding the things that may be relevant to their particular transaction (I've had to explain to lawyers how they got taken in their previous transaction). To most people, the whole thing is like some immensely complicated magical ritual. Place the proper documents at the foot of the underwriting god, dance three time sunwise and four times widdershins round the appraisal every day for a fortnight, pray with the high priests of insurance, and you get your house.

It has elements in common, I will admit. But the processes of real estate sales and real estate loans are coldly, brutally, logical once you understand them. Unfortunately, the odds of understanding are stacked even further against those who are apart from the majority of society. Those who are concerned with minorities having inferior loans would have more success in connecting the people to the mainstream of society than in considering further burdensome anti-discrimination legislation.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Better deals for the bank, that is.

Ken Harney has an article Study Shows Loan Brokers' Better Side

But now a new, independent academic study has concluded the opposite: According to a team of researchers headed by Georgetown University's Gregory Elliehausen, home mortgage applicants with less-than-perfect credit pay lower financing costs when they obtain their mortgages through brokers rather than from loan officers directly employed by lenders. The same pattern holds true for African American, Hispanic and low-income borrowers.

The study was limited to subprime borrowers, but the results are not surprising:

Overall, broker loans cost 1.13 points less for first mortgages, 1.98 less for second mortgages

For borrowers in predominantly black areas, the difference was 1 point and 1.9 points, respectively.

For borrowers in predominantly hispanic areas, the difference was 2 points and 2.4 points. The explanation as to why this gap is larger is probably as simple as the fact that many of these folks limit themselves to dealing with Spanish speakers.

Skolnik added, though, that the data overall could reflect that "brokers in general operate in a much lower-cost structure" compared with banks and retail mortgage companies that carry heavy overhead and employee costs. Moreover, he said, "brokers are far more agile and nimble than retail" lenders, when pushed to compete on pricing and terms.

That and any given lender may have anywhere from a dozen loan programs to fifty, all intended to hit specific niches and priced for given underwriting assumptions. A 3/1 is different from a 7/1 is different from a 30 year fixed, stated income is different from full doc is different from NINA. That's nine programs right there, and this is A paper stuff. Subprime is even more varied. It doesn't matter if you barely meet guidelines or soar through them. If you find a program with tougher underwriting guidelines that you still qualify for, than that lender will give you a better rate on the loan, because they will have fewer of them go sour, and therefore get a better rate on the secondary market. You can go around to all the lenders yourself - or you can go to a broker.

Furthermore, even if you're one of those so slick that you fit into the top loan category of the toughest lender, brokers can typically get you a better price. Why? Two reasons. First, the lenders don't have to pay broker's overhead, making it more cost effective for the lender to do the same business through the broker. Second, and more importantly, when you walk into a lender's office, they regard you as a "captive" client. Brokers know better. Brokers are not captive to anyone, and they know that you're not captive to them. A good broker's loan officer will price with at least a dozen lenders. I had shopped fifty or more for tough loans, even before automatic pricing engines. Furthermore, there's an efficiency factor at work. After a while, a good loan officer learns which lenders are likely to have good rates for a given type of client. Which do you, as a client, think is likely to be the best use of your time and resources? Going to all those lenders yourself, or going to a few brokers?

This article of mine is also highly relevant to this article's subject matter.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

A mortgage or Deed of Trust (they're not the same!) is basically pledging an asset that you own as collateral for a debt. If you default on the debt, the lender takes your property. When you're talking about real estate in the state of California (and many others), this is generally accomplished by use of a Deed of Trust. There are three parties to a Deed of Trust: the trustor, trustee, and beneficiary.

The Trustor is the entity getting the loan.

The Beneficiary is the entity making the loan.

The Trustee is the entity which has the legal responsibility of standing in the middle and making sure the rules are followed. When the loan is paid off, they should make certain a Reconveyance is completed and sent to the trustor so they can prove it was paid off. If the beneficiary is not being paid, they are the ones who actually perform the work of the foreclosure.

One thing to keep in mind during all discussions of real estate and real estate loans is that the amounts of money involved are usually large - the equivalent of somebody's salary for several years on every transaction. The temptation to fudge the numbers or even outright lie to get a better deal, or to get a deal at all, is strong. Many people don't think they're really doing anything wrong by fudging things a bit, but this is FRAUD. Serious felony level FRAUD. Fraud, and attempted fraud are widespread. There are low-lifes out there who make a very high-class living at it (for a while). Every lender has to devote a large amount of resources to determining that each individual transaction is not being conducted fraudulently. To fail to do so would be to fail in their jobs to protect their stockholders and investors. I have told many stories about the most common sorts. But the reason everything in every real estate transaction is gone over with such a fine-toothed comb that adds thousands of dollars to the cost of the transaction is that people lie, cheat and steal with such large amounts under consideration. Every hoop that anybody is asked to jump through has a reason why it exists, and often that is because somebody, usually many somebodies, have committed FRAUD based upon that particular point.

One of the conditions I must attach, implicitly or explicitly, to every quote for services, is that this is based upon the condition that you are telling me the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and are being honest and forthright in your presentation of the facts without trying to hide anything and are specifically calling my attention to anything that you suspect may be a problem. And because the list of what is relevant information is long, complex, and conditional upon factors that are often opaque to non-professionals, sometimes, people quite honestly don't realize that something is a fly in the ointment so they don't mention it. I, or any other professional practitioner, have no way of knowing that said fly exists unless you, the client, tell me about it. Therefore what I tell you initially does not account for said fly. This is not unethical, it is just a due to the fact that I don't have all of the relevant information..

When you're talking about residential real estate loans there are basically two absolute requirements as to the nature of the collateral. The first is land - land as in real estate. A partial, fractional, or shared ownership of a common interest in land (as in a condominium) are each sufficient unto the task. A rented space to park your mobile home is not.

To that real estate, there must be permanently attached in a way so as to prohibit removal, or at least make it an extended project, a residence in which people can live. We're all familiar with you basic site-built house. Personally, I'm a big believer in the virtues of manufactured housing. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein in precisely this context, imagine a car for which all the parts are brought individually to your home and assembled on site with ordinary portable tools in an environment which was not specifically designed to facilitate said assembly. How much would you expect to pay, and how would you expect it to perform? The correct answers are "A LOT more than for your house", and "not very well, in terms of either reliability, speed, or economy."

Nonetheless, when a lender looks at a house that's been moved to the site, they see one that can be moved away from the site as well, and they are skeptical because many people have done precisely that. Furthermore, the way that residential real estate is valued is somewhat arcane. The lot itself may be worth $400,000 here in California because it has $150,000 of improvements on it in the form of a three-bedroom house on it, but take away that three-bedroom home, and the lot may be only worth a fraction of the amount. So they loan you money based upon a $550,000 value of the combination as it sits. Some time later, you back your truck up to the house and cart it off, and then default on the loan, leaving the bank a lot may only have a value at sale of $80,000. Now imagine yourself as the bank employee who made the loan. How do you explain this to your boss? Over the years, many bank employees have had to explain this to their bosses, all the way up the chain of command to CEOs explaining to investors and stockholders. Lenders know that most people are honest - but they've got a duty to make sure you are among the honest ones. And if you subsequently lose your job and can't pay your mortgage, might you not be tempted to back the truck up and haul the house off somewhere if you could so the bank can't take it? There are good substantial reasons why many lenders won't approach manufactured housing as residential real estate, and the ones who do treat it as such charge higher than standard rates, and place further limitations on lending.

When I originally wrote this, I was personally eying a beautiful manufactured home that more than meets my family's needs, was in the middle of the area I want to live in, and was priced more than $100,000 lower than comparable sized and lower quality site built homes on smaller lots. Yet there was a reason for that lower price. It's not like that owner just decided to list it for $150,000 less than he could get. The home carries many higher costs. If I had bought that home, I would be paying for it in the form of higher loan costs every month, and higher loan fees every time I refinance until I sold it, and fewer people able to buy the home when and if I do sell it as a result of loan constraints, and a I can expect lower eventual sales price as a consequence - which is the situation that owner was in when I was looking at it. I reluctantly decided that those costs outweigh the benefits. My decision was regretful, but until somebody comes up with a procedure that banks agree makes manufactured housing equal in every way to site built in their eyes, it is also firm.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

(And I must say that if somebody comes up with such a procedure, you will be a gazillionaire, and deserve every last penny and then some. I hereby publicly forswear all claims of compensation for the idea of such a procedure. If you can make it work and it makes you rich, I won't ask for a penny, although any contribution you care to make voluntarily will be happily accepted. I just want to be able to say you got the idea from me, as part of my contribution to a better world)

real estate mortgage manufactured housing

Mortgage Accelerators, or Money Merge Accounts, have become the thing that everyone's pushing of late. I have gotten so much junk mail about this from more originators (who don't know who I am) and wholesalers (who should) that I'm going to have another whole go at the entire concept. The claim most often advanced is "pay off your mortgage in a fraction of the time!" In fact, typical numbers say they're only going to do a fraction of the good done by biweekly payment programs, which effectively make one extra payment per year. Money merge accounts or Mortgage Accelerators (to use the term I originally learned years ago) have been pushed and over-promised so badly of late that I hope whoever manages to do an elementary search will be able to find a voice of sanity.

These wasteful loans that waste a homeowner's money are fast becoming the current market's negative amortization loan as far as marketing goes. These things are being pushed hard, consumers are being led to expect far greater results from them than they are likely to achieve, with the results being that those consumers who sign up for them are wasting their money. If they're not as bad as negative amortization loans, that's still damning with faint praise if ever there was such a thing. Not as bad as the loan that encouraged people to buy a more expensive property than they could afford, put them more deeply into debt with every passing month, ruined their credit ratings, and caused them to lose the property they over-extended to buy, as well as setting the United States as a whole up for the worst financial crisis we've experienced in the past eighty years. Well, it is kind of a high bar for lenders to get over, and they haven't done it here - but that's not due to concern for consumers.

(one way of looking at it with considerable merit was that the Era of Make Believe Loans was scamming investors, while these merely scam consumers)

What goes on with these accounts is complex, and they're not all identical. The basic idea is the same, however. You create a special account of some nature, where you deposit your entire paycheck in the mortgage account, where it lessens the amount of interest you pay on a day-to-day basis. Then you pay your other expenses of living out of the account, gradually increasing the amount back up until the next time you get paid. The idea is that by paying down the balance with your entire paycheck, less interest accumulates and people making the same regular payments will pay their balances down faster with the same balance.

Sounds like a cute idea, right? If it was free, they would be a pure gain for the consumer. Unfortunately, they're not free, and I've never yet seen one that wasn't more costly than it could possibly be worth.

Lenders like these things for a lot of reasons. Most obviously, they're getting pretty much all of a consumer's banking business. Checks come in, go out, clear or don't; all those lovely fees. In the vast majority of all cases, there's the initial cost and interest expense of an associated home equity line of credit. This also raises the bar to make it more difficult for a consumer to refinance away from their loan if someone offers them a better deal. Furthermore, there's usually an explicit charge of about $3500 to set the thing up. I'll show where this money would be better spent on a direct paydown of the mortgage.

Also, the people who sell these things have these beautifully intricate presentations. While people are watching the money whizzing about between one account and another, they're usually not considering whether those figures are reasonable, typical, or even anything like the numbers they personally experience.

Most importantly if consumers are shopping for a new loan, their attention is distracted from the most important part of shopping for a loan - getting the best possible tradeoff between rate and cost, focusing instead on this fascinatingly complex toy that doesn't make nearly the difference most of the people pushing it say it will. Taking the attention of consumers off the question of what rate they are getting, on what type of loan, at what cost, means that they don't have to compete nearly so hard to give you the most competitive rate-cost tradeoff. In plain English, their loans can charge a higher rate of interest. In fact, this difference will cost the typical borrower far more than they could ever hope to save via a money merge account. I'll go over that in this article, as well.

So, first off, let's consider what typical numbers are. Here in San Diego when I originally wrote this, the median property sale was $558,000. In order to qualify for the loan, consumers need a back end Debt to Income ratio of 45%. Front end will most typically be around 36%, with property tax, insurance, vehicle payments, credit cards, student loans etcetera. I'll be really nice and say 32% - chances are that if it's lower than that, the people would have bought a more expensive property. I'm going to assume 20% down payment or equity, which is, if anything, larger than typical. We'll postulate a rate of 6%, which is probably a hair higher than most folks with conforming loans have - and more favorable to the money merge account - and I'm going to put it all into one loan even though that's theoretically a jumbo loan amount, just to give the money merge/mortgage accelerator every possible benefit of the doubt. After all the smart thing to do is split the loan amount, which leaves roughly $30,000 out of this account in a higher interest rate loan, and so the scenario envisioned is more beneficial to the Money Merge than what happens in the real world.

This gives a loan of $446,400. At 6 percent, the payment would be $2676.40. Assuming 32% front end ratio, that's a gross monthly pay of $8365. I don't have withholding tables, so I'll use the actual tax rate for couples making slightly more than $100,000 per year with about $55,000 taxable, which is $7400, plus about $8700 in Social security taxes, plus state and local taxes which I will assume to be roughly $2000. This money gets withheld - it never comes to you in the form of a check. Since you don't get it, when your check goes into the money merge, it doesn't help you pay the interest. This leaves $81,900, or $6825 in take home pay. I'm not going to worry about other deductions like health care, or how your pay is structured, which further erode the benefit. I'm just going to assume it hits your account in full on the first day of the month, maximizing benefit, although I'm still going to assume all of the excess goes out every month. If nothing else, for investment accounts. It's pretty silly to have your money paying off a 6% tax deductible debt when you can have it earning about 10% elsewhere! But this isolates the benefit gained from the actual Money Merge, and separates it from any benefit derived from making extra payments, which is in reality the primary way the people selling these play "hide the salami" with consumers, distracting them from what's really causing the benefit - the extra payment, which almost anyone can do, anytime they choose, for free. I'm even going to assume that you don't have an impound account, so the money you eventually spend for property taxes and homeowner's insurance goes to help the money merge as well.

So you get $6825, less the payment of $2676.40, leaves $4148.60. Over the course of the month, money goes out to pay for all of your expenses. The people who sell money merge accounts urge you to leave paying your monthly bills as late as possible to get the maximum benefit from these accounts, completely ignoring the costs of the occasional late payment this is going to cause, as well as detrimental effects upon your credit when it does happen. In fact, a certain amount of these bills are going to wrap into the next month, meaning that under the conditions we've agreed upon, you write that check to your investment account for this month and pay that bill out of your next month's pay if you're smart. Since you're going to write that particular check ASAP if you're smart, that's going to diminish the effects of the $4148.60. But I'm going to be nice and give you a $1000 "cushion" that you carry into the account from month to month (again, you won't do this if you're smart), while the $4148.60 is going to be paid out evenly over the course of the month, giving you a mean daily amount of $2074.30, plus $1000, or $3074.30 per month of temporary principal reduction. This reduces your interest paid by $10.37 that first month! I'm going to assume this is pure gain, every month, and that it continues to compound. If you do this every month for thirty years, you'll actually pay off that loan a grand total of three months early, and the last payment is reduced to a shade over $400! All of this hooting and hollering and shouting and frustration over three months of paying your mortgage off - in an absolutely optimized, perfectly favorable environment where the Money Merge account didn't cost you a penny in set up fees or monthly cost. And even in this ideal situation, with the maximum reasonable advantage compounding over the course of the entire mortgage, out of $963,000 in payments, the money merge saves you about $10,000 at the very end - just over 1% of total payments, heavily discounted for time value of money thirty years from now. That's not the "pay your mortgage off in twelve years for the same payment!" come on used by the most popular of these! Were I the regulatory authorities, I'd be looking very hard at their advertising! Yes, you can pay it off in 12 years by making massive extra payments, but people without a money merge can do exactly the same thing by simply sending in more money.

But most people don't pay their mortgage off in this fashion, and these accounts are not free - or at least I've never heard of one that was. Most people refinance or sell within three years. When they do that, the accounts have to be set up again - which requires new set-up fees. In the example given above, that $10.37 per month compounding for three years is worth $407.92 - and that's if there are no countervailing expenses.

In point of fact, most of these accounts charge a monthly fee that ranges from roughly $1 to whatever they think they can get away with. Plus, there's an upfront cost that ranges from $1995, the cheapest I've seen, up to nearly $6000 depending upon the plan, with most seeming to fall in about the $3500 range. Plus, most of them require you to use a special Home Equity Line Of Credit (HELOC), which costs money in and of itself. The rates on HELOCs are higher than for regular mortgages, forcing you to effectively pay a penalty in interest of having $2000 or $5000 or whatever it is at a higher rate of interest, by usually about 2%. Keep in mind that this is ongoing, and for the entire month. The $2.30 to $8.30 per month this costs directly soaks off a large percentage of the $10.37 putative gain you get. Not to mention whatever the initial costs of the HELOC are. Some are cheap - I've seen others that had thousands of dollars in upfront costs. The HELOC costs, both upfront and monthly, are not relevant to the few plans that don't require HELOCs, but most do.

So with a middle of the line account, you've spend $3500 just to set the money merge (or mortgage accelerator) up, versus $407.92 in benefits over three years, which is longer than most people keep a given loan. Would I do that? Not on your life or mine! Why should I expect one of my clients to do so?

Let's consider some alternatives. Remember I told you the money merge account saves you $10.37 per month in optimal conditions, which works out to just about $10,000 saved at the end of thirty years? Well, let's ask ourselves, "What would be my benefit if I just took the $2000 the cheapest one of these costs me and instead used it for direct principal reduction?" In other words, what if you added that $2000 to your regular mortgage payment once? The answer is, for the example above, that you pay off your mortgage four and a half months early, as opposed to about 3.8, saving an additional $1800! Using the upfront costs for a direct paydown instead pays the mortgage off sooner than the accelerator account, and that's for the cheapest of these that I'm aware of !

After the three years that's all most people keep their mortgage, the person who just uses a $2000 sign up fee is still $1985 and change ahead of the poor stupid schmoe who signed up for the accelerator account! For a middle of the line $3500 set up fee, the difference, mutatis mutandis, is $3780 and growing at the end of three years, to the point where that mortgage is paid off 6.7 months early, as opposed to the mortgage accelerator's 3.8, saving thousands of dollars more than the "accelerator"! This doesn't count the monthly fees most mortgage accelerators charge, HELOC set up fees, or additional HELOC interest charges that the vast majority of these accounts require, and which do siphon off the benefits as noted above.

Keep in mind that with all of this, I've been building a "best reasonable case" to maximize the money merge's advantages. I've mentioned several assumptions that I was making in the account's favor. If any of them changes, the putative benefits basically vanish entirely, or even go decidedly negative.

Now, let's ask ourselves if getting distracted by a mortgage accelerator caused us to not shop as aggressively, or not pay as much attention to the tradeoff between rate and cost as I should have, and as a result, I end up with a mortgage rate that is a mere 1/8th of a percent higher for the same cost. An eighth of one percent is the smallest rate bump in the "A paper" world, and quite often I see differences of a quarter to half a percent for the same loan at the same cost between various A paper lenders when I'm shopping a loan. What would that cost me if I could have had 5.875% for the same cost instead, even keeping the benefits of the accelerator?

The answer is $35.77 per month on the payment, but more importantly, $46.50 the first month on the interest, and this adds up to $1641.77 less interest paid over the three years most people keep the mortgage, while the $10.37 per month benefit of the money merge put the 6% loan as having a balance that's actually $20 lower. Not counting fees of the money merge account, or anything else - just pure difference on the actual cost of that loan, in the form of interest you paid that you wouldn't have had to. How does that sound: Even if everything about the money merge was free, you'd be getting a $20 lower balance over three years in exchange for having spent $1600 more on interest. If you offered people $1600 for $20, what proportion do you think would take you up on it? If you offered them $20 for $1600, how many suckers do you think would go for it, even if you personally begged ten million people?

For those of you who may be loan officers - or real estate agents - reading this, can you point to one single putative benefit that you would think worth the cost that lenders charge to sign up for these programs yourself? As I've said, I can't. There is nothing here that justifies the wild ways in which these are being marketed, and the ridiculous promises that are being made about them. In point of fact, I can think of only a few possible reasons to sell these:

• Eyes only for a commission check (probably number one in terms of the overall market)


• You don't understand what's going on, took some marketers word, and haven't done the numbers yourself (hardly a recommendation of your services or professionalism)


• You just don't care about your clients welfare

When these started being marketed, I wrote about the broad outlines. Never had the urge to hose a client by selling one, so didn't really investigate any further, although I wrote another article about the benefits being quite minimal as compared to the costs. But the ridiculous promises and over-aggressive marketing these have been subjected to in recent weeks have finally motivated me to do a rigorous analysis, and what I see is not "merely" of minimal benefit in even the scenarios most amenable to said benefit, but actually costs more than any putative benefit. I can see precisely zero justification for counseling any client in any situation to pay the money that every one of these I have yet encountered to set it up, as the benefits derived from any of these programs with which I'm familiar never do manage to equal the opportunity costs.

Before I sign off, the point needs to be made that the psychology the account engenders in the consumer is likely to be beneficial, rewarding themselves psychologically for making what are extra payments on the mortgage, and as far as that goes, the account does accomplish something praiseworthy. But the vast majority of all mortgage borrowers can make extra payments of principal any time they want, for free, and when you consider these accounts strictly on the basis of actual numerical advantage over real alternatives, the costs of the program are literally never recovered.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

There are two sorts of buyer's agency contracts, exclusive and non-exclusive. Note that this has nothing to do with Exclusive Buyer's Agents, who do not accept property for listing. I disagree with their reasoning on the virtues of doing so, but I can see a reasonable person making the arguments that they do. Despite the fact that ninety percent of my business is as a buyer's agent, I have no plans to become an Exclusive Buyer's Agent. The line their organization takes is that agents tend to work on behalf of their listing clients, neglecting buyers even when they're representing them as well. To be fair, I do see that happening in the industry. The solution is quite simply to refuse Dual Agency. I get referral business by making each individual client as happy as I possibly can, not by hosing one class of clients so that I can make another that little bit happier. I'm only on one side of a given transaction, and my clients will tell you I'm not in the least hesitant to advise them if something isn't quite like I would like it to be. Furthermore, I learn things by listing properties - things that I can turn around and use to help my buyer clients - just as I learn things by representing buyers that I can turn around and use to help my next set of listing clients. Without that feedback between the two very different tasks of representing buyers and representing sellers, I'd be a much weaker agent, whichever side of the transaction I was on.

Some states permit agents to call themselves "exclusive buyer's agents" if they work with exclusive buyers agency contracts. An exclusive buyer's agency contract, however, does not mean that all of that agent's business comes from representing buyers. It means that they require buyers to sign a contract that essentially prevents those buyers from working with another agent. An exclusive buyer's agency contract says that no matter which property these buyers buy during the period it runs, that agent will get paid. End of discussion. Since the buyers accept responsibility to pay the agent if the seller or someone else doesn't, which isn't a problem if there's only one buyer's agent, because it is in the seller's interest to pay the buyer's agent. However, what the seller pays only covers one agent, so if there's a second agent involved, the buyer has to pay that second agent out of their own pocket. This essentially constrains them to work with the agent they've given that exclusive contract to. Many very weak agents require exclusive buyer's agency contracts because they're scared of the competition - they know they don't measure up, so they cut the competition out by binding them with an exclusive agency contract. They've got good advertising campaigns in effect, good networks of people, whatever - the essential element in their strategy is that the prospective buyers talk to them first, before those buyers understand what's really going on. Not to mention that this does, in some states, allow them to designate themselves as "Exclusive Buyer's Agents." This is confusing nonsense, and not beneficial for consumers.

There is, however, an alternative. This is the Non-Exclusive Buyer's Agency Contract. This is a standard contract, available in all fifty states through the work of the Association of Realtors (self-interested dinosaur controlled by major chains though the organization is, it does do some beneficial work). In California, it's put out as a part of the WinForms program of standard forms, and I suspect the same is true elsewhere. When you strip it of all the legalese, what it says is that If you buy a property that agent introduces you to, then that agent will be entitled to a buyer's agency commission. Notice that construction, straight out of you high school geometry or logic course? If A then B. If not A, then nothing. In other words, if some other agent introduces you to the property you buy, you owe this agent nothing.

Consumers can be working with literally any number of prospective buyer's agents through non-exclusive contracts, and be perfectly safe. There's only going to be one commission due - to the agent who actually gets the job done. Because of this, consumers can sign one of these and start working with any agent, safe in the knowledge they're not stuck with that agent if they find out they're not doing the job they should. The only thing consumers are giving up is the ability to cut out the agent who actually finds the property they want to buy at a price they're willing to pay. Since this is the hardest, most difficult, most time consuming and most liability ridden part of a buyer's agency job, this is only reasonable. You don't go down to the premium mechanic, have them fix your car, and get out of the bill by paying the cheap shop on the corner. That is the real work for a buyer's agent, not the paperwork of the offer and escrow period, or the gladhanding, or even the showing. The ability to recognize and negotiate a bargain are closely related, however, so even if you get a lower buyer's agency commission by cutting out the agent who finds the bargain, or a cash rebate, you're likely to end up paying more overall for the property. How is saving one or two percent and missing out on five percent, ten percent, or more a good investment? The lowest difference I've made in the last year was over fifteen percent, by CMA of properties sold. That's what a buyer's market will do for you. But you're unlikely to find the agent who makes that kind of difference in your area first time out of the box. The non-exclusive buyer's agency contract lets you give every agent you meet the same chance to earn your business - which means consumers get to force the agents to compete on the basis of who actually does the job!

This makes signing such an agreement a bet the consumer literally cannot lose. In fact, the more such bets the consumer makes, the better it's likely to turn out for them. The weaker agents will self-select out of the process in most cases. What this means in plain every day talk is they won't exert themselves because they know they're not likely to end up with the business. The consumer who signs ten non-exclusive buyer's agency contracts might have, at most, two or three agents who actually work for the business. The others simply won't. They know they can't compete, and simply won't bother. Actually, most of them won't sign the non-exclusive agreement. They'll try to talk you into an exclusive agreement, but don't let them. For the consumer's part, they can simply keep looking for agents until they find the ones that will compete.

Indeed, it's only when signing an exclusive contract that consumers are making a bet they can lose. Not only can they, they are extremely likely to. Remember the ten non-exclusive contracts you signed in the last paragraph, out of which you got two agents who were willing to actually do the work? Look at that the other way around. Eight out of ten didn't, and the real proportion is probably higher than that. So if you sign an exclusive buyer's agency contract, those are the kind of odds you're facing. Eighty percent or more chance you're locking your business up with an agent who won't really do the most important parts of the job. I get calls from these people's victims all the time, asking me to work for them without any chance of getting paid. My answer is no. I'm perfectly willing to compete for the business, but I'm not willing to work without pay so that someone else can get paid. I'm eager to make the bet that I can out-compete other buyer's agents, but if someone else has already been awarded the gold medal, I'm not going to so much as head for the stadium. How hard do you think the person who has been pre-emptively awarded that gold medal is likely to really work for you? If the answer you got is, "not very" then you understand why you shouldn't sign an exclusive agency agreement. But buyer's agency is one competition where "time in the competition" doesn't control who wins. If you don't award that gold medal before the competition is held, good agents will compete, and they'll work all the harder because if they don't measure up, you can always find some more agents who will. Isn't that what you really want as a consumer?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The answer depends upon what they're doing for you.

If you contact them because they're the listing agent for a property, they shouldn't ask you to sign an agreement at all. They have a fiduciary duty to that seller to get the property sold. If the act of asking to sign the agreement causes you not to buy, or not to view the property - something that cannot be known in advance - they have violated fiduciary duty. They've just caused potential buyers to be discouraged. That's as hard a violation as it gets. It doesn't stop a lot of agents, as I've written before about Tina Teaser and Sherrie Shark, but it is a straightforward, no nonsense, no kidding violation of fiduciary duty. It is also a marker for the informed buyer that this is a awful agent. You don't want to do Dual Agency, as I've written on many occasions. There are many reasons why you want a buyer's agent representing your interests, especially if it's a new development. There are all sorts of issues that will bite people without buyer's agents ten to a hundred times or more frequently. Issues that arise directly because of Buyer's who don't want buyer's agents are about nine of the top ten reasons why buyers get burned, including the top three or four.

If all an agent is doing is setting up an internet gateway, or search, that's no big deal either. MLS will allow me to have something like 120 client gateways at a time. I've never had half that at any one time. I can't serve that many people. I can only work with an absolute maximum of about six sets of full service buyers at a time - and that's if I don't have any listings. A smart agent will quite happily set up an internet gateway on the speculation of getting a transaction out of it. I'll call or email these folks periodically to see if they want to look at anything, or anything has caught their fancy. I'm not investing any significant time with them; they don't count against my (self-imposed) limit of six clients at a time. In fact, I make a lot more per hour with these clients than any others. Indeed, those of these folk who only want me for the paperwork will ask me for a contract that says I will rebate part of any buyer's agency commission at that point in time. If my liability is less and I'm not putting in anything like the time I need to for a full service client, I'm perfectly willing to work for a lot less money.

If you come to me to put an offer in, I don't need a contract there, either. The purchase contract specifies that I'm the buyer's agent - I don't need another one. Some agents use this moment as an opportunity to "lock up the business" by insisting people who want to make an offer through them sign an exclusive buyer's agency contract, but there is precisely zero need for any kind of agency contract at that point in time. The agency is created for this offer by the purchase contract itself, either explicitly (as in the California standard contract) or implicitly, by agency law. There's absolutely nothing wrong, ever, with an agent who asks you to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agency contract. You can walk away from a non-exclusive agency agreement at any time, but an exclusive agency contract requires that you stick with them even if this transaction falls apart. Suppose they do something to sabotage the transaction? It happens.

It's a rare client who requires something I have to pay for, but It does happen. Mostly, it's fresh foreclosure lists when it does happen. I haven't been subscribing consistently, as right now the well-aged ones are mostly better, but I know the ones that work for when I do have clients that want them. I can get them starting that day, and going back. I don't charge for this - but that's the only time I ask for an exclusive buyer's agency contract. Not only am I putting out a significant stream of money for their benefit, these people do count against the limit of six clients at a time I can work with - they count double! Working the fresh foreclosure lists is a lot more demanding than anything else I do, because it's all time critical. I can't put it off a day, and often not even an hour, even if there's something else going on with another client - it's got to be done NOW, and there are a lot of misses for every hit. It's kind of like been married to the ultimate high maintenance spouse. If that spouse is not willing to give just as much, nobody rational wants any part of that relationship. If you want an agent to put in that kind of work, you're going to have to commit to that agency relationship.

But the one common time a good agent will ask for a buyer's agency contract is when someone wants a real full service package. Property scouting is far too time intensive to do on speculation that you might want to do the transaction with me after I invest the time to find a real bargain. The agent has to invest usually weeks of time up front, culling out the bad prospects in favor of the better ones. This is, by the way, far and away the hardest work of the transaction, and the work that gets done has most of the liability of the process. A good agent - one who knows how good he or she is - will still only ask for a non-exclusive contract here. I'm perfectly willing to bet that I'm going to find you something you want to buy, and if I don't, then you owe me nothing. I'm eager to make that bet, as a matter of fact. I am not frightened of people who want to work with multiple agents. I know that the vast majority of them won't get out of their offices to go look. But if I do find something you want to buy - I take the time and do the work, and my experience and training spots a superior value - then I'm not going to countenance you then taking the transaction to some other agent. Kind of like a mechanic who gets the problem fixed - and then you decide to take the car to another mechanic. You're still going to have to pay the mechanic who actually solved your problem, and you're still going to have to pay the agent who finds the bargain. You don't think the agent did anything to deserve getting paid? Then don't buy that bargain property they found for you! But if you want to buy the property they found, then there is, by obvious fact, something particularly valuable, both about their property and about their work in finding it! If that were not the case, you wouldn't want to buy it.

So it's reasonable to be asked to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agency contract. As a matter of fact, agents that actually do this work have learned that if they don't get you to sign it, a very large percentage of people will then go to a discounter or rebate house, or even just buy the property "without an agent", thinking they'll get a better bargain that way. Not only will you get a better bargain through the agent who understands the property and the market, that agent can then stay in business for the next time you, your friends, or your family wants to buy real estate. That's a win-win. But trying to cut out the agent who found the bargain is a lose-lose. You'll get a cookie cutter transaction from someone who doesn't understand the market and can't bargain as well - you'll end up paying more, and if there comes a point where you should walk away, they won't know it and won't tell you if they do.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

First off, let me say that your site has been very informative and helpful. I stumbled across your blog looking for information on ARM vs. 30 year fixed loans and ended up reading every article.

One issue I have never really seen addressed is joint loans. When a couple, married in this case, gets a loan, which FICO score do they use?

Right now, my wife is a nursing student, when she graduates in August we want to buy a new home that is significantly more expensive than our current home. Our combined salaries at that point should be somewhere around 120K. I have been told by a mortgage professional in our first phone conversation that being a student counts for "years in line of work", but we would have to wait until she receives her first paycheck from her new job before we could count her income. We just accepted an offer on our current home last week, and will have enough cash to put down 10% in the price range we are looking at (200-300 K). If we want to buy before she is employed, but has an offer so we know her salary, what are our options? It seems to me that we would be in a situation where we are doing a Stated Income type loan.

The answer to this is that whoever make more money is the primary borrower. This works with a couple as well as other arrangements. It's a very simple answer, but you'd be amazed how often I have to repeat it for trainee loan officers. Of course we all want to use whichever score is better, but it's the person who makes more money whom the lender will consider to be the primary borrower. It's their income that's providing the main source of income with which to pay back the loan.

Now as far as A paper goes, it's kind of academic. If you want to use both incomes for the loan, you both have to qualify. This can be an issue when one spouse forgets to pay bills and the other is as a-retentive as I am about it. Over time, spouses credit reports tend to track one another more and more closely, as they switch from single credit accounts to joint accounts. If it's a joint account, doesn't matter who forgot to pay the bill - you both take the hit. On the other hand, even long-married spouses don't tend to have exactly the same score, and in many cases they have intentionally segregated the credit accounts for precisely this reason, that one spouse is better about paying bills. So one spouse has a 760, and the other spouse has a 560. Ouch.

It is to be noted that the superior solution is to have the responsible spouse pay all of the bills, which results in two high credit scores. Why is this important? If one of you has a 760, they may qualify A paper. If the other has a 560, you have a choice: go sub-prime (if you can find it), or have the high scoring spouse be the only person on the loan. In other words, when you're talking about A paper, you both have to meet the credit score minimums, or you don't qualify as a couple.

This has implications. Suppose you have a 760 score spouse who makes $3000 per month, and a 560 score spouse who makes $5000 per month, you have a choice: Qualify based upon $3000 per month, go stated income (assuming it ever comes back), or drop to sub-prime (if you can find it).

$3000 per month doesn't qualify for a lot of house most places. So if you're thinking 3 bedroom house, you can be stuck with small one bedroom condo - if you want the best rates. Most people don't want to accept that.

The second alternative is going stated income. As of this update, stated income is essentially extinct. It's not quite illegal, but nobody actually does it because they can't sell the loan and the agencies that rate financial assets consider it a junk asset. This only works if the necessary income for the loan is believable for someone in that occupation. Even if it comes back someday, somebody who makes $3000 per month is not likely to be in a profession where $8000 per month is a believable income, and most people tend to overbuy a house rather than under-buy, regardless of the fact that under-buying is a lot more intelligent in most cases. Furthermore, you are committing fraud if the lender finds out and wants to prosecute.

The third solution is to go sub-prime, where you'll qualify, but get a higher rate and almost certainly a prepayment penalty. At this update, sub-prime lenders who will lend to someone with a lower credit score are difficult to find, and the down payment requirements are stiff. Furthermore, a single borrower with a 760 credit score gets a better loan, with proportionally less of a down payment, than the couple in this case - the primary borrower has a 560 score, remember - but they just won't qualify for as large of a loan because they can't afford the payments. Most people want to buy the more expensive property with a crummy loan rather than buy the property one spouse can afford, but it's just not on the list of options for most folks right now. The down payment, particularly for low credit scores, tends to be a major issue. Except for VA loans, 100% financing or anything close to it is very difficult to get.

Once upon a time, you might also have gone NINA, which is a "here I am - gotta love me!" approach where income is not verified, nor employment history. The loan you get is based totally upon your credit score and equity picture (how much of a down payment you make, in the case of a purchase). The rate was higher than stated income and the restrictions on equity were greater, but sometimes it was the best loan people could actually get. Unfortunately for those people, NINA went away even before stated income.

Now, as to what you were told, student does not, in general, count as time in line of work. Sometimes, exceptions are made for advanced professional degrees - medical doctor and lawyer and nurse - and have actually gotten easier than since I first wrote this. Even so, the lender is going to be careful because many folks get their degree and their license, then end up finding they can't stand the work. That's one of the main reasons for the two years line of work requirement. As a question to make why this more clear: How are you going to compute her average monthly income over the last two years? That is the way full documentation loans are justified. Some sub-prime lenders will accept it (not the better ones), or the person who told you this could just be planning to substitute a stated income loan based upon your income. The fact is, that unless you're talking ugly sub-prime, they're not going to accept your wife's income until there's some time actually working it. Many people graduate school and never work in the field. They don't pass licensing, or they decide soon after they start that it's not for them. When this happens, they generally end up not being able to afford the loan - and that's not something the lender wants.

As I keep telling folks, there are a lot of shysters out there in the mortgage profession. The easiest way to get people to sign up is to promise the moon, and until you get the final loan paperwork you have no way of knowing whether they intend to deliver what they said.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

This is definitely not a "Who you gonna call?"

I've done a couple articles on the two ratios, debt to income and loan to value. Nonetheless, there exist a plethora of reasons why someone can be turned down for a loan even though they make it on the ratios.

The first of these is time in line of work. "A paper" from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac looks for two years in the exact same line of work. One change that trips a lot of people is going from being employed by a company to being self employed in the same line of work. Believe it or not, a promotion can also sink a loan if your job title changed, for instance from salesperson to sales manager. If it was with the same company, it can sometimes be okay, but if you changed companies to get the promotion, that's a really tough loan. Subprime loans will accept shorter time periods, but subprime is almost nonexistent today.

Making payments on time is probably the most common deal buster for A paper. In general, you are allowed no more than one mortgage late, or no more than two other lates within the last two years, a late being defined as thirty days or more delinquent. The reason does not matter. It does not matter how justified you were in not paying. The fact remains that you are reported as being late. The only way to remove these reports is for the company to admit it was in error in reporting you late. Many people will not pay the charge as it gets marked later and later and later. This is self defeating. Pay it now, dispute it afterwards. Yes, it's harder to get your money back - but the money it saves you on your home loan is typically much larger.

Store credit cards are one of the biggest headaches here. If you buy merchandise with a generic credit card, you've got the card company, who are neutral, looking at the transaction. Both you and the merchant are their customers, and the merchant needs to take credit cards. They're not going to quit taking them. If you use your store credit card, the dispute department is pretty much guaranteed to take the view that you bought that merchandise at their store and therefore you owe the money. I run across five or six store card problems for every generic card problem I encounter.

Bankruptcy is another deal buster. People in Chapter 13, or just out of Chapter 7. Most banks won't touch them. It's not really rational, but you there you are.

Reserves can be a deal buster. There actually is a reserves requirement for regular full documentation A paper, but it's pretty much a non-issue as responsible people get uncomfortable if they can't lay hands on a month's mortgage payment. Reserves were really an issue for stated income loans when we had stated income loans. A paper stated income required six months PITI reserves somewhere that you can get to it. Subprime is less demanding, but if you don't have the lender's requirements, you won't get the loan. Would you loan money to someone with absolutely no cash in the bank? Payment shock, where your monthly cost of housing is increasing, can increase the reserve requirements. You were paying $1200 per month for housing, now you'll be paying $2000. That takes some adjustments to lifestyle, and some people take a while to adjust.

Related Party Transfers are another questionable point. All of the background for loans assumes that the transaction is between unrelated parties, who have no reason to cooperate in order to do the lender dirt. If you're buying the house from your brother, that assumption goes out the window. Some lenders will do them, others wont. Some will but charge extra. Others will but have special requirements. Whatever they are, you have to meet them.

The appraisal coming in low is another. The lender evaluates the property on a "lower of cost or market" basis. The Appraisal is the "market" part of that, and the lender will only loan money based upon the lower of these two methods of evaluation. I have people tell me all the time that their new purchase is worth $20,000 more than the appraised value (or the purchase price). No it isn't. By definition - it's worth what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon. The bank's evaluations are necessarily conservative, and they don't want to take over the property. They're not in that business. They want you to pay back the loan. That's the business they're in.

Late payments. Whatever you do, while the loan is in progress, keep making all your payments on time. Whether just indirectly due to the credit score dropping, or directly because now you've got a(nother) thirty day mortgage late, this can raise your rate or even break the loan.

Sourcing and seasoning of funds to close. Just because you've got $100,000 in the bank doesn't mean the bank is happy. Nobody rational keeps that kind of money outside of investment accounts. At least nobody rational who needs a loan - Bill Gates might. Lots of folks attempt to hide loans that way. The bank is going to what to see that you've had it a while (seasoning) or prove where you got it from (sourcing). If you really just got $400,000 from the sale of a previous property, you're going to have the escrow papers and HUD 1.

Final credit check: I have a set spiel I go through, "Until this loan is funded and recorded, don't breathe different without getting my okay. Make the payments you've been making. Make them on time. Don't take out any new credit. Don't allow anyone (other than mortgage providers!) to run your credit. Just before the loan gets recorded, the lender will pull a final credit report. Woe be unto the person whose situation has deteriorated, and it means we'll have to start all over again, if there even is a loan that makes sense."

Failures of verification. Three biggies here: employment, rent or mortgage, and deposit. I do not know why people bother lying, but they do. Don't you be one of them. World of hurt if the lender wants to prove a point. Don't quit your job, don't change anything about your employment. I once had a guy quit to become an independent contractor two days before the loan was funded. Guess what? No loan.

Lines of credit/credit history/no credit score: Most lenders want to see at least 3 lines of credit with a 24 month history of making payments on time. Freezing your credit cards in ice is a wonderful idea, but you need to use them to demonstrate a payment history. Once per month, I use mine for something small and stupid that I would otherwise pay cash for - just to show payment history (it also helps your credit score). Pay if off as soon as the bill gets there. Waivers for two lines of credit are fairly easy, but if a given bureau doesn't know you have two open lines of credit, they may not score your credit profile. If you don't have at least two credit score among the big three - no loan.

Property is structurally unsound, is not certified for habitation, unsuitable or not zoned for intended use, etcetera. Wouldn't you really find out about this before you have a very large debt to pay? Okay, this can cost you money, but it's a "Thank (deity) I found out now!" moment. Finding out now means you can change your mind while it's still the seller's $400,000 problem, before it's your $400,000 problem.

So there you have them, most of the most common reasons why loans - and therefore real estate deals - fall through for people that are otherwise qualified.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

how soon should I start shopping around to refinance my home? I have a 2yr interest only and it's up in (four months)

Okay, the 2/28 loans which you are describing all have prepayment penalties for at least two years. Figure it's going to cost you 6 months worth of interest, on top of the cost of the refinance, if you refinance before the penalty expires.

(OK, you could have specifically bought it off by accepting a higher rate, but that's unlikely to have been the case)

That said, about three weeks before the penalty expires you can start the refinance process. Be advised that until the day the penalty expires, the current lender will be quoting a higher payoff, but once it has actually expired, the payoff should be correct, at least in theory. You should not sign final loan documents until such time as your penalty will expire with or prior to your Right of Rescission expiring. No more than two to three days prior to expiration.

Indeed, sometimes lenders will want to keep charging penalties even after they're no longer due. I'm not certain if they just don't update the payoff correctly or what, but I've seen lenders try to charge penalties a month after they expired. Once they've got your money, they can make you pay a lawyer and go to court to get it back.

For this reason, I would avoid "cash out" refinances any time within three months after the penalty expires. Matter of fact, if you're refinancing during that period, not only don't refinance for cash out, but don't have an impound account for taxes and insurance, and don't plan to put any money at all into the loan balance if you can avoid it. Here's why: When escrow officer goes to request a payoff from the soon to be former lender, the payoff quote may include the penalty even if it's no longer due. if the money they have from the current lender covers the whole thing, they have two choices. Pay it and have a completed transaction (not to mention getting their company paid), or don't, and leave everybody hanging. If they pay it, this means that you, the consumer, only get a much smaller amount of money, but I'm disgusted at how often consumers are shorted by the loan process, and this is one more way it happens. You're expecting $20,000 cash, and that $20,000 was the entire reason you did the loan. Comes the proceeds check, and you've only got a check for $9000. You want the other $11,000, you're going to have to go through the whole process again. Not the kind of situation you want to be in. Not the kind of situation I want my clients to be in.

If, however, the escrow officer does not have enough money available to them to pay off the loan plus the penalty, they have no choice but to leave the transaction at that stage until the quote is correct. They won't let it sit - they'll find out what's going on and everybody involved will be doing what's necessary to resolve the conflict between the two issues. Not having any more money in the loan than necessary to pay off the old loan is a good way to insure that the escrow officer won't pay a penalty you don't owe.

Don't let the rush to pay off the old loan cause you to cut corners on either your shopping for a new loan or asking all the questions you should ask prospective loan providers. Rushing into a refinance because your loan is going to readjust is one of the best ways to waste large amounts of money that there is. To illustrate, let's look at a larger than average loan amount that sees a huge jump in the actual rate. $400,000 at 6%, and it goes to 9%. This makes a difference of $33.33 per day, or $1000 per entire month. That's the equivalent of a quarter point on the cost - basically nothing on the scale of differences between subprime loans, and not very much on the scale of differences between A paper loans. I'll usually beat the retail branch of the lender I place a loan with by several times that amount. If it makes a difference of 0.25% on the rate, that's $1000 per year that you're going to be stuck with the new loan. If you're still a subprime borrower, multiply that by the length of your new prepayment penalty in years. Doesn't it sound worthwhile to take an extra day which your old lender bills you $33 extra for, to shop the loan around for real and ask the hard questions that enable you to save $2000 or more on the new loan? Even if you're putting the money into your balance, you're still paying the extra. Not only that, but you're paying interest on it as well. On the scale of costs for a new loan, paying the soon to be former lender for a few more days at the increased cost is likely to be a wonderful investment if it gives you the opportunity to find a better loan.

On a note of personal relevance, at the time this was originally written, written rates were higher than they were two years previous, and the person who asked was in an interest only loan, while interest only loans were extremely difficult to get then (and harder now). The payment is likely going to end up higher in such circumstances, especially if you roll loans costs in even if the interest rate (i.e. actual ongoing cost of money) is lower. If the reason a borrower is in an interest only loan was that their debt to income ratio couldn't qualify for the real payment on a sustainable loan, that refinance is probably not going to happen for you. With prices having decreased locally by 25 to 30 percent, your loan to value ratio may not support refinancing either. If a refinance is not going to happen, and you can't afford your current payment, it's time to sell now. The FHA Secure program helps some people, but requires documenting enough income to afford all of your payments, and the 125% refinance programs Fannie and Freddie have out have the same restrictions. You owe what you owe and the rates are the rates. If the numbers don't work, get it sold. (On the plus side, due to underwriting paranoia the rates for those who can qualify at this update are very low)

One more piece of advice: Start improving your credit score now. Four months is plenty of time to bring your credit score up fifty points or more. If you can get into "A paper" loan territory, where penalties are much less common, you'll be much happier with your new loan than you are with this one. If you're in subprime territory and able to improve your loan to an "A paper" loan, your rate may go down despite the fact that the rates are higher.

As I cover in Getting Out of Paying Pre-Payment Penalties, if you're willing to refinance with the current lender, either directly or through a loan broker, your lender may be willing to waive the penalty in favor of sticking you for a brand new prepayment penalty on a larger amount. This is usually making a bad situation worse. As I said, you're likely to get a higher rate, be limited to an amortized payment on the new loan, and the new loan amount is likely to be higher (people in the situation usually roll the costs in), and all without even the benefit of lowering the tradeoff between rate and cost like penalties usually do. This seems pretty much the definition of lose-lose-lose-lose to me. Longer prepayment penalty on a higher balance at a higher rate, without getting any benefits in exchange. This is kind of why the best way to deal with prepayment penalties is not to accept them in the first place.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Section 1031 of the IRS Code has to to with tax treatment on the exchange of one parcel of real estate for another. It's similar to Section 1035 which covers most non real estate exchanges. Car for a car. Boat for a boat. Business for a business. But section 1031 allows indirect exchanges so long as you follow certain guidelines. After all, how often do folks want to trade two parcels directly? It happens, but not very often. Usually, if A is buying B's parcel, then even if B wants to replace it with another piece of real estate, it probably isn't owned by A.

Why would you want to do this? Taxes. No other reason but taxes. If the taxpayer makes the exchange according to the provisions, they defer the gain. But we're talking capital gains, not ordinary income, so keep in mind it's not worth going gonzo over. The maximum long term capital gains tax rate for most folks is 15 percent. At this update, our national leadership is set to allow the capital gains tax to revert to the same rate as ordinary income, so expect a lot more people to make use of this and revenue collected to actually go down. Getting to keep 100 percent of your gains instead of 85 (or 60, as of January 1, 2013) is worthwhile, and when we're talking sometimes about multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, that's quite a bit of motivation. It's nice to be able to invest and use those (potentially) tens of thousands of dollars, rather than basically forking them directly to the tax man.

Your primary residence is not eligible for 1031 Exchange. Second homes are severely limited in eligibility (general rule: You can't occupy it more than 10 percent of total occupancy, although you get up to fourteen days per year. Check with your accountant for details. Matter of fact, check everything with your accountant. This is just a basic overview, and the devil is in the details). Section 1031 is for investment property, of whatever nature.

Section 1031 is not for "flipping". I am not aware of any explicit minimum holding time requirements for 1031 exchanges in general, but the IRS looks hard when the held period is less than a year. Questions arising from Section 1031 exchanges are good jumping off points for general audits - the IRS gets out the big magnifying glass to go over your taxes. Be careful. If the properties are being sold between related parties, there is a two year minimum holding rule, and nobody can end up with cash. For this reason, 1031s with a related party transaction are tough. If it's a property you bought as investment that you later made into a personal residence (or vice versa) the minimum holding time is five years.

There are some significant complexities in duplexes where one unit is for personal use, or personal use dwellings where there's a home office. I've just gotten to the point where I don't understand the attractiveness or value of a home office deduction for many people, but people keep insisting upon trying for them.

There are three major requirements for a standard "forward" 1031 Exchange. You can not have constructive receipt of the funds. You must designate replacement properties within 45 calendar days of the sale of the relinquished property, and you must consummate the sale within 180 days or before you file your tax return, whichever comes first.

Constructive receipt is a fancy way the IRS has of saying control of the funds. If escrow sends you the check, or if the check is in your name, you have constructive receipt of the funds and the 1031 will be disallowed. So what happens is that you need to pay a 1031 accommodator (most title companies have one) to act as trustee for the money, and the actual transaction is done in the name of the accommodator. If you see something about cooperating with a 1031 exchange at no cost to you as part of a sale or purchase, this is what it's about. Makes no difference to the other party in the transaction, but the Grant Deed has to be made out to (or by) the accommodator entity, not the people who are actually taking part in the transaction.

There are three rules I'm aware of to use in identifying replacement property. The 3 property, the 200 percent, and the 95 percent. Keep in mind that this is investment property, often commercial in nature, and that even within major metropolitan areas it can be difficult to replace the property with something similar within the time frame. This is one case where the law is a lot more flexible than most of the people. As long as it's real estate within the United States not held for personal use, the law doesn't care what the use of the property you replace it with is, but lots of folks are trying to find something as specific to their purposes as possible. Also, in hot markets, there may be difficulties created with finding a property you can afford and that the seller will agree to sell to you in that time frame.

Keep in mind always that we're not necessarily talking a straight one property for one property exchange here. It can be multiple relinquished properties for one replacement (in which case the sale of the first relinquished property starts the clocks), it can be one relinquished for several replacement properties, or any mix of A properties now and B properties later, where A and B are nonzero, whole, and positive. Counting numbers, to use the technical mathematical name. For every additional property in the exchange, you can expect to spend more in fees to the accommodator, exclusive of all other costs to the transaction.

The first method of designating replacement properties is what's called the 3 property rule. You may designate up to three properties of any value, and as long as you actually acquire one or more that fits the parameters within 180 days, you've met this requirement. The second rule is any number of properties but no more than 200 percent of value. The final rule, 95 percent, is basically worthless and a good way to get in trouble, because unless you only designate one replacement property, you're not going to be able to acquire 95 percent of the total value of the designated properties. Identification of these properties must be precise and unambiguous. "Land at the corner of First and Main" won't work. You need something like a legal description or an Assessor's Parcel Number (APN).

Finally, you need to acquire the replacement property within 180 days of selling the property, or before filing your tax return for the year. This can and often does require the person undertaking the 1031 exchange to be forced to extend their taxes.

Where the person making the exchange wants to buy the replacement property before selling the relinquished property, that's called a "reverse" 1031 exchange. It's basically the same concept switched around. You have 45 days to designate which property will be sold (usually not difficult), and 180 days to actually sell it, which may be a problem in slow markets. Reverse exchanges are also more expensive, as they require accommodaters to take title to an actual piece of land, and they are not, in general, for the weak of wallet. Any financing must be non-recourse financing, because the accommodater is in title and they're not going to agree to be on the hook for the value of the loan if you can't sell the property. This can also cause a requirement for larger down payments.

There are also "partial" 1031 exchanges, where you end up not only with a replacement property, but also something else you didn't have before. For the exchange to qualify as for full deferral of the gain, the replacement property must cost at least as much as the relinquished was sold for, the equity in the replacement property must be at least as large as the equity in the relinquished was, and the loan must be at least as large as the previous loan. If any of these three conditions is not satisfied, you've probably ended up with what the IRS code calls "The part of a like-kind exchange transaction which is not like-kind exchange" but most accountants and other people in the real world call "boot," as in "you've got this, and that to boot." Boot is taxable, so if there's a lot of boot, it may defeat the purpose of a 1031 exchange.

One final thing I should mention is that a 1031 exchange can force you to delay filing your taxes. If you start the exchange in December, selling one property, and concluded it in June of the following year by buying the replacement but filed your taxes on April 15th, the IRA will disallow the deferral. The 1031 exchange must be absolutely complete before you file your taxes for the relevant year.

There are a lot of pitfalls to 1031 exchanges, and with typically large amounts under consideration, the IRS is notorious for being hard nosed about all the particulars of 1031 exchanges, whether they are forward or reverse. Don't try this without the aid of a tax professional, and for real estate purposes, an agent who has a good understanding can save your bacon. But if you do fulfill the requirements, it can be a good way of keeping money in your hands that you can continue to have invested in your new property, reducing your mortgage on that property, further saving you money, where otherwise nobody would be happy but the tax collectors.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Several times a month I get calls and emails. Sometimes, it's even people stopping in. "I've heard you're good at finding bargains." Well, yes I am. "Please tell me the addresses of some bargains so I can drive by."

Well, facts are cheap in the age of transparency. I will quite joyously look at stuff on the internet, even set up an MLS Gateway or feed for someone on the speculation that they'll come back to me later for a showing or to make an offer. Setting up such a feed takes very little time, and about the expertise of an eleven year old that has learned to fill out internet forms. Oh, and MLS access. Can't forget MLS access. We've got a system that lets me custom define the search area now - I can click the corners of a search area I want on a map, and it will return only the results within that area. It's a really neat feature, and using it takes about ten seconds of training, and maybe ten minutes to do the whole thing. I'll happily do it as the possible prelude to a limited service commission, and even if the prospects end up using another agent, I've risked and lost nothing significant. No agency contract required, or even asked. I've even done it for folks who didn't want to give me their phone numbers so I could follow up. If they come back to make an offer, my compensation will be set in the offer paperwork.

But good analysis, experience, and expertise are not free - or even cheap. Furthermore, my time is valuable - and you're asking for a lot of it. I might find three or even four real potential bargains when I spend a full day searching - and that's in a target rich environment. Furthermore, I've got a lot of experience and a lot of knowledge to draw upon that many agents don't, and I look at a lot of properties. I can winnow 100 listings on the internet to twenty possibles in about an hour, go through them in about five hours, of which I might show a client who has made the commitment to work with me six, with usually one or two standouts among those. The rest will have something that to experienced, knowledgeable eyes, will have reasons why it is not a viable choice for these particular clients. Maybe it's overpriced and I have reason to believe the owner won't negotiate. Maybe the location or surroundings have an unsolvable issue - one reason you can only tell a bargain by getting out of the office and looking at property. Given the area I work, most often there's something going on with the property itself that's not worth what it's going to cost to fix. I love the older East County suburbs of San Diego - they are good places to live, and when you consider what you get for what you spend, they blow the rest of the county away as far as value. Furthermore, I think the conditions are getting right for the housing buzz to rediscover them. But anytime you consider structures that mostly vary from thirty to eighty years old, you have to watch for maintenance and repair issues, and it really helps to know what you're looking for. Furthermore, it is always necessary to understand the market the property is being listed in. The only way you can do that is by having been in the properties that have sold recently, and the only way you can do that is to go out and look at them while they are still "for sale" because it's not likely the new owners will let you in after it sells.

What I'm trying to say is that the fact of the existence of a listing on MLS is cheap - basically free. You want me to send you addresses of properties for sale meeting certain criteria, that's easy and I'm happy to do it, no strings attached. Anything like that, that can be done by automated computer search, is not a part of what I'm really offering for sale, and I'll give it away on the speculation that sometimes, I'll make something when that person comes back to me to write an offer.

But the ability to recognize a bargain and equally important, what is not - that's the largest part of what I'm really selling as a buyer's agent. Winnowing those 100 listings to a few standout values is a valuable skill. If you don't agree with this, you shouldn't need or want that skill, and you shouldn't be talking to an agent about finding bargains. For people that want me to use that skill, there is a fee - they must sign a standard non-exclusive buyers agency agreement. This is precisely equivalent to the difference between a computer programmer giving away some old boilerplate code for free - but they want to be paid for a brand new custom program. This requires all of the same things: Expertise, analysis, experience, knowledge of the area and the current market, the time it takes me to build, run, and debug the bargain-finding program in consultation with the client, and everything else that's involved. The mental ability to do those things did not suddenly appear one morning and it does not maintain itself. Furthermore, the liability for doing this if I make a mistake is huge. Agent mistakes cannot be undone by simply re-writing a few lines of code to work correctly, and having the ability to sue me and my insurance company if I do make that mistake is a huge benefit to the client in and of itself. If they make the mistake, they're stuck - and to be blunt, the probability of a non-professional making that mistake is both much larger than most home buyers believe and many times the probability that I will make that mistake - while if I make that mistake, they can get a lawyer and sue me for everything they might have lost, plus court costs, plus other damages ad nauseum. The idea isn't to sue, but rather not to make that costly mistake in the first place. An amazingly large percentage of buyers make mistakes of a magnitude that I find incomprehensible, all in the name of saving a fraction of what the mistake costs.

The ability to recognize a bargain property is a valuable skill. If you disagree with this, what reason do you have for looking at properties before you buy them? Why don't you simply pick out the cheapest property that meets your specifications on MLS, make an offer, come to an agreement, and pay the price, all sight unseen? Remember, you're claiming that the ability to recognize a bargain does not have value. Why would you want to take the time to look if there's no value in it? When there are ten thousand identical items in a warehouse or on the grocery store shelves, you grab one and get on with your life. You might look at the label to make certain it was manufactured to fill the need you have. You don't bother opening the box - if it's defective, you can just exchange it for another. They're all interchangeable.

But that isn't the case even on everything in the grocery stone. There's a reason they wrap meat in transparent plastic - so you can see the piece of meat you're buying. To view the cut, how much fat is on it, how large a piece of meat it really is, how fresh it is - in short, the value of the meat. If you know what good meat looks like, you've seen people that have no clue as to what to look for choosing crummy meat that you've just rejected. It happens most of the times when I'm at the meat counter, as a matter of fact. It's why the grocery stores keep putting out bad cuts of bad meat. Somebody who doesn't know any better will buy it.

The same thing happens in real estate. I have dealt with people who bought into just about every bad situation imaginable - and now they're trying to unload the results of that onto someone else at a premium price. When I list a property, it's even my job to help them do so. But a significant percentage wouldn't even be selling if they had made the right choice in the first place!

The point I'm trying to make is this: Because the ability to find and recognize a bargain is a valuable skill, if you want it, you're going to pay for it. You can either pay me consultant rates by the hour, or you can pay me by doing the transaction with me. In either case, you're going to sign a contract that spells out exactly what that pay is. If you want bargains I've already found, those are valuable also. I can use the basic information as a lure to attract other people willing to work with me. If you buy it and you are not my client, the simple physical reality is that it's not available for people who are my clients. You got the benefit of my expertise without paying for it - and those who are willing to pay for it didn't. Contrary to something I read by a listing agent the other day, I have no responsibility to market the property - I haven't accepted agency, sub-agency, or anything else. When I'm acting as a buyer's agent, I have no obligation to any owner to sell their property. And until some prospective buyers sign my agency contract, I have no responsibility to them as far as locating and evaluating property. So if they're not going to sign my contract - and a non-exclusive agreement is all either one of us needs - I have no responsibility to give them the benefits of my expertise for free, any more than a lawyer or a computer programmer does. As a matter of fact, that non-exclusive contract is me betting that I will find something sufficiently above and beyond the market that they want to buy it - because if they don't buy it, the contract says I don't make anything because they don't owe me anything. It's me betting that my expertise will cause them to want to stick with me - because if it doesn't or they don't want to, there's no reason they have to. If that bargain I find isn't a bargain, they can walk away with no obligations. But if it is a bargain, they use me as buyer's agent. The only reason to refuse to sign a non-exclusive agency contract is if you're not willing to work with the agent who brings you the bargain.

And that describes most of those who call or email. When asked to sign my contract, they'll say, "I'm working with someone." To which the answer is, "No, you're not. They're not doing the job. If they were, you wouldn't have come to me. What you are asking for is no different than asking one lawyer to do for free what you're paying another lawyer to do, or asking one computer programmer to do for free what you're paying someone else for. If you didn't think that what I do was somehow valuable to you, you wouldn't have contacted me and we'd both be doing something else right now. So your choice is this: Do you want to stick with someone who isn't doing the job, or do you want to work with someone who will get the job done, and will give you permission to fire him if he doesn't?"

Loyalty has a place. It's perfectly fine to give your Uncle Harry a chance to earn your business. But if Uncle Harry gives you his business card and tells you to call him when you've found the property you want to buy (or a property you may want to buy), he hasn't earned your business. In fact, he's told you he's unworthy of it. That's not an agent. That's a transaction coordinator, which most agents will charge you extra for so that they can go out prospecting and gladhanding for other business while the transaction coordinator does paperwork - the only real work their office does. But full service should be a lot more than a transaction coordinator doing paperwork in the office - and the office should pay for that coordinator out of what they make, not charge you extra for it. In this scenario, what expertise are you really getting? The ability to fill out all the paperwork on a checklist? It is important - but is it worth the thousands of dollars to you? Or is the ability to find you a bargain while discarding properties that aren't bargains what's really worth what a buyer's agent makes?

If you want a bargain on real estate, work with the buyer's agent who finds bargains you want to buy. The principle is the same one that says if you want the ditch Charlie digs, you pay Charlie to dig a ditch, not George. If you want the haircut Jane gives, you go to Jane's shop for her haircut - not down the street to Mary. And if John the mechanic isn't fixing your car correctly, you don't pay John and then ask Dave to do the work for free. You take your car away from John and take it down to Dave, and pay him for the work he does. It doesn't matter that John's mechanic shop has nifty uniforms, a funny advertising campaign, or anything else other than the mechanic who fixes your car so it runs right, which they don't. Dave fixes your car so that it runs right, you pay Dave, and you go back to Dave the next time it breaks down. If the funny advertising campaign is worth giving John some money, that's fine. But you're still going to have to pay Dave to fix your car, and he's going to want you to sign his service contract before he does any real work. The same thing applies to when you want to buy real estate. If Uncle Harry isn't doing the job you need him to do, you fire Uncle Harry and start working with someone else. Don't tell me you want me to find bargains for you but you're working with Uncle Harry. Get Uncle Harry to find you the bargains. If he's not doing that, your choice is really very simple: Suffer with Uncle Harry, or start working with someone who will do the job that he isn't.

When I'm looking to buy professional services, I don't look for the office with the lawyer with the neat ad campaign, computer programmers who act friendliest, or the doctor who talks about how to draw customers into their office. I look for the office who will demonstrate their expertise, keep me there by demonstrating their knowledge of the expertise I need, explain everything I need to know (preferably before I need to know it), advise me as to what my best choices are and the consequences of those choices. I want the office that finds other, better alternatives and offers them to me. That's sanity. That's what's valuable to me.

The same principle applies to real estate. If you want to do the searching yourself, that's fine. Here's your MLS gateway, call me when something pops up that you want me to get involved in. But if you want real expertise on the buyer's side of the transaction, that gateway is not what you want and you're going to have to agree to pay the agent who gives it to you. Because it is valuable, and if you didn't think it was valuable, you wouldn't be asking for it. I am not what most people think of as cheap - no good agent is. But I'm a lot less expensive than using a cheap agent.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

There is no such thing as the perfect time to buy. The perfect time to buy would mean that you have all kinds of leverage, and can make sellers give you pretty much the deal you want, but prices are nonetheless rising rapidly so that you will have a large amount of equity the first time you need or want to refinance, or if you need to relocate.

These two conditions never go together. If buyers have all the leverage, they are certainly not going to opt for increasing prices. Sellers can gripe and moan about it all they want, but when there is too much inventory prices are going to fall until that that excess is gone. Supply and Demand. In 2003 and 2004, there might have been 4000 residential properties on the market locally at any one time. When I originally wrote this, it was over 22,000 and I've seen it up to 25,000. That meant 18,000 additional sellers were competing for no more than the same number of buyers (fewer by my count). If they don't really want to sell, if they just want to sabotage other sellers by adding to apparent inventory, that's no skin off the buyers' noses. If sellers want to actually sell the property, they've got to compete in order to attract those potential buyers. It's not like buyers just go out there and buy the property whose owner's turn it is to sell. They buy the best property for them at the cheapest price. So sellers can either compete by having a cheaper price, or they can compete by having a better property. Most house bling does not recover the money you spend on it, even in a seller's market, but it might give you the wedge you need to attract a buyer in a buyer's market - provided that your property is no more expensive than the comparables. Most sellers are in denial about this. They've got something a little bit better than the comparables, they want to ask $50,000 more, and then they wonder why their property isn't selling.

If you're looking for a time when property prices are increasing by twenty percent per year, by all means wait. Those conditions are called "seller's markets," because people who are willing to sell can get buyers to do pretty much everything they want, including pay more than the last seller got. Most sellers want to hold when prices are going like that, and buyers are desperate to acquire. High demand, low supply.

Trying to time the market so that you buy at exactly the moment when it hits bottom is an exercise in futility. Trying to "Time the market," whether stocks, bonds, or real estate, is a recipe for disaster. It's great if it happens, but it's sheer luck, and anyone who tells you different is lying. By the time people realize that prices are really going up again, buyers will come out of the woodwork and we'll be in a seller's market again.

Buyer's markets, where sellers outnumber buyers, do not last long, in large part due to the fact that once everyone figures out that prices are no longer declining, now everybody suddenly wants to buy. Inventory has usually been shrinking for quite some time before that happens.

Buy while the ratio of sellers to buyers is in the thirties, while you can pick and choose your properties, and if one seller won't play ball, the one down the street who's a little more desperate will. If you need some special consideration, like a seller carryback of part of the purchase price, you kind find sellers who will be willing to cooperate because that's the only way they will get the property sold. If you wait until the market heats up and there are only five sellers per buyer, they're a lot more likely to tell you to take a hike with special requests like that. If I want cash, why should I loan it to someone with poor credit money at a below market rate if it's likely that I'll find another buyer in a week?

The time of year may not be optimum. Other things being equal, Christmas season is always the best time of year to shop for a property, because nobody wants to move the Christmas tree. Most people have enough extra stuff going on at Christmas that they don't want to add another major item: buying or selling their home. Those sellers who have their property on the market need to sell. Spring is the best time for sellers, right when things start to warm up (so the very best seller season happens earlier in San Diego than I understand it does in Minneapolis)

Finally, there is one more factor: The Mortgage Loan Market Controls the Real Estate Market. Right now lenders are being picky about what circumstances they will loan money in, and incredibly picky about the loans they actually fund. This means that if you're one of those folks whom the lenders will fund, or who doesn't need a loan, you'll be able to pick up wonderful bargains.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I refinanced my house and an existing lien was not discovered

Now the important question: Is it a valid lien, or has it really been paid, and just not released of record? If it has been paid, you don't owe money simply because the lien release on your property was not properly recorded. If you can prove it was paid off, either by yourself or a previous owner, you're out of the woods.

Since you are asking the question, however, I'm going to assume that it is a valid lien. Most are. You owe the money. It doesn't magically go away simply because the title company (or lawyer doing the title search) missed it.

Now, assuming you live in a title insurance state, it should make no difference to the state of your mortgage. You bought a lender's policy of title insurance as part of your transaction, and the title policy insures the lender from loss due to the extra lien.

You still owe the money, of course. Like any other bill, just because you neglected to pay it off or neglected to pay it on time does not mean you somehow don't owe the money. If it was in effect from before you bought the property, though, your owners policy of title insurance should kick in and pay it off. That's the way title insurance works - they tell you about known issues with your title, and then they insure (almost) everything else. They'll then go after the previous owner, of course. That's what subrogation is all about. They stepped in and paid to keep you from getting damaged, but they now assume the right to receive the money from the person who damaged you. If you live in an attorney title search state, my understanding is that you are going to have to sue the attorney involved, but suing attorneys is a tough proposition, and you can't recover the base lien, only increased damages resulting from that attorney's negligence. If the previous owner was really responsible for it, the title insurer is going to have to run them down and file a lawsuit, and quite often the previous owner has no assets that they can get at.

If the lien was your doing, as most are, you're going to have to start making an effort to pay that lien. How much of an effort depends upon whether you have a lender's policy of title insurance. If you do, it's really no huge deal, because the lender has access to the checkbook of a national megacorporation. If you don't, the lender can potentially force you to pay it in cash right now. They can also force you to refinance by calling your loan, or to take out a second mortgage to pay the lien off in many cases. It's possible they might just pay it and tack it on to your balance, usually boosting your payment in the process. Talk to a real estate lawyer in your state for details, but the lender is not generally going to leave an uncovered lien in place, when the pricing they gave you for that loan was predicated upon there not being such a lien. Since the lien predates their loan, it's almost certainly senior to it, by which I mean that if something happens and you have to sell the property to pay off the liens, it gets paid before your mortgage. The lender is not usually going to tolerate that.

Now suppose that you got a thirty year fixed rate loan at 5% back in 2003, and suppose rates have gone up to seven and a half percent by the time you rediscover the lien. The lender can do better with that money from your loan, and so they are going to want to seize upon any excuse to make you pay it off. This, all by itself, is a really good reason to be careful with your liens.

If you intentionally hid the lien, the lender may even sue for fraud in many jurisdictions. If you intentionally hid it, for instance, it's quite likely that your policy of title insurance won't cover you or the lender, and the lender is going to be very unhappy about that.

Most people, however, don't intentionally hide a lien, they just forgot it was there, and when the title search comes up empty any worries in the back of their mind went away. If they even think about it, they mentally write it off. "Oh, I must have forgotten that I paid it." You still owe the money, and now that it's discovered, you're going to have to start paying on it, but if they've got lender's title insurance the lender shouldn't freak.

Missing liens is actually fairly rare, but once title insurers miss them, they usually will not be caught on subsequent title searches, because the title company will use the previous title search as a starting point (around here, they actually call them "starters", but I don't know how widespread the practice is) for their new title search. Sometimes they do catch them, and ask the previous title company for an indemnity (which basically says that the previous title company is still liable for having missed it).

Caveat Emptor

Original here

The overview is simple: The government has made it take slightly more effort to lie to consumers, while adding layers of delays that add a minimum of a week - an average of three weeks - to the time it takes to do a loan. Meanwhile, lenders have changed the market in ways to hinder competition and make it tougher for the savvy consumer to find the real best deal.

In short, while a complete chump might be happy that the con artists have to work a little harder while ripping them off, the consumer who makes the effort of understanding what is going on has far less ability to ensure a positive result.

First the good news: the change for the better is the new government forms. It's been 4 years since The new HUD 1 and Good Faith Estimate were approved, and they are more intuitive and easier for laypeople to understand than the old forms. There is also new verbiage on the forms that tells people that just because they applied for this loan in no way obligates them to actually complete it. That's also good

In exchange for that much good news, there is a litany of things that are worse. Let's start with the small stuff and build up to the most important.

First off, the Home Valuation Code Of Conduct (HVCC). Precisely how the Attorney General of one state used state funds to shake down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provide cushy jobs for his political cronies and allies, and gain personal control over the way business is conducted in all fifty states should certainly be a subject for public scrutiny, but I'm mostly concerned with the impact upon the consumer. In exchange for allegedly freeing appraisers from "interference" by real estate agents and loan officers who want them to hit a specific number, consumers are now paying higher costs for appraisals, appraisers are getting less money for those same appraisals, an entire level of bureaucracy and political patronage has been created with control over the entire appraisal process. For our part, loan officers and real estate agents no longer have the ability to stop using a particular appraiser, no matter how terrible we know them to be - it's whomever the appraisal management company picks (i.e. the low bidder). As a loan officer, I am not allowed to so much as communicate with the appraiser except through an intermediary. And if they've chosen a really horrible comparable that unduly influences value in either direction, most of the appraisal management companies make it difficult or impossible to process that information into modifying the appraisal. I personally had an appraiser kill what should have been a perfectly good loan by choosing two trashed lender-owned properties as the prime comparables to a well maintained family home that was in a better location than either - and I couldn't choose another appraisal, another appraisal management company, or anything else. I had to tell the client I was real sorry about the money he wasted on the appraisal, but that was the limit of what I could do. Yeah, I could offer to pay for appraisals - by jacking my margin on loans enough to pay for the ones that don't work out. Lots of companies do that, with an added margin for themselves, of course - he who takes the risk always gets a reward, and when they set the terms they are going to set ones that result in a higher profit to them. But that's not the way I choose to do business. HVCC may eventually be repealed due to the problems with it being so blatant that they cannot be ignored. But it is a comparatively small issue in terms of real difference to consumers.

Yes, the others are more important than wasting several hundred dollars on a loan that now can't be done because the appraisal job was given to a bozo, despite whatever the loan officer may have wished. Oh, and it also delays the loan because I have to go through one Appraisal Management Company, and it takes as long as whomever they choose takes. Read on.

The elimination of stated income loans is not without its benefits. It was horribly abused, and those abuses are now a thing of the past. However, if you're a small business person or someone with a large amount in legitimate deductions, it means you may have to forego a lot of legitimate deductions on your income taxes in order to qualify for a loan, making it much more expensive to those consumers the stated income program was designed for. Especially if you bought the home you can really afford as opposed to the one your taxes say you can and you've got an adjustable loan. This elimination can, has and will continue to cost a noteworthy number of individuals who really could afford it their homes. It will continue to cost individuals who leave employment and go into business for themselves. It would have been better targeted by limiting it to people who are in the economic classes it was intended to serve. The cost of doing it the wrong but easy way isn't huge on a per capita scale, but it's highly concentrated in those consumers who are our best sources of economic growth.

The next issue hits everyone who applies for a loan. It lies with MDIA, a new act put into place by Congress. It is allegedly to help the consumer by forcing the mortgage provider - broker or banker - to provide accurate information on their Good Faith Estimate and Truth In Lending forms. I say allegedly because that's not how it works in practice. I can't speak for their intent, but I can tell you what happens in practice. First, the mortgage provider tells the consumer whatever lie it takes to get the consumer to sign up, same as it has always been. Then, a week before final closing but too late for the consumer to actually get another loan that will fund in time for their purchase, they have to tell the consumer something resembling the truth. Even if it's only a refinance, the consumer has sunk the money into the loan for the appraisal and there is all the time and effort they spent getting the loan to that point, meaning that they are still unlikely to go look for another loan. Real difference to the consumer: not much. Difference to the unethical loan officer: They have to do one extra Good Faith estimate and Truth in Lending in order to get the money they that results from telling the lie. Forms that their computers are perfectly capable of spitting out. In practice, the amount of disincentive for lenders to lie about their loan to get people to sign up is zero.

(oh, I'm sorry, I meant "forget to tell the consumer about all the fees they'll be paying". Not. These loan officers know about every fee that's going to get paid. If they don't, I sure wouldn't do business with them)

Furthermore, this delays the loan. I just closed a loan where everything I put down on California's version of the Good Faith Estimate, the Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement was exactly the same from day 1 to the day we were ready to close - and I moved heaven and earth and gave up $1000 plus just so we could close it and get on with our lives - only to find that the lender I had placed the loan with calculated the APR by a different way - not compliant with Regulation Z which governs such - simply to cover their backsides. This forced a re-disclosure and a minimum waiting period of seven days just to get this loan about which absolutely nothing had changed from day one closed. Extensions of rate locks cost money - this one cost two tenths of a point, which the consumer ended up paying because the government wanted to "protect" them from the "Nasty Rapacious Loan Officer" who told them the truth in the first place. But the penalties on the lenders are enough that they want to force this re-disclosure, delaying the loan, even when the consumer has been told the exact truth in the first place. After all, it doesn't cost that lender any money to force the redisclosure and waiting period.

The complexity of underwriting standards has skyrocketed. Can't force anyone to make a loan, or dictate conditions under which it is made. Nonetheless, it seems every week there are more baroque little curlicues to the loan process trying to reassure nervous investors. Every one of these means trouble for some people, and at this point it's well-qualified people. All the government can and should do is what it has: provide an alternative in the form of FHA loans. They're intended for first time buyers, but you don't have to be a first time buyer to take advantage. If someone can't qualify conventional but can qualify FHA, they will pay the extra cost. Unfortunately, the lenders are adding their own little curlicues to FHA loans in order to short circuit this natural process - and it's not like FHA loans aren't baroque enough already.

This segues into the elimination of everything that isn't straight A vanilla loans or government insured loans. Actually, conforming A paper loans are essentially government insured now that the government owns Fannie and Freddie. But subprime is gone, Alt A is gone, and A minus is essentially gone. Fannie and Freddie have eliminated all but the first tier of their expanded approval programs for people who almost but don't quite fit their ideal models of who qualifies. I personally haven't had an expanded approval loan since but I understand they're not funding in the real world. The impression I get is very strongly "We don't want to do these any more, but we have to leave the possibility open as a political fig leaf. Good luck getting us to actually fund one."

This has implications for home ownership and home retention. Bad things happen to good people. Identity theft, illness, job loss, business failure. All of these now have a much higher probability of costing you your ability to buy a property, and of costing you the ability to retain that property for years after you work your way through the main problem. I really like hybrid ARMs and have done them for myself for a long time, but the probability of having something happen which completely sabotages any ability to refinance has become unacceptably high, in my opinion. You can save a lot of dough by using hybrid ARMs, but what happens if you can't refinance at all before the fixed period ends? Net result: consumers who would have been comfortable and saved money with hybrid ARMs are now forced to reconsider and choose fixed rate loans at higher rates of interest. Net result: higher costs to consumers and more income to lenders and investors.

All this increased complexity adds to the time it takes to do loans. When I started this website I could reliably get a purchase money loan funded in about two and a half weeks, and a refinance done in under 30 days (Right of Rescission basically adds a week to the time it takes to get refinances done). Until and unless things change, the thirty day escrow for purchases is history and the 45 day escrow is becoming increasingly difficult. Add a week to that time for refinances. I know loan officers who won't accept less than a sixty day escrow for purchases any more. This extra time costs consumers money, especially if they are buying or selling a property. If you're just refinancing, your living situation really isn't going to change - but if you need to move, the extended escrow period makes things more unsettled and more costly. If you don't believe me, you haven't bought or sold property recently.

All of these pale in comparison to something that has drawn precisely zero scrutiny from outside the mortgage industry: lenders are now charging brokers for loans that are locked and not delivered. It's not a figure in dollars charged immediately - it's a differential in the form of higher costs to get the same rate that the brokers and all of their future clients have to pay. The practical upshot to this is that those brokers who were working in favor of consumers can no longer lock the rate and cost upon application for the loan, which means they can no longer stand behind what they tell you when you sign up for the loan with a Loan Quote Guarantee. Lenders rationalize this by saying the failure to deliver on the lock costs them money - but they don't charge their own "in house" loan officers this differential.

The effect is to limit competition and make brokers unable to guarantee their quotes. Good luck getting that sort of guarantee from a traditional lender. It also makes it impossible for consumers to get a backup loan in case they have been lied to. Because I can't lock my loan until we're actually sure it's going to close, I certainly can't guarantee to beat the other guy when it comes to the final push - and if the rate cost tradeoff declines, a quote that's pure nonsense today may become realistic. On the flip side, a quote that's conservative today may become impossible if that rate/cost tradeoff goes up. Guess what? Each one of these events happens about fifty percent of the time. So another practical upshot is that there's no way to really know what's going to be delivered at closing unless we can lock the loan. Under these circumstances, people tend to take flight to the big comfortable names with lots of advertising, not the small broker doing the right thing with no overhead who really can deliver a better loan. Cost to consumers: High, as in multiple thousands of dollars. If lenders could and would really compete with brokers on price, there would have been no economic niche for brokers in the first place.

One by one, changes in the lending environment has demolished the usefulness of pretty much all of the concrete "do this, not that. Require this from your loan provider" type help that I have been trying to disseminate since day one on this website. The softer, contextual stuff still stands well, but the concrete step-by-step instructions, not so much. The practical upshot is that while the situation for the complete babes in the woods applying for a loan has improved slightly, the ability of the well-informed consumer to influence the lending process for a positive result has been severely eroded. Now more than ever, it comes down to the individual loan officer and their intentions. I'm not happy about it, but that's the business as it is today. I can adapt or I can get out of the business, and it's not like me getting out of the business would change things for the better.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

People who talk about learning skills tend to discuss a model for learning called the conscious competence learning model.

It starts with unconscious incompetence. You not only don't know how to do something, you don't realize that it is a skill that requires learning. "Anyone can do that", people at this stage of learning will think, despite the fact that they never have. They have, in fact, no basis for comparison. A very few things are as simple as tripping over your own feet, but most aren't.

The next stage is the conscious incompetent. You still don't know how to do whatever it is, but at least you know that you don't know how. Maybe you've tried and fallen flat upon your face, maybe it's something that you instinctively know is beyond your training or ability. Back when I worked for the FAA and people would find out what I did for a living, it's was amusing to see how many people would immediately volunteer that they couldn't have done my job. For some reason, I don't get that now, despite the fact that the skills of being a good real estate agent are at least as difficult to acquire.

The next stage up the ladder is the conscious competent. Some preparation, supervision, a few botched tries, and then you do it right without anyone having to step in. But you've got to think - really pay attention, take your time and be careful about what you're doing.

The final stage is unconscious competence, where the skill becomes second nature. You're good at whatever it is. Most people over the age of two are at this stage as far as the skill of walking is concerned. They do it without considering how to move the muscles that make the legs and hips move. They walk whatever distance they need to without even paying attention. And here's an important point: Sometimes by not paying attention, people step on something or trip over something and get seriously hurt. They walk in front of a semi, or trip over the coffee table and fall through a window or just step on an oily patch that causes their feet to go out from under them and hit the back of their skull on the pavement.

It is my contention that nobody is up to unconscious competence when it comes to real estate.

In fact, if you think you've achieved unconscious competence at most of the core skills of real estate, you're almost certainly stuck on the first level - somebody who doesn't know what they don't know.

First off, real estate isn't one skill. It's at least half a dozen. The average client doesn't care about how good we are at attracting other clients. They care if we interact with them incorrectly, but I have yet to hear of a prospective client saying, "I want to sign up with someone who's great at prospecting for leads." They'll say things that amount to the same thing, like "I want to work with a top producer," or "I want to work with (insert heavily advertised brand here)" but there's a real difference of intent on the part of the consumer. They really don't care about lead prospecting competence per se. Yet this is probably the most discussed skill set on real estate websites. I don't understand why other agents think this is fascinating to clients, but by how often they talk about it, they evidently do. Maybe because it's one of the big focal points for every office - if you don't attract enough business, you're not going to be in the business. Nonetheless, clients don't really care about this one. You could be the worst prospector in the business, but somehow get enough clients to stay in business, and as long as you're good at everything else, the clients are going to be happy.

Then there are the interpersonal skills that most people have in fact developed by the time they're adults. Hello, how are you? Nice day, and so on from there until we get to the pinnacle of those skills, handling people so well that they never realize they've been handled. People care about this, and they know they care. Don't believe me? Whatever you do for a living, try calling your next prospect something nasty. You can't do real estate without these skills, but not only are they not the central job function for real estate licensees, but clients actually do not want somebody who is obviously too good at this. Why? They like the basic skills, but they don't like being played by sales persons, something that's happened to basically everyone by the time they're ready to buy real estate or get a loan. Nonetheless, many people choose agents and loan officers based upon feeling "a connection." *Buzz*. Wrong answer, thank you for playing. If a prospective agent isn't competent at the interpersonal dance, that's one thing. But 95% of all agents are quite good at it, and it doesn't mean a darned thing about their competence at real estate. Anybody with any competence at interpersonal skills can talk a good game in the office. They could be ready to crack that license prep course any day - not actually know a thing about real estate yet - and still manage to generate "a connection."

Then there's the paperwork and legal CYA stuff. I could name names of nationwide real estate firms that take months to cover these skills with new licensees, and brag about their training based upon that. The obvious snark that occurs to me every time I see one of their advertisements is, "How is being able to avoid legal judgments when you've hosed your client a virtue in the client's eyes?" In other words, it blows my mind that they actually brag about it to clients - and it also blows my mind that some people will actually choose them based upon advertising that essentially says, "We're good at the paperwork that allows us to not get sued for hosing our clients".

To be fair, paperwork is a real and necessary part of the career skills, but I'd like to see more emphasis upon actually doing a good job for the client, not disclosing everything in small print, hidden among 500 other sheets of paper at final document signing. There is stuff here that you're going to see on every transaction, or almost every transaction, but pretty much every real estate transaction is going to have something going on that is different from some hypothetical "typical" transaction, and if you aren't thinking about what you're doing, it's very likely you'll miss something important. Even if you are thinking carefully, you might miss something. People successfully sue agents every day, and the defendants are not all incompetent. Paperwork isn't a skill that gets clients a better bargain very often, and perfect paperwork doesn't mean the client didn't buy a vampire property or money pit, that they got a good bargain even if they didn't buy a vampire, that they sold for a good price in a timely fashion, or anything else except that the paperwork is perfect. The paperwork will usually tell them if they are careful enough and understand enough to read between the lines, but "careful enough" can be "reading documents for forty-six hours straight at final signing," and even then, it's pointless unless they've got the willpower to say "no" to the transaction at the last moment like that. Nonetheless, bad paperwork is what the attorneys of former clients find easiest to pin on real estate agents, and almost every judgment against an agent has "bad paperwork" behind it as the evidence. Paperwork is a necessary skill for agents, but it it's only evidence of a good or bad job - it isn't the good job or bad job itself.

Negotiation is a critical skill for agents, and many do actually study it. But for every agent I encounter who understands principles of negotiation, another is completely clueless and a third thinks negotiation is where you tell the other side everything about how the transaction is going to be. You should see some of the contracts my buyer clients have been told to sign - take it or leave it - in the middle of the strongest buyer's market of the last fifteen years. And these folks wonder why the property didn't sell. Actually, I'll bet that if you work with buyers, you wouldn't be surprised. I just randomly pulled up twenty listings in the zip code my office is in - and all but two had violations of RESPA right in the listing. Bare, baldfaced violations of RESPA - steering is illegal, no matter the form it takes. It's not only setting you up for a lawsuit, it's setting your client up for a lawsuit. If DRE wanted to put at least half the agents and brokerages in California out of business over steering, I think it would be pretty trivial. But I digress - I'm trying to talk about negotiation.

Everything about the transaction is negotiable, and refusing to negotiate anything can be grounds for losing an excellent offer. Price is not an independent variable, and it's not the most important of a series of completely independent points. It may be the central issue of a negotiation, but it influences everything else about the negotiation, and is in turn influenced by all those other factors. What does each side need, what do they want, what would they settle for, and what are they willing to give up in order to get it? If the answer to this last question is "nothing," then they must not want it very badly! There are many factors other than money, but they all inter-relate, and the person who can figure out something the other side wants that isn't money can use that to make both sides happier. Negotiation isn't just faxing offers back and forth, and in the context of real estate, it's a skill that takes a significant amount of practice as well as study to maintain. Furthermore, more than any other skill involved in real estate, negotiation never gets to be so strong a skill that you can do a good job without thinking about it. For one thing, on the other side of that negotiation is another agent who does the same thing. I always presume the other side is better at it than I am to start with. Evidence quite often proves this presumption to be nonsense, but you don't hose your client in negotiations by paying attention and being careful. Nor is there any metric for negotiation skills except how good the deal you get one particular client is, and since every property is unique, often the client has no real idea whether you should be nominated for negotiator of the year or pilloried for incompetence. I haven't heard of anybody being sued for poor or non-existent negotiation skills. I have heard of buyer's agents getting beat up by their brokers for doing too good of a job - lowering the commission.

The next skill is property evaluation. This is more important to buyer's agents than listing agents, but listing agents can benefit by knowing it as well. It breaks into several skill facets, each of which is a skill that requires instruction and practice. The most important facet of this is the ability to spot defects that are going to cost the client money - actual structural problems. Ask yourself: Is the fact that the agent tells you they're not an inspector going to make you feel better about buying a property where the roof caves in three weeks later? Is that going to absolve the agent of blame in your mind? Don't expect your agent to note everything that a contractor or inspector or engineer will - but they should tell you about everything they see, and they should see most of it, and it should come as part of a full service package, so you don't have to spend $300 getting an inspector out, or $600 for an engineer, not to mention put a deposit into escrow where you may not get it back for quite some time if the seller wants to be obstinate. This is a critical job skill - but you would be amazed at the number of highly agents whose advertising tells the world about how much real estate they sell who might as well be wearing a blindfold. Telling clients about defects makes it harder to really churn those numbers!

Furthermore, without a good agent who will tell you this stuff, you might have to do this multiple times. Instead, with a good agent you know about the problem before you consider putting an offer in - and instead of a costly drama that eats your life, you walk away unscathed and find another property that actually suits you. On the day I originally rote this, I had persuaded a client to cross four properties off their list, all of which would have sent him through that cycle. Decorator's eye is another facet of this - helping the client stage a property - or helping buyers see the potential of a property despite poor staging. Poor staging wouldn't make nearly the difference it does if most agents weren't lacking in this truly important skill.

Rehabber's eye is related, yet a distinct sub-skill - helping the client see the property with a few changes, usually not very expensive ones. Location evaluation: How does the location of the property fit with the client's agenda? Schools, traffic, shopping, environmental noise and other factors. Sometimes, the client doesn't know their own agenda, as I have discovered upon many occasions. All of these are part of the core job function, all are skills that must be developed and practiced if you want them. They are also critical to how happy a client is going to be with an agent's work - particularly if you're working as a buyer's agent, as I usually am. But it seems that this whole group of critical skills gets neglected in favor of "Which property has one feature that makes Mrs. Client swoon with delight?" This approach is conceptually similar to "throw enough mud at the wall and eventually some will stick." Out of sheer frustration if nothing else. But I have yet to see a single brokerage train their clients for any of this entire group of skills. Indeed, most of the major chains seem to be doing their best to pretend these are not part of an agent's function. Here's the thing: I can get people to buy and sell properties without these skills, and never get sued successfully over them. But then it's completely hit or miss as to whether the client will really be happy with the property - and who do you think is going to get the blame if they're not? I had some clients insist upon buying property on the corner of two moderately busy streets last year - and I made certain to remind them of the traffic and noise throughout the transaction - giving them encouragement to change their mind if they weren't certain they were going to be happy with it. But I'll bet you a nickel they call me when it's time to sell it because these opportunities to change their mind also generated a real buy-in to the situation for them.

Marketing skill is more critical for listing agents, but buyer's agents need to know marketing as well. How do you get the attention of someone who will want to buy this property? How do you persuade them it's worth making an offer on? What are the available venues, and what actually works? Theory says that there is one buyer out there who will pay more for the property than anyone else - how do you get their attention or that of someone close to them? Get them to come look, get them to see value, get them to make an offer you're happy to accept, get them to carry through on the purchase? On the buyer's side, you've got to be able to counter the fecal matter - and I can count on the fingers of one hand all the properties I've been in the last year where I didn't find some obvious fecal matter in the way it was represented, or the things that the listing agent said in order to get it sold. (FYI: This fecal matter has an ugly habit of biting the disseminators later on.)

Did you think I was leaving market knowledge out? Here it is. How does the property compare to everything else around it? What's the general market for real estate like in the area? What else has sold lately, for how much, and what was it really like? It's too late now to get a viewing of all the comparables that sold within the last few months - the lock box is gone, the new owners have moved in, they're done with all that transactional nonsense, and the vast majority sure as heck aren't going to let random strangers poke around their new house. How many agents get off their backside, get into their car, go out and look, take notes, and remember? Most of the agents I've done business with never leave the office except for an actual showing generated by clients driving around, or surfing the internet, or even reading the "for sale" ads.

Showing clients only those properties they have asked to see is so backwards I have difficulty articulating precisely how messed up it is. A good agent knows the market, knows the comparables for sale, and knows how a given property compares. They might not have been in every single one, but they've been in enough for a good comparison. Patronizing an agent who hasn't done this, who doesn't make a habit of this, is like having half an agent - at most. How in the nine billion names of god are you going to help a client price a listing properly if you haven't looked at the competition? How in the name of ultimate evil are you going to know a property is or isn't worth making an offer on, and for how much? Yet people will do put up with this nonsense because they don't know any better. This is probably the agent skill that needs the most practice of all, and decays the most quickly if not practiced. There's this one neighborhood about three miles from my office that I haven't been into for almost three months, and I'm terrified I'm going to get a call for it before I can remedy the situation. There's nothing wrong with clients suggesting properties, and I firmly believe that no matter how messed up the property is, they should be given the opportunity to see any property that catches their eye - but doing that and only that takes zero advantage of the one thing good agents have that bad agents and 99.999% of the general public don't - precisely this expertise. It is this expertise that makes more difference than any other skill set in results for clients - whether selling or buying. You can't recognize either a bargain or the opposite without the context to put it in. You can't price a property right without knowing the competing properties and their relative strengths and weaknesses. But all too many people, both agents and general public, discount this difficult to acquire skill, thinking, "Anybody can do that!" Question: Which learning category does this place them into?

I don't know how many people I've met that seem proud to be stuck in unconscious incompetence. But just because you don't recognize the skill doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that its lack won't bite you, and it most assuredly does not mean that its presence in others won't hurt you. For real estate transactions, to the tune of thousands of dollars at a minimum. Knowledge springs, not from the mental impenetrability of "Anyone can do that!", but rather from the admission that perhaps you might have something to learn.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I enjoy your blog very much and figured you would be a good person to ask this prepayment penalty question to.

Is there a prepayment penalty if you dont pay down the whole amount? For
instance, say I owe 620k and want to refinance this. Can I get a loan for
say 610k from another lender and leave 10k with the orignal lender?

Does that avoid the prepay penalty?

No.

Have to admire the ingenuity, but it won't work. Here's why:

First off, the penalty is triggered by paying a certain amount extra. There are two main trigger points for a prepayment penalty, usually known as "first dollar" and "twenty percent." "First dollar" prepayment penalties are uncommon, but they do exist. What such a penalty means is that if you pay one extra dollar of principal during the time the penalty is in effect, you will get hit for the penalty - usually six months interest on the prepaid amount. Not so bad if you pay an extra dollar and get hit with a three cent penalty, but you have to pay a substantial amount to get any noticeable good out of it. You pay $1000 extra, and that's $30 they're going to hit you with on a 6% loan. Pay off a $100,000 at 6%, and they're going to have their hands out for $3000 extra.

The other trigger point, "twenty percent" lets you pay down the balance by up to twenty percent for any given year without triggering the penalty. Note that this includes not only any extra you pay, but normal amortization as well. If you have a $100,000 balance, and would normally pay $3000 down through regular amortizationduring the year, this leaves you with "only" $17,000 of extra that you can pay before the penalty starts hitting you. Most often for this type of trigger, the prepayment penalty will only be assessed on any amount over 20% of the balance, but I have seen these charge the full penalty once triggered. So paying off $20,001 of a $100,000 balance at 6% might, depending upon your loan contract, cause a $600.03 penalty to be assessed - but most often it will only be that three cents. In this case, paying off the loan in full would only cause the penalty to be assessed on $80,000 - $2400 instead of $3000. It's also something to be cognizant of that this 20% paydown applies to the balance as of the start of the loan year, which runs from contract anniversary to anniversary. Say you have such a penalty in effect for three years. The first year you only pay it down to $80,000, escaping the penalty. The second year, you can only pay it down to $64,000 - by 20% of the beginning amount for the year - before triggering the penalty. If you do so, in year three you can only pay it down as far as $51,200 without triggering that penalty. This type of trigger is used when the lender is mostly worried about a complete refinance or selling the property. (A "soft" prepay is one where the penalty is not due if you actually sell the property, but most loans with prepayment penalties have "hard" penalties that are assessed at a certain trigger level, no matter the reason.)

No matter whether your penalty trigger is "first dollar" or "twenty percent" though, you're not going to refinance without paying it off completely. Here's why: In order for the new loan to be first in line, the old loan has to be paid off completely. The rates and prices on home loans that we all see advertisements and such for are predicated upon them being first trust deeds. They can only do this by paying off the previous loan in full and having a Reconveyance of the Deed of Trust recorded. Not paying the old loan off means no Reconveyance, which in turn means no new loan because their Deed of Trust will not be first in line. You'd have to content yourself with the higher prices for a loan priced as a second trust deed.

There are only four ways to avoid a prepayment penalty that I'm aware of. 1) Don't accept one in the first place, 2) Don't sell or refinance until it expires if you do accept one, 3) Convince a court the lender has done you sufficient dirt for the court to order part of the contract voided (this takes a lot of dirt), or 4) Swap your old penalty period for a brand new one by refinancing with the same lender, if they will allow it (They don't have to).

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

One of the things I keep telling folks about the real estate market, whatever area you live in, is that it is controlled by the loan market. If you want to understand where real estate in general is headed, look at the loan market and the financial markets that generate them.

Right now, the loan markets are in terminal panic mode. The lenders are looking for any restrictions they can slap on around the edges to mollify investors, and investors are shying away from any loan that has any element of risk. All non-governmentally guaranteed loans for more than 95% of value have disappeared, and the ones above 90% of value are very difficult to find and even more difficult to fund. This means that VA loans and FHA loans are all that is left above 95% loan to value ratio, and stated income loans are dead, no matter how much sense they make for your situation, as nobody will make them. Fannie and Freddie have drastically curtailed their A minus programs (all but the first level of their expanded approval has been eliminated, and they don't want to actually fund even those). Outside of government loans, you've pretty much got to be A paper full documentation to get a loan at all.

This eliminates pretty much every type of loan that was a major player in the market when things were hot. It also severely restricts the numbers of new buyer in a position to buy. Since 100% Loan to Value ratio financing had been the almost universal financing vehicle for borrowers for the previous several years, this constricts the ability of prospective buyers to get the loans they need. Comparatively few people have money they could use for a down payment if they wanted to. Not everybody qualifies VA or FHA. VA requires military service, and FHA has policy limits on what they will fund.

Furthermore, all of the other loan programs to get 100% loan financing have gone away, and all of the supplemental programs to extend buyers' ability to qualify have rather sharp income limits, and those income limits are not going up at all. They actually effect San Diego less than most areas, but even here, they constrict the ability of buyers to qualify. Both the mortgage credit certificateand all of the municipal first time buyers programs have income limits that mean people can't make over a certain amount of income - and even if they have no other bills they can't qualify for the loan on property over a certain loan amount, because even if they have no other bills, their debt to income ratio will be too high from just the payment and taxes and insurance on the property. You can't cheat on this - all of these programs require full documentation of income. Above about $420,000, even if they conforming limit goes up, even if the prospective buyers make the maximum amount per year for the program and have no other bills, the people these programs are aimed at won't qualify because the debt to income ratio will be too high.

The moral of this story is simple: If you want to sell your property above a given price, you're not competing for first time buyers. You are competing for people who have sold (or are about to sell) their property for a profit and are now ready to move up. If the prospective buyers don't qualify for the necessary loan based upon debt to income ratio, they can't buy.

Any time you raise the price you want to sell by a certain amount, there are people that no longer qualify to buy your property. You have priced them out, and no matter how much they might want to buy your property, the fact remains that they cannot.

As for buyers making the median family income in San Diego of $75,900, their limit on loans is about $270,000. So unless they have a significant down payment, a family making $6000 per month is looking at a condominium. Just a cold hard fact.

There will always be buyers around the edges who are exceptions. People who have saved or inherited a substantial down payment in defiance of demographic trends. But those are the exceptions, and for every one of them, you have a dozen of more unqualified buyers engaged in wishful thinking. In the last year or so, I have spend a lot of time looking for loans unsuccessfully trying to get people into sustainable situations and save their property from foreclosure. At this point, until the lenders and investors calm down from their institutionalized panic, those loan programs aren't going to exist. Even having lots of equity may not help you unless you can afford a hard money loan.

Before you ask me what relevance this has to buying and selling, I'm going to answer: Every time a lending program goes away, there go some buyers who otherwise could have qualified. Right now, there is no stated income. Doesn't bother me much, as 95% or more of my clients have always been full doc, but for those who are used to the opposite ratio, it's the apocalypse. Ditto for sellers and listing agents who don't understand what it takes to qualify, and who price their properties as if the loan market for several years ago was still going gangbusters. When the property sits for months because the people who might buy can't qualify for that big of a loan, that's a problem.

With all this said, the people who do have the cash or the ability to qualify for a loan are in the driver's seat now. You may be getting tired of hearing this from me, but veterans can qualify for more loan than someone without military service for the same income due to the lack of mortgage insurance requirements. People with a large down payment are in an even stronger situation, and people who have both things going for them have an incredible amount of negotiating leverage. When the loan market will approve anyone who can fog a mirror, your competition is everyone who can fog a mirror. When the loan market wants to see guarantees and cold hard cash going into the property in the form of a down payment, your pool of available buyers is much smaller - and prices are lower because of it.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

(This was originally published September 29,2005)

Here's another advertisement that I got in the mail:

"Pick a Pay, Any Pay!' The Revolutionary Option ARM!"

"Start rates as low as 1%!"

Loan amount $100,000 Payment $321.64

$200,000 $643.28

$300,000 $964.92

$400,000 $1286.56

Could this help save you money?

Let's see, given the real rate on these, there is negative amortization of about $500 to start with per month on the $300,000 loan, compounded over the three years the pre-payment penalty is in effect. Cost me $19,000 to "save" this money - even if the underlying rate doesn't rise. Not counting what it costs to do the loan. Or I refinance out of it and pay a pre-payment penalty of about $9200.

Doesn't matter the friendly sounding name you give it. An option ARM is a Pick-a-pay is a negative amortization loan.

What this guy (in this case) is hoping is that you'll be so enticed by this "low payment" that you won't ask questions. These are easy loans to sell to people who don't understand them, and impossible to those who do unless you're the person it's really designed for. Indeed, many prospective clients do not want the problems with this loan explained to them. It's like they've chosen to be insulated from reality for a time.

But this is no surgical anaesthetic. Most folks are going to want to be homeowners for the rest of their lives, and unless your income has increased commensurate with your loan balance (and prospective interest rate increases) I guarantee you that the pain will go on for quite a long time after the time of "affordable low payments". I'd rather not shoot myself in the foot in the first place.

More from the ad:

You could also lower your monthly payments. Free yourself from high interest rate credit cards and debts with a loan that could reduce your monthly payments by hundreds of dollars and leave you with enough cash to buy a car, remodel, or pay property taxes. And don't forget that mortgage interest is usually tax deductible. So you could save more at tax time.

This is all true - and only a part of the story. Remember that the easiest way to lie is to tell the truth - just not all of it. What they're selling you is the seductive "cash now - pay later". This was how you probably got into the situation they're talking about. What most people do is then take the money out and spend it, and then when the payments get to be too much, refinance again. What are you going to do when the overall payments get larger (again) next time. What are you going to do when there's no more equity? What are you going to do when you can't afford the payments?

The consolidation refinance can be a real financial lifesaver, if you do it right, have a plan, stick to it, and pay everything off, or at least pay your mortgage down below where it was before you go acquiring more debt. Fiscal responsibility is not what they're selling here.

You've earned a 30-day break from payments!

By rolling it into your mortgage, where you pay points and fees on it and the loan provider gets a bigger commission because of it. There is no such thing as a free lunch! You'll be better off if you stop looking for it. The bank is never going to give you one day that is free from interest, much less thirty. And because you don't make a payment now, you will be paying more later. Probably much more. You Never really skip a payment

You're probably going to see a lot of recurring themes when I do these quasi-fiskings. That's because the lenders and real estate agents and everybody else keeps advertising the same misleading nonsense over and over and over again, they just say it in slightly different ways. As far as I am concerned, anybody who sends out one of these ridiculous things deserves to have their name engraved on my personal blacklist of people I will never do business with. I hope for your sake that you feel the same way.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Lessons from last night:

Demographically, Republicans can no longer win national elections. It doesn't matter who lied, it doesn't matter how unfair the media coverage, it doesn't matter the amount of cheating. Those are all included in the final result.

The Democrats saw that lying was successful. They will continue to do it.

The media are not going to become less biased. They are a focused filter favoring the Democrats - except for Fox, and Fox is preaching to the choir. The minority. The demonized minority.

The Democrats have a firm hand on the mechanisms for cheating, especially in urban centers. They are not going to suddenly stop.

Nor will there be fewer people dependent upon government handouts at the next election.

None of this matters because we are facing a financial crisis that could happen literally any day now. Nobody seriously thinks that the government has - or can get - the money to pay what it already owes. Our creditors - existing and potential - have already cut us off. Right now, the only thing standing between the US Government and a failed treasury auction is the fact that the Federal Reserve is buying up 70% of each new issue. They are paying for them with dollars created out of thin air, on the spot, and that is the only thing enabling the government to pay its bills right now.

If the Federal Reserve can do this, people who accept dollars are asking, then what real value does a dollar contain? What if the answer is "no real value at all"? There really isn't a good counter-argument to that.

So what happens when the people with goods and services to sell stop accepting dollars? Or at least, stop accepting them voluntarily?

The government, like any organism, will do whatever it takes to survive for as long as possible. It will confiscate what it needs from the citizenry and sell it to the highest bidder in order to get the most cash possible so that they can continue to pay law enforcement and all of the other bills.

(Military culture and ethos is wrong for this kind of work - so the military will be cut, mercilessly. But just like nobody can fight the military, we can't fight law enforcement either. What did you think the push behind giving law enforcement military toys was? I am telling you flat out NOT to fight, ever. The day for civil disobedience - not fighting - may come when the government is at the end of its rope. That day is not today, and if there is one thing I can guarantee looking at the long sad history of this kind of collapse it is that the government will not lack for brownshirt recruits. Those who believe in the mission will volunteer, and they will be thugs right out of the mold of all the worst internal police down through the centuries.)

That the government will then re-confiscate that sold item when they need the money again is something that may not be immediately apparent, but the smart folks with money will have it figured out right away. If it cannot be moved away from the government's ability to confiscate and re-confiscate, it won't really be worth anything. This means economic dislocation, as people either follow their jobs elsewhere or lose them.

The government will not tolerate anything competing with it. Not successfully. The people with their hands on the tiller cannot allow successful private schools for the middle class, or anything else the government oversees. For the upper class - those schools can afford to pay the government bribes (or whatever you want to call them) out of what their customers pay. But not the middle class - the necessary costs to pay those bribes put them out of reach for the middle class, as well as being large numbers of customers that the affluent are not. The people whose economic well being is rooted in control of the government function will not allow it, and even if they would, the entire mechanism of the President and his party are rooted in Envy - they cannot abide someone being better off than the average voter, unless that someone is somehow a member of an acceptable group (like actors) that publicly say they hate wealth while privately sitting on a fortune that makes most businesses look like paupers and laughing their backside off at the suckers who believe it. They must destroy those who seek to better themselves, or they lose people dependent upon them, and when they lose people dependent upon them, they lose power.

But the wealth to pay off the government's existing debts does not exist. Not in the entire world, let alone in the United States. Meanwhile, the demands of those siphoning from the public trough will continue and add to the bill. There will therefore come a day when the government falls short, as their constituents clamor ever more loudly for what they were promised and finally even law enforcement isn't getting what is due to them. It will take some time - years, maybe decades, but when law enforcement stops getting paid the end will be almost here.

What it's about now is mutual support networks that enable individuals to survive government economic persecution. Once upon a time we had such networks in place. They atrophied when the government outcompeted them for resources by holding a metaphorical gun to the donor's heads and saying "Give us your money instead." We need to rebuild them so that when one person is victimized by the government's ever more voracious appetite, we can somehow get them what they need to survive.

It's not about fighting. It's about banding together to help one another survive while the now-inevitable government collapse plays out. Because every last one of us is going to be a target - a victim - at least once before it's all over.

PS: All of this does assume we will not be successfully invaded as the government comes apart. But that's not something we can reasonably hope to forestall as the government becomes unable to modernize, then to maintain, then even to pay the military. Frankly, at some point the government will probably hold a fire sale on military equipment and our only real protection at that point will be a perception that we don't have enough left to make it worth the invader's while.

You see it all the time at open houses and elsewhere. People who desperately need buyer's agents, but think of Buyer's Agents in the same way they think of automobile sales folk, and that's the complete opposite of the way it is.

They don't want to deal with an agent, because an agent will use high pressure tactics, convince them that this property is the one they want even if there's better stuff out there cheaper, and trick them into signing on the dotted line. Or so they think.

Actually, the person they fear is already part of the transaction. They're called the Listing Agent, and they're the one you're going to deal with regardless of whether you want an agent or not. It is their job to get that property sold. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the owner of that property to get it sold for the best possible price in the shortest amount of time. They only responsibility they have to the buyer is that they're not supposed to lie, mislead, or conceal the truth. Any of those are tough to prove even for egregious violations. If they can sell the property for $100,000 more than neighboring properties in better shape are selling for, they have done nothing else except their job. They have no responsibility to tell you there's a better deal around the corner. To a listing agent, the only importance of a better buy three blocks over is to hope you don't discover it. Despite all of this, many people will insist upon making their offers through the listing agent.

Lest you think I am kidding or in any way exaggerating, consider this: Within five miles of my office are at least 100 Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) built within the last three years. These are legally condominiums, but they have detached walls. Most often, the developer puts up a 1700 to 2000 square foot two story dwelling, separated by maybe six feet from the next dwelling over. In many of these, the first thing most of the inhabitants do every morning is greet their neighbors in the next unit over, then get out of bed. Not that I'm against condos - I'm not - but the townhome I bought in 1991 has more privacy than most of these, and it's got a shared wall. The inhabitants of PUDs usually - not always - have a small quasi-private back yard, and the units may or may not have shared walls. The garage is always within the walls of the unit, because they are packed so tight there is no room for a driveway or outside parking. The developer slapped on false granite counters and travertine floors at a cost of maybe $300 extra, and with their in-house agents who dealt swiftly and efficiently with those who come to look, sold them for $100,000 to $150,000 more than comparable dwellings sitting on 8000 square foot lots and without a homeowner's association (and association dues) to deal with. Those PUDs are not going to be new forever - and as a matter of fact there are a much larger than representative percentage of the new owners trying without much success to sell them. Whether they decided they didn't like their neighbors whom they practically share a master bedroom with, they want a place with a yard where they can build a pool or even just a horseshoe pit, or that they want to paint the place a slightly different shade of off-white (and can't), they are finding out the difficulties, and trying to sell. But they're asking the same kind of prices they bought them for, and without the massive marketing campaign the developer used, it's not working. When you're trying to sell 20 units on what used to be two lots totaling half an acre, you can afford the kind of marketing campaign that pulls in the suckers. At $520,000 each for twenty units that cost you $150,000 each to build, if you spend $100,000 on advertising, you'll make it back in spades. Not so much if you spent that $520,000 buying one of those units and now the market has declined and you need $570,000 to break even - and I'm finding my prospects single family homes on their own 8000 square foot lots for $420,000, where they can spend a lot less than $150,000 putting in travertine if they've got to have it.

A Buyer's Agent is not the person who's out to sell you their property no matter what. That's the Listing Agent's job. A Buyer's Agent is there to represent the buyer's interests, the same as the Listing Agent represents the seller's. Buyer's agents aren't car lot sales folk. They're like the folks who make a good living representing people who don't want to deal with car lot sales folk, so they charge people who want to buy a car $300 and save them a couple of grand off the sales price.

Buyer's Agents don't make their living selling one specific property. They make their living helping people to find and buy the property that is the best bargain for them. It is a Buyer's Agent's job to point out all of the little and not so little stuff I talked about two paragraphs ago, as well as a lot of other stuff I haven't talked about here. Buyer's Agents make their living getting buyers a better bargain - just like Listing Agents make their living getting sellers more money for their property. Real estate is a lot more costly than automobiles, and a lot more games get played. The Buyer's Agent is the one with the responsibility to say "Slow down, let's stop and check out everything else that's available, and consider the state that the market is really in - and where it's likely to go," not to capitalize upon the emotion of the moment and get the prospect sucker's signature upon dotted line before they walk off the lot. So long as they stick to a real budget, that Buyer's Agent gets paid about the same no matter what you buy - and the happier you are when it's all over, the more likely it is that they will get paid again when you send them your friends, or when you come back again when you're ready to move up or buy an investment property.

This is not to say that Buyer's Agent's won't play games; this is why I use and recommend non-exclusive buyer's agency agreements to stop most of them. These agreements give the buyer's agent everything they really need - assurance that if they find the property you want, they will be the one getting paid the buyer's agent commission - while not committing you to work only with them. If they waste your time, don't get the job done, if they act more like a Listing Agent, or if you just decide they're not putting your interests first, you stop working with them and that's the end of it. Unlike the exclusive agency agreement which locks you in to dealing with that agent, and four months after the last time you see them you might still be obligated to pay them a commission on a property somebody else showed you, the non-exclusive agreement lets you go your own way, and so you have nothing to lose by signing it, unless you're the sort who will stiff someone who's done work for you. Let's face it, the Buyer's Agent finds you a property you think is worthwhile, you are doing yourself no favors to ditch them in favor of your brother-in-law who didn't or couldn't do the same, or the discounter who doesn't do anything, but generously allows you to keep half the commission which they did precisely zero good for you to earn. Who do you think will get you the better deal: The agent who went around with you to ten or fifteen properties (and looked at forty others that weren't worth your time) and knows the market that property is competing against, or the agent who only leaves the office to cash commission checks? Who's going to negotiate harder? Who's going to have more negotiating power? Which agent is more likely to get your the better total bargain? There are exceptions, of course, and sometimes the long shot beats the triple crown winner, too. But that's not where smart money bets when the payoff is structured on strictly one to one odds, as it is here.

Now buyer's agents do get paid, but it's out of the commission that the seller has agreed to pay no matter who sells the property, or for what price. Buyer's Agents will make more difference to the sales price - not to mention the quality of the property you end up with - than any reduction in price you might get by agreeing not to use one. They're out there in the market all the time. They know the market you're in, and they know the tricks in ways that you, the buyer, are not going to equal, unless you spend the time it takes to learn everything they know. And unless you're a buyer's agent yourself, you pretty much can't. You've got your own living to make. What are the chances they could do better than you at your profession? The odds are not good; Even if they have the book learning, they don't have your experience. Why would you think the situation is any different when the roles get reversed?

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I haven't been talking much about the election here this time.

Instead of making an endorsement, I am going to talk about the most salient fact of the election, and the rest of our lives until it is dealt with. Neither of the campaigns has made a big deal of this, but in a rational world would have been getting saturation coverage for the last year.

The debt clock.

The number that everyone obsesses about is the cast debt. $16.2 trillion and change as I am writing this.

Our government income is $2.4 trillion per year.
Our government will spend $3.5 trillion this year

We are borrowing $1.1 trillion per year.

Before we leave the debt clock, look at one more number: Last line of numbers, first one. Total of unfunded liabilities. This is money that our government is currently obligated to spend in coming years on various entitlements - money we have already promised to people. $121 trillion and change as I'm typing this. Social security, prescription drugs, medicare. In a rational world, we would have been setting the money aside as we accrued the liability.

Until the mid-1960s, we actually were. That's when President Lyndon Johnson and the Congress of the day chose to allow themselves to spend the Social Security (and Medicare) trust money. They put a "virtual" IOU in the Social Security - not even real bonds, just a promise of reimbursement someday - and spent the money. To be fair, every congress and every president since then has had the option of fixing this - all they would have to have done would have been return every penny that had been stolen from the trust fund and drastically increase revenue or decrease spending to match. In the early years, Social Security was running surpluses that were large by comparison with the rest of the budget. If those surpluses shrank in later years, the built up debt made it practically impossible. Today, the total unfunded liabilities are FIFTY YEARS of every penny the government takes in. That's right, we'd have to shut down the entire rest of the government for fifty years to pay that off - and that's if there was no interest.

Medicare and Social Security are now spending more than they take in. That money is now due to start being actually paid out. This money stream that Johnson and the Congress fifty years ago tapped into is now a drain on the budget - and it will be one forever. Even if we did shut down the government for fifty years to pay that liability off, we're still accruing new ones.

What would happen to a person in this situation? No matter how productive they were, the people with money would eventually cut them off. There would be no way they can repay their debts, and even if the alternative was losing every penny previously loaned, the lenders would decide that's throwing good money after bad, and stop.

This is the situation as it exists today. Wikipedia isn't the most reliable resource for information, but it's got the basic idea here.

The expression "QE2" became a "ubiquitous nickname" in 2010, when used to refer to a second round of quantitative easing by central banks in the United States.[58] Retrospectively, the round of quantitative easing preceding QE2 may be called "QE1". Similarly, "QE3" refers to the third round of quantitative easing following QE2.[59][60]

QE3 was announced on 13 September 2012. In an 11-to-1 vote, the Federal Reserve decided to launch a new $40 billion a month, open-ended, bond purchasing program of agency mortgage-backed securities and also to continue extremely low rates policy until at least mid-2015.[61] According to NASDAQ.com, this is effectively a stimulus program which allows the Federal Reserve to relieve $40 billion dollars per month of commercial housing market debt risk with no maximum amount or time limit.[62] Ratings firm Egan-Jones said it believes the Fed's decision "will hurt the U.S. economy and, by extension, credit quality." As a result the firm once again slashed the U.S. bond rating bringing it down to AA-. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged concerns about inflation

It says the Fed is buying mortgage backed securities. What it's really buying is US Treasury securities, at auction. The share of new US debt being bought by the Federal Reserve is seventy percent, and they're being bought with fiat money, made up on the spot. Not only that, they're going on to the secondary market of existing treasury securities and buying those up.

Folks, if that's not the people with actual money cutting us off, I don't know what is.

So now the Federal Reserve is making up money - pretend dollars - to fund our continued borrowing.

But those brand new pretend dollars tap into the same pie of real world value as shared by all of the existing dollars. A known amount of goods and services - but now there is another $40 billion per month with claims on them. This means existing dollars are now worth less.

Furthermore, I cannot emphasize too strongly that the dollar is a fiat currency. Since 1973, there has been nothing providing value to the dollar but the perception that there is value there. The thing driving that is the productive capacity of the people who use dollars.

Tradition and a lot of hereditary factors from when the US was forty percent of the world economy back before most of us were born have enabled that illusion to continue to be strong.

But what happens if that perception changes? In short, what happens when the people with goods and services we want stop accepting dollars because they don't believe they will recover their value?

At that point, we have an instant crisis. A real crisis that we can't send the Marines to - they won't do any good, and they also need to be paid somehow in something they can actually use to feed their families with.

So at that point, we're going to have no choice. People are already moving their businesses offshore and even giving up US citizenship rather than pay our existing taxes. Try and increase them, and instead of paying those taxes, productive people will move their income generating activities out of the United States. Oh, not everyone. But enough so that income from taxes actually drops.

So we're going to have to cut spending. Nearly $100 billion of spending every month. $3 billion every day. And that's just so we're able to pay the bills. Scratch that. Those will be all the things we can pay for.

This is going to be politically very difficult. People demanding the government live up to what it promised it would do. People demanding the government continue things it has done for a very long time. And don't forget paying the people who run the government. The military has a lot of very powerful toys - I don't think they would turn them on the rest of us for their pay, but there's nothing physically preventing them from trying. And there just isn't money enough to go around. That's going to be damned difficult to deal with.

In the last four years, can you name me one time Barack Obama did something politically difficult?

Even when it was clearly the smart thing to do? When it would limit damage by accepting some pain now rather than more later?

Didn't think so.

That question brought someone to the site. The answer is "Yes, they can". As a matter of fact, just because they have you sign those documents does not in any way obligate that lender to actually fund your loan.

There are two sections of conditions on every loan commitment. The loan commitment is what the underwriter writes up when the loan is approved. The first section is called "Prior to Docs", meaning before the final loan documents the customer signs at closing are generated. These should be all the stuff that's substantive in nature, that governs whether or not you qualify. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. The second section is called "prior to funding," or "funding conditions." This should be limited to simple procedural stuff like a final updated payoff demand, final verification of employment (they call and make sure you still work there), etcetera. However, more and more, conditions that more properly belong in "prior to docs" section are being moved to "prior to funding."

Why do they do this? Well, once you sign those documents you are more heavily committed to them. Once you sign, and the Right of Rescission (if any) expires, you are stuck with that lender. You no longer have the right to call it off. If you go elsewhere, to another lender, because they are taking too long, they can fund your loan and force you to live by the terms of the documents you signed. Bad business all around, and you're going to be dealing with two sets of high powered lawyers that the contracts you signed basically obligate you to pay for - but they work for the two different lenders!

One fact that many people don't understand is that it's a rare loan application which is rejected completely. I don't remember when I've ever had a loan application outright rejected. Of course, being a good loan officer, I'm going to be as careful as possible that the people will qualify before I submit their loan package, but this is far from universal. Many loan officers routinely tell people about loans and programs that they have no prayer of qualifying for, but there sure are some great rates attached, for all the good they will do you. Then the loan gets rejected but they sit on the rejection while they work the loan they had in mind for you all along, and come back and say, "This is the best I could do" at closing time, and an extremely high percentage of people will sign on the dotted line because they think they have no choice.

What happens much more frequently is that the loan gets approved, and the underwriter writes a loan commitment, but with conditions that cannot be met in this particular instance. The borrowers need to prove more income than they make is probably the classic example, but these "killer conditions" occur in every area of loan underwriting. More often than not, the loan officer is not really surprised by these, and most often, they won't ever tell you about them if they can avoid it. Why? Because that gives you a "heads up" that you're not going to get the loan you thought you were, and at a time when it's still very possible for you do go loan shopping elsewhere.

A good loan officer - both competent and ethical - will not tell you about a loan they don't think you're going to qualify for. My ambition is always to have the list of conditions, both "prior to docs" and "prior to funding", to be as short and unsurprising as I can possibly make it. This saves work and it saves time. Remember, every time that underwriter touches the file they can add more conditions, and they can also discover something that causes them to essentially reject the loan, by adding conditions the consumers in question cannot meet. If I can submit a file and the underwriter writes a commitment with only the standard and unavoidable prior to funding conditions, I am much happier because now I can request documents, have them signed, and get this loan done. You get this kind of commitment by sending all of the documentation they need in every loan all at once, in the beginning, but only that documentation. It's not necessarily a sign of incompetence if the underwriter puts some other conditions on it - probably somewhere close to half of my commitments have some condition the underwriter took it into their heads to require in this instance. Like any good loan officer, I avoid arguments with an underwriter if I can, so when they give me a condition I didn't anticipate, I figure out what I need to satisfy it and whether I can get it. But you learn when extra documentation will be required.

Since this was originally written, underwriting has gotten completely paranoid. I have had clients in the lender's ideal situation - high credit scores, low debt ratio, steady income, plenty of equity - given the underwriter runaround. Actually, this is basically every client. It has to do with investor paranoia, as the lenders are doing everything they can - not merely everything they reasonably should to persuade the investors these loans are not going to lose money and are therefore worth paying a higher price for. But in my experience the additional conditions seem to be falling almost entirely on the "prior to documents" (before you sign) side, rather than "prior to funding"

Many loans, particularly sub-prime, are done completely in the reverse fashion. The loan officer submits a bare application, without supporting documentation, and waits for the conditions, and boy do they get a blortload of conditions. Not too long ago I helped an experienced real estate agent in my office with his first loan. He insisted on doing it "the easy way," by which he thought he meant, "The lazy way," but he really meant, "The hard, stupid way." Despite my warning, he submitted a bare application to the lender and got seven pages of conditions, which were added to as time went by and he submitted documentation piecemeal. Took him two months and four times the work of just taking another day and submitting a complete loan package in the first place. If he had done that, the loan probably would have been finished in two and a half weeks. Some of the conditions were for stuff I had never encountered before. What was going on, of course, was that the underwriter had gotten it into his head that this was probably a dangerous loan to approve, and he wanted to be extra careful on the approval.

So what can the average person do to safeguard themselves against this happening? Well, you can't - not completely. The underwriter can always add conditions, and so can the funder. Even if the loan gets funded, they can pull the money back right up until the moment that trust deed gets recorded with the county. That's just the way it is. What you can do is ask for copies of the loan commitment, and of the outstanding conditions, those that have yet to be met. Refusal on the part of a loan officer to provide this is always a bad sign. Ditto the inability. I definitely wouldn't sign the loan papers without a copy of the outstanding conditions in my possession, and it may be smart to ask for copies of the conditions at several points in your loan. Yes, they can be faked, pretty easily, but then they are ammunition in your lawsuit if something goes wrong, and most of the bad loan officers are too lazy to fake them anyway. Before you even apply, you can ask questions about necessary income, what the program guidelines for debt to income and loan to value ratio are, etcetera. Much of the stuff in my article Questions You Should Ask Prospective Loan Providers is aimed at defusing that kind of situation. Remember, at sign up you have all the power, but at closing, the lender has all the power. They have the loan, and nobody else does. Many times, the loan they deliver at closing will have nothing in common with the loan that got you to sign up. I used to advise people to sign up for a back up loan, but even I can't do them anymore because of the high cost failing to deliver a locked loan carries.

Loan officers have people sign loan documents every day that there is no hope of actually funding a loan on. It doesn't make sense to me, but they do it, mostly because they are afraid if they break down and tell you they can't fund this loan, you will go elsewhere and they won't get paid. Signing loan documents more strongly commits borrowers to this loan, and as long as they keep trying, there's always the possibility that they will get paid. I have talked with people that were strung along for three months before they finally gave up and realized that this loan was not going to happen.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

One of the things people keep asking about is first time buyer programs. They exist, but lenders are not the first place to ask. Why? Because many, if not most lenders, actually charge a quarter of a point or so for first time buyers, in addition to their regular rates. They do this because so many of them fall out, and they want some money for their trouble. Also, interfacing with local first time buyer programs is a bit of a hassle, and it often takes much longer to close the loan, if it does close. Yes, you need to tell them if you are using a first time buyer program, but if you start at the lender you may get hit with the charge for your loan, and then find out at the last minute that that particular lender does not participate on the first time buyer program for that city.

The place to ask about first time buyer programs is the government of the city that you intend to buy in, usually the housing department, but sometimes the planning department. If you intend to buy outside of city limits, call the county housing department. Yes, you do need to know ahead of time where you're intending to buy. I know how many people hate to plan, hate to "limit themselves" and hate to do preparatory work, especially multiple sets with multiple cities if they're not certain where they will buy, but it's necessary if you want their assistance money.

Most first time buyer programs are funded with money that the municipality gets from the federal government. You'd think they would be similar, that funding would be consistent, and that participating lender lists would be mostly compatible. You could not be more wrong.

Once each city gets the money, they are still subject to federal oversight, but that is broad and there's a lot of latitude. One of the things that all of them have in common is that they charge a fee for a lender to participate every year. Unless that lender gets a lot of business through that program, it's not cost effective to automatically renew every year. I only routinely pay the fees for the much broader Mortgage Credit Certificate program every year - I wait until someone wants a given city's program before I pay the fees associated with that program. So the list of approved lenders is going to concentrate heavily on major direct lenders with offices in that city. This has the effect of limiting the competition, although brokers who are willing to sign up still have all of the advantages of brokers, because for the vast majority of these programs, it only matters that the originating office participate, not that the funding office does. Once I'm signed up with most programs, it does not matter what funding lender I use because originating office is what's important, not the actual funders of the loan.

Each and every first time buyer program will be different. Any similarities between any two programs are basically coincidence. Income limits, qualifying properties, amount of funding, how long it lasts into the fiscal year (or quarter), how much money they get from the federal government relative to the population and cost of living, and most importantly, whether they have any funds at the time you want them and qualify.

Even the form that the first time buyer program takes is wildly variable. Most common is a second (or third) mortgage with nominal payments and a nominal rate. For instance, one east county city requires a 3% interest only payment. Also very popular is a "silent" second (or third) mortgage with no payments, but it needs to be paid back in full if you sell, and in many cases, if you refinance. Some first time buyer programs work off of a "shared equity" basis, with no payments and no interest charged, but they own a fixed share of the property and are entitled to payment in full at sale, and in many cases, of the base loan amount plus appreciation if you refinance. This lessens the financial benefits of home ownership, because normally the appreciation belongs entirely to the homeowner. Nonetheless, without the program, you wouldn't have had any of the benefits of ownership, economic or otherwise. Still other cities have programs geared towards maintaining a pool of limited income housing in that area, and the price you sell for when you sell will be restricted, negating most of the financial benefits of ownership. Some programs are even tiered based upon income, and those making a lower amount will get more favorable terms that those who still qualify, but make more than people in the first group, and there may be more funding available for the lower tiers.

It all depends upon the locality where you buy, and if you apply and qualify for a first time buyer program in City A but end up buying outside of that City limits, you are out of luck. For this reason, you need to work with a buyer's agent who knows the programs and their boundaries and is careful about them. Just because it has the appropriate ZIP Code or telephone prefix does not necessarily mean anything, and I find properties with the wrong ZIP Code in MLS quite often. For instance, properties that are actually in northern Pacific Beach here in San Diego will quite often have the more upscale La Jolla Zip in MLS. Before making an offer, you can always call to make certain the property is within the boundaries covered by the program, of course. You want to double check, because you will pay a fee, usually several hundred dollars, when you apply to the first time buyer program, and I don't know of any that refunds the money if you don't qualify, if you are outside the area, or if you just don't get the funds because they are out of money right then.

Please note that one other feature all first time buyer programs have in common is that they require owner occupancy of a single occupancy dwelling. These are not intended to help investors grow their real estate empire. These programs are intended for people who would not otherwise be able to afford the property and intend to live in it. In some cases, moving out triggers a requirement for immediate repayment in full (and just when it got more expensive to refinance because it's now investment property, too!). In others, so long as you live in it for a given number of years, you can keep it going providing you don't break other rules. Every program has it's own little twists on the owner occupancy requirement. None of them permit you to buy residences suitable for more than one family, either. Duplexes, apartment buildings, and other multi-unit housing are disallowed from every program I've worked with.

First time buyer programs are not grants. I've dealt with them all over southern California, and I don't know of any that are outright grants. In many cases, that would be more cost effective, not only to the buyer but to the city as well, than the hoops that have to get jumped through. So I suspect that outright grants are prohibited by the enabling federal legislation, although I've never read the regulations.

Some first time buyer programs do have mechanisms for forgiveness of the loans after a certain period of time. The requirements and length of time vary. I've seen those that have the forgiveness feature be as short as five years and as long as fifteen.

Prospects for subordination if you refinance are also variable depending upon where you buy. Some require payment in full if you refinance at all, while others will allow themselves to be subordinated to new First Trust Deeds providing certain requirements are met. Chief among these are usually requirements that essentially prohibit cash out refinancing unless you pay off the first time buyer program.

One final caveat to these programs is that most of them will not pre-approve you. In other words, they won't look at your application before you've got a fully negotiated purchase contract. I know of only one program that will pre-approve applicants, and none that will commit funds before you have a fully negotiated purchase contract. If they run out of money in the meantime, that's just too bad. - you're out the application fee. For this reason, you need to stay on top of not only the program requirements and boundaries, but also the funding status as well. If they don't have any money when you actually have a contract to buy, you are wasting the time and money to apply.

Now I don't mean to say these programs are not worthwhile. They can and do make the difference between being able to afford the property and being forced to continue to ride the rest escalator. I should also note that they are basically a band-aid to treat the gaping economic wound caused by artificial restrictions to the housing supply. But if the conditions are right for the band-aid to help you, it certainly is nice and there is no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of it.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

This is a temporary program, launched by President Bush and Congress at the beginning of 2008. Its goal is to prevent as many homeowners as is reasonable from losing their homes through foreclosure. It won't help you if you bought a property that was far beyond your real means, but it is likely to help a lot if you didn't stretch very much.

In order to qualify for FHA secure, you need to have a non FHA ARM that has "reset," which is lender talk for "passed the end of the fixed period, if there was one." FHA Secure probably isn't going to help you anyway if you already have a fixed rate mortgage. The limit on the loan is the current conforming limit ($417,000 unless you're in one of the high cost areas like mine).

FHA Secure mortgages are not like those "free magazine - take one!" offers. You do have to qualify for the mortgage under the normal FHA rules. This means full documentation of income on a fully amortizing loan with a debt to income ratio of 43% in the textbook case. They also have Loan to Value limits of 97.15%. The programs that refinance to 125% of value are different, and require that your loan already be held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. FHA Secure is something that even people who got subprime and Negative Amortization loans are theoretically eligible for.

The ONLY "normal" mortgage qualification that the FHA Secure is willing to overlook is whether you were current on your loan after it hit the adjustable period. You must have been current on your existing mortgage for six months before it hit the adjustable period, but if you made late payments or no payments after the loan hit the adjustable period, FHA is willing to waive the usual requirements to have your loan current. They're even willing to consider your loan if you are currently in default.

Another way that FHA Secure mortgages are different from most FHA mortgages is that there is no CLTV limit, and the FHA will allow secondary financing for FHA Secure loans. The primary form this takes is second mortgages carried by previous lenders for amounts over the FHA limits, either in terms of Loan to Value or absolute dollar value. Be aware that in some states, this is going to change your loan from a non-recourse loan into a full recourse loan.The protections given by non-recourse loans are generally over-rated, but it's something you should be aware of. Since the FHA normally funds up to 97% Loan to Value ratio, and conventional lenders and second mortgage holders don't want to go that high right now, they are not going to agree to fund the difference unless they understand the choice they have is between funding the difference and going straight into foreclosure. For example, let's say you've got a $500,000 loan on a property that you purchased for $500,000 with 100% financing on an interest only 2/28. You still owe $500,000, but the property may only be worth $440,000, and the FHA will only fund to $417,000 until the new limits are implemented. This leaves $83,000 (at a minimum) that the new loan is short. If the prior lender can be convinced that it's a choice between write a loan contract for that $83,000 and go straight to foreclosure, where they'll lose a lot more than $83,000, they may agree to carry that second mortgage. Of course, they also may not. It's their money and their choice, and there's no way to compel them if they won't listen to logic.

FHA Secure is otherwise similar to "regular" FHA loans, and it's not free. There's a funding fee of 1.5% charged up front, and an annualized half a percent charged on a monthly basis. The FHA's "Naughty List" also applies.

FHA Secure is not any kind of a cure-all. You do have to qualify for it as regards both Debt to Income Ratio and Loan to Value Ratio. If you stretched way too far beyond your real means - as evidenced by income documentable by tax returns and W-2 forms - this program is not going to help you. If you were late on your mortgage even before it hit reset, this program is not going to help you. If you're a member of that group that's always with us, people who have lost their jobs, careers, or otherwise seen a decline in income, it may not help you even if you originally qualified full documentation. It's also not going to help you if your loan was for $900,000, which is way over any FHA limit. But if you're a middle class borrower who only stretched a little, figured you'd be okay with a hybrid ARM because of it, and now you're not, this may be the program that saves you.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I want to state that I am in no way shape or form an FHA loan guru. Between my general knowledge of loans and this information from someone who is an FHA guru, I think I can make some sense on the subject. Besides, one of the best ways to understand something better is trying to explain it to someone else.

FHA will guarantee loans up to 96.5% of the purchase value, not 100%. This means that you do need a minimum of 3.5% down from some source. The FHA will allow seller paid closing costs only of up of 6%, and the really cute thing is that they will also allow the down payment component to be a gift from family members or government agencies (provided they are not otherwise involved in the transaction). FHA loans can also be interfaced with some types of locally based first time buyer programs, although whether there is money in the budget at the time you apply for those programs is subject to funding, which usually goes quickly.

The first thing you need to understand about FHA loans is that they are intended to enable people to transition from renting to ownership of a primary residence. They are not intended to help anyone grow a real estate empire. For this reason, they will not work with investment property except in the case of non-profit organizations. Individuals looking to buy property via FHA loan must plan for it to be owner occupied. Second homes are only allowed where you already own a home elsewhere and can show an employment related need. Vacation homes are not allowed.

Refinancing is possible for existing FHA loans, up to a maximum of 95% (see Mortgagee Letter 2005-43) loan to value ratio, provided it was purchased via FHA owner occupied loan. The only exception allowing FHA refinance of non FHA loans is the FHA Secure plan. There is no prepayment penalty on FHA loans, and they can be refinanced into conventional loans anytime you can qualify for conventional financing. Most folks do refinance FHA loans into a conventional conforming loans as soon as they can, because FHA rates aren't as good as conforming and conforming loans don't carry financing insurance. It's something to be decided on a case by case basis, on the basis of what is best for a given homeowner.

I did say conforming loans. FHA had loan limits which has precluded them being a big player in most areas for at least a decade. With the decrease in housing prices that has hit many areas and new legislation raising the conforming and FHA loan limits, they are now a major player for first time buyers and people getting back into the market. Especially since traditional lenders are seemingly more fearful every day. Truthfully, I anticipate FHA loans as being what saves the bacon of traditional lenders and provides the upwards impetus to the market that will cause traditional lenders' fears to ease and relax their restrictions.

With loan limits preventing them from lending upon most single family residences these past few years, you'd think FHA would be friendlier to condominiums. Unfortunately, government bureaucracy being what it is, condos have to be approved by the FHA before they will fund loans upon them. Since relatively few developers care to do that, that means that most developments don't have blanket approval from the FHA. Some people think that if theirs is one of the few with FHA approval, this gives them a lock on FHA buyers and they attempt to extort a huge premium in the form of purchase price. I have seen people who intend FHA loans advised to get a list of FHA approved projects and work only from that list. This is nonsense.

Just because the FHA hasn't issued blanket approval to a condominium development doesn't mean that you can't get spot approval. The requirements, in addition to the usual ones, are no ongoing class action suits open or pending, and 60% or more owner occupancy for the complex. This last tends to be the most difficult requirement, as it's a little unusual that a particular complex has 60% owner occupancy, but there are many condominiums out there that can qualify even though the complex does not have pre-existing approval.

Like all government programs, FHA loans require full documentation of sufficient income to afford the loan. No stated income or lesser documentation loans will be funded or ever have been by this program. This is another reason they were unpopular in the Era of Make Believe Loans, as mortgage products for those with eyes bigger than their wallets proliferated, and agents and loan officers became accustomed to qualifying people for properties and loans far beyond their means. Now that that's all over and we're all back to solid fundamentals as far as loan qualification, you can decide to stay within the budget for a loan you can prove you can afford, you can put a significantly larger down payment on the property to qualify for conventional financing, or you can do without buying any property at all. But FHA does not do stated income loans and never has.

Matter of fact, the FHA doesn't do "interest only" financing, either. All FHA loans are fully amortized. However, the FHA does accept some hybrid ARMs as well as fixed rate financing. But no interest only, no stated income, no negative amortization. You must qualify for an FHA loan based upon the fully amortized payment and full documentation of income only, which eliminates most of the ways that people were being qualified for loans beyond their means during the Era of Make Believe Loans, and is one more reason why the FHA was not a major provider of loans in for several years.

Allowable debt to income ratios are 31% front end and 43% back end, according to the written guidelines. However, both can be individually waived upwards, higher even than conventional loan qualifying ratios of 36 and 45% respectively in the case of strong credit , high reserves, and a stable job, with high reserves being probably the most important factor. For instance, owner of a stable business of long standing. Nobody fires owners. Large amounts of money in retirement accounts is one way of getting the default debt to income ratio increased. The range of 45-49% is supposed to be reasonably possible to get the FHA to approve. Beyond that, exceptions are fewer and significantly harder to get.

There is no requirement for reserves with an FHA loan at all. With that said, however, having reserves can be a major point in your favor, particularly above 43% back end ratio. People with hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement accounts that they could fall back upon if they had to is something the FHA will consider while traditional lenders would not. They'll even allow non-monetary reserves, the most memorable example given to me being a collector of old motorcycles which could be sold. Jewelry, automobiles, and other non-liquid assets may be considered. Of course, it's a very good idea to source and season every dollar you're using to justify the transaction, but the FHA has even been known to accept "mattress money" for down payments (not generally reserves), which is unheard of in other loans.

Here's the really cool part about an FHA loan: It's not FICO driven. You technically don't even have to have a credit score in order to be approved. With that said, however, even when underwriting was at its loosest a sub-600 credit score made it difficult to get approved, and these days we're looking at 640 to 680 as a reasonable minimum. You can also use alternative credit , of which utility bills are probably the best example. Especially in some cultures, credit can be a thing that people aren't accustomed to having or using, so these capabilities are very helpful. You don't even have to be a citizen, but you do have to have the right to work in the United States.

Prior bankruptcy is allowable. Chapter 7 with two years of seasoning and re-established credit, chapter 13 with one year payment history and court approval.

Even prior foreclosure is not an automatic disqualification from an FHA loan. They will, however, require documentation of extenuating circumstances such as major illness. Job transfer is explicitly disallowed as an acceptable extenuating circumstance, so people who walk away from properties thinking they're going to get an FHA loan are going to be disappointed. What the FHA really seems to be looking for is debilitating illness, either one which you personally went through, or one where you had to care for an immediate family member.

For how easy they are to work with for individuals, however, loan providers find themselves with many additional requirements, which is yet another reason FHA loans had been less popular while there were other choices. As of right now, in addition to everything else, in order to originate FHA loans, originators have got to go though an annual audit with an accountant who's specially certified FHA auditor. This audit costs a minimum of about $5000 just for the auditor, never mind the cost of the originator's own time or that of anyone else they may have to pay. The audit requirement is in the process being relaxed for originators (finally). The FHA does not permit an agent to hang their license with one broker for real estate and another for loans, either, and your FHA loan officer can not be your real estate agent. If your broker does both, however, it may be permitted. The extensive paperwork means fewer providers - especially discount providers - are interested due to the increased costs, which drives things exactly opposite to what you'd expect the government to want - it drives prices of FHA loans up, by restricting the supply of those willing to do them. It is hoped by many that FHA modernization will change some aspects of this, but that has been stalled in Congress for a very long time. It's pointless to speculate as to what will and will not be included in FHA modernization until Congress sends an actual bill to the president.

One thing not likely to change is the FHA's blacklist. It's not called that, but that's what it is. Once a real estate agent or loan provider is on their list, they are on it for life, and the FHA scrutinizes all transactions for anybody affiliated with it being on their "naughty" list. If someone should default on an FHA loan, the insurer is going to look for a reason not to pay the guarantee, which insures that every FHA foreclosure gets scrutinized for fraud and a number of other offenses. If the agent or loan officer was involved in such an offense, onto The List they go, and they are forever barred from transactions involving an FHA loan. For this reason, it's probably a good idea for consumers to ask about this in their first meeting with a prospective loan officer or real estate agent - on the phone would be better. Just say that you're going to be needing an FHA loan, so if they're on the FHA's "naughty" list, they might as well tell you now, because they're going to be wasting their time. If they try and talk you out of an FHA loan, well, that should tell you everything you need to know. FHA loans are equal or superior to anything that isn't conforming A paper, and if you haven't got the qualifications for that, FHA beats Alt A, and beats subprime like a drum (OK, so the VA is a better deal than FHA as well).

The FHA does not normally permit secondary financing, either in the form of second trust deeds or seller carrybacks. The one exception to this is in the FHA Secure program, which will have to be another article.

One final thing: FHA loans aren't free. There is an upfront cost of 1.75 points to fund the loan. This is over and above all other loan related fees. This pays for an insurance policy that insures the lender against loss, much like private mortgage insurance on conventional loans. In addition, there's an annualized cost of 0.55% on top of principal, interest, taxes, insurance, etcetera - and this is included in debt to income ratio calculations. This will continue until the loan to value ratio is 78% or less, and if the loan period is over 15 years, cannot be removed for five years. If the loan period is 15 years or less and the loan to value ratio is initially less than 90%, there will be no continuing (i.e. the annual component) mortgage insurance charged, but the only way to elude the 1.75 point initial charge is by having a loan to value ratio of 80% or less. Since in any of these cases, it's overwhelmingly likely there will be better choices available to the consumer, essentially all FHA loans are going to have this financing insurance. The continuing cost is one of the main reasons people refinance to non-FHA mortgages, incidentally.

With lenders fearful and paranoid about the state of the market, FHA loans are an excellent way to qualify someone for financing that's at least close to 100%. Given the state of the housing market, particularly the starter market, and the legislation increasing FHA limits, the FHA loan is a very powerful force for market stabilization, leading to market recovery. It's a good alternative for consumers who cannot currently qualify for conventional loan financing.

When I originally wrote this, there were down payment assistance programs in effect to enable what was essentially 100% financing. Those have been essentially dead since April 2008, when Congress did away with the provisions that allowed it except in the case of government agencies. Figure you're going to have to come up with your down payment out of your own funds somehow.

Finally, a caveat. Many sellers don't want to work with FHA or require higher offers in order to do so. They aren't as bad as they used to be, but FHA requirements for financing are still tougher than conventional financing rules - especially if you've got a condo that needs so-called "spot approval". This costs sellers money, and means their transaction isn't as certain as a conventional loan. If you're looking for a bargain or even just a better than average deal on purchase price, it's a good idea to avoid an FHA loan for that reason. Furthermore, many agents still have their heads in the old days when FHA financing was a nightmare for the seller. Especially if there are competing offers, expect seller preference to work against you if you're making an offer that includes FHA financing, and be prepared to need to offer significantly more than the competition if you want them to choose your offer over theirs. When I'm listing a property and the offers are otherwise equivalent, I would still prefer the buyers who are intending any other sort of financing over FHA loan buyers - and I explain why, in detail, to seller clients who are evaluating multiple offers.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

(The original article was from September 2005)

From an email:

Anyway, my wife and I are about to purchase a place here in the X area and we've been hearing that "a tough loan" line due to the fact that I'm only 10 months into my new small business although I've been profitable the entire time. We're stuck doing No Doc/Stated Income setups - I think you called these "liars' loans" - and the rates are a bit painful.

My wife's scores... at 720 are the lowest we have and mine are (higher).

Well, the good news is that your credit scores place you in the highest band of credit scores. When this was originally written, there was no category beginning higher than 720. Now there is, but it's a pretty nominal difference in most cases.

The difficulty is that you're running afoul of one of the background rules of the whole loan process. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac rules limit A paper loans to those with two years in the same exact line of work. With some limitations, a good loan officer can sometimes get it approved for two years with the same employer, if they've been progressing normally within the company. However, changing from a W-2 employee to self employed is a change that cannot be approved, at least from the point of view of A paper. A minus and Alt A rules are mostly similar. So you're looking at subprime loans. Let's examine A paper documentation levels to see if they're a possibility.

Full Documentation: Requires documenting two years income same line of work. You can't; you've only been self-employed for ten months.

Stated Income: Requires documenting that you've had the same source of income for two years. Nope. Yes, these and NINA loans were often called "Liar's loans" in the business because the lender agrees not to verify your amount of income. That's because loan officers eager to make a commission on a loan where the client really doesn't qualify on the basis of debt to income ratio commonly used these to qualify such clients. The qualification standards are there for your protection as well as the lender's. Just because you could use these to qualify doesn't mean it was smart. Most of the reason for the huge house of cards we had was due to unstable and unsustainable loans. Loan officers use these to qualify clients for negative amortization loans. Yeah, the temptation to make a commission is there, but am I really serving the client's best interest by securing them a loan they can't really afford where even the payment they can't afford has them owing more money each month? I submit that the answer to this question is usually no. Stated Income loans are designed for self-employed folks and people on commission who make the money, they just have write offs and such so that they can't really document it. Using stated income to say you make money that you don't is a dangerous game, as literally millions of people found out the hard way. It's likely to result in foreclosure. I am sorry it's completely unavailable as of this update because if it is used properly there are people it is both beneficial and necessary for, but it wasn't used properly in the vast majority of cases.

NINA: Requires a good credit score. This might be your ticket. On the other hand, you don't state how much of a down payment you have, percentage-wise. A paper NINA requires some equity in the property; I've never seen an actual A paper NINA approved with less than about ten percent equity. On the other hand, these were very easy loans to actually do when we had them. It was trying to qualify you for something better that was hard. Once again, however, they're completely unavailable at this update.

On the other hand, if we move down into subprime, the rules aren't set by Fannie and Freddie. When I first wrote this, there were subprime lenders with one year same line of work programs, and even a few with six month programs. On one hand, they're subprime loans, carrying a higher rate/cost tradeoff just by virtue of that, and subprime loans carry prepayment penalties by default. On the other hand, because you're documenting your income, you get a break for that. You probably would have ended up with a rate a quarter to half a percent higher, albeit with a prepayment penalty.

One of the great universal things of the loan business is this: The looser the underwriting standards, the higher the rate, and the tighter the underwriting standards, the lower the rate. If a given lenders underwriting standards are looser, it's rates will be generally higher.

Now, given that you've only been self-employed for ten months, you're not going to have much of a paper trail. There are three possible ways that banks will accept to document income. W-2? Even if you have them, they're no longer applicable. Income tax forms? Given that it's September, counting back ten months leaves you starting the business in November of last year. Even if you had enough monthly income to qualify for that month and a half or two months, the tax forms effectively spread it across all of last year, and that's unlikely to show enough income. The third method of income documentation, unique to subprime, is bank statements. This, you might be able to do. Most subprime lenders have 24 and/or 12 month bank statement programs, and a large number have six month programs as well. The longer you can document for, the better the rate, but better six months than nothing.

(I should note that at this update, I haven't done a subprime loan in the last 5 years, and even finding real subprime lenders has become extremely difficult, but they haven't been regulated out of existence like stated income and NINA so they are likely to return eventually)

Will this get you a better rate, at a better cost (two concerns that always go together), than an A paper NINA? If so, is the better rate worth the prepayment penalty to you? The answer to that was on a case by case basis when we had both. Now the NINA is nonexistent and the subprime is harder to find than an honest politician. There is no way to be certain without pricing it around by the full details of your case, but there's a good chance, and you can get 100 percent financing this way.

I will warn you that bank statement programs (often called by the misnomer "EZ doc" or "lite doc") are THE most difficult loans to actually get approved. There are more problems with these than any other loan type. On the other hand, as I've covered in Levels of Mortgage Documentation, or, Why You Should Demand to Do More Paperwork, if it gets you a better loan, the effort is likely to be worth it. Furthermore, there is a question of whether you qualify for the loan by the bank's standards. Some lenders discount the amount of money coming into the account, some do not.

So which is the better alternative for you? When we had both, I couldn't tell you without actually pricing it for your situation. I don't know for certain that either can be done for your situation without information like how much income your bank statements show, and how big your loan needs to be, and how much of a down payment you're making. Get a couple of good loan officers working on it in your area, and find out.

And yes, this was a always tough loan situation. Both A paper NINA and subprime bank statement programs have their limitations. Failing that, you fall all the way back to subprime NINA, where your credit would have formerly justified 100 percent financing, but it's as gone now as every other such program. Even when it was available however, the rates for subprime NINA were rough on the pocketbook.

Caveat Emptor

Original here