Buying and Selling: November 2006 Archives

Found this on a public forum

I need help to stop foreclosure on my home. I need to sell quickly? I am a couple months behind on my payments and want to sell now. I am not looking to make a profit just need to get what i owe.

Boy, did the sharks swarm over that one! There were at least a dozen offers to purchase before I saw it.



Anybody will buy your house for half the market value.



Contact an agent about selling at quick sale prices. Offer 2% listing agent, 3% buyers agent. Even a quick sale price should get you at least 80% of value. Yes, that will cost you 5%. But you'll come out with 75% of value, net instead of 50. If your loan balance is anywhere under 75% of the value, this puts more money in your pocket. If your loan balance is more than that, it means you'll owe less in taxes when the lender hits you with a 1099. Not to mention that trying to sell a short payoff without a good agent is an exercise in futility.



Now this is not to say that you should list it for 80% of your most fevered imagination of what it is worth. You need to sell, as in have someone offer a price that they can actually pay you. You need offers. Ideally, you want multiple offers fast. You do this by underpricing the market value of your property, so that you will attract people who want to look, and they think it's a good price so they make an offer. The offer will not be full asking price, and don't waste your time hoping that you will get such an offer. Once that Notice of Default hits, everybody knows that you need to sell. To use one example I'm going through with a buyer client right now, if your property is a two bedroom place that basically looks like wild animals have been living there, and your list price is 99% of the three bedroom down the street, you are not going to get it, and you have a deadline, while your prospective buyers do not. You need to figure out what it is really worth by sales of comparable property happening right now, and then you need to discount that price by enough to make a difference. How much? Depends upon what your local market is like. That's part of what good agents get paid for.



Toss any concept of "negotiating room" or "getting what the property is worth out of your head. Get your attitude out of the seller's market of two years ago. Especially in the current buyer's market, all of the power is in the hands of the prospective buyers. If you won't sell for what they offer, the one down the street who is a little bit smarter, or a little bit more desperate, will. Sellers have little enough power right now without the deadline of foreclosure. People who need to sell have only the power to say no, and what happens if they don't say yes to someone? I'll tell you what happens: You get nothing. The chances are better of flying to the moon by flapping your arms than of getting some of your equity back out of a foreclosed property. Since your best alternative is lose everything you have in the property, that's not a strong negotiating position. This buyer does not have to have your property. With thirty seven sellers per buyer in my local market, they can go find a more attractive property, cheaper, from someone else. Their best alternative in negotiations is that they go find some other seller who will sell for what they want to offer. Negotiating position: Very strong. Net result, the buyer offers what the property is worth to them. If you won't take it, they only need a bit of patience to find something else that will. If you didn't need to sell, you could just hold on to the property, of course, but we've already determined that you don't have that option, and time is not your friend. A very large proportion of agents still have their heads in seller's market mode. Indeed, most of the major chains are still telling their agents to think like it's a seller's market. This kind of thinking is of no use in the present market, as roughly 46,000 residential property owners have discovered in San Diego County within the last year. Considering that only 31,000 transactions have successfully closed in the same time period (and the ratio is getting worse, not better), that is a sobering warning. Only about 40% of property owners who listed their properties sold at all, on any terms. When you consider the time constraints of selling under pending foreclosure, it behooves you to understand your position.



Caveat Emptor

UPDATED here

There is no such thing, of course. 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, as they do right now, they are certainly not going to opt for increasing prices. Sellers can gripe and moan about it all they want, but prices are slowly decreasing right now, and they aren't going to go up until all of the extra inventory clears. Supply and Demand. Two years ago there might have been 4000 residential properties on the market locally at any one time. The last time I checked, there were about 22,000. That means 18,000 additional sellers are 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 still 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.



Personally, I think conditions are as good as they get for buyers, if you're going to hang around three years or more. Yes, prices are deflating and you're likely to lose some money on paper. But 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 like they do now, 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. As a matter of fact, I just checked, and in the week or ten days since the last time I looked, local inventory has dropped by 1700 units (call it 7 percent), mostly due to people who don't have to sell removing their properties from the market.



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?



On top of this right now is the time of year. 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. Seriously, 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.



Nonetheless, with inventory finally dropping, and as fast as it is dropping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the market started turning better for sellers and worse for buyers next selling season. Once that starts to happen, expect prices to stabilize and then start to rise again, and the period of best deals for buyers to be over.



Caveat Emptor

UPDATED here

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 above person is 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. All of those are tough to prove. 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.



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 they 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 right now. 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

UPDATED here

I went out previewing properties a couple days ago. That particular client's situation being what it is, I was concentrating on vacant properties. But over half the vacant properties in that area had restricted showing instructions. "Call agent first," or "call for appointment to see."



When the property is vacant, there just aren't any common reasons to restrict showing. It's not like the buyer's agent is going to surprise grandma in the shower or even could make off with the big screen TV. If you're really trying to sell it, if it's vacant, it's empty, at least of your stuff, and the stager's (if there is one) had better be insured. If there really is some reason to restrict showings, it should be somewhere on that listing report. But I'm seeing this schlock on lender-owned properties, where there is exactly zero reason for it, at least as far as the owner is concerned.



What the listing agent is trying to do is control access, so that people like my clients have a gatekeeper. Why? So that they are more likely to be the selling agent also, and keep both halves of the commission. If the offer they bring in isn't as good, or isn't as quick (thereby costing the owner money), they still made twice as much or more in commission if they represent the buyer as well.



I strongly suspect that many agents - and yes, I'm keeping track of who, even though I'll never share it - play gatekeeper with offers as well. I send over an offer, and I never hear back. I call the agent, and am informed my offer was rejected, but I never see anything with the client's signature or even initials. I don't list many, but when I do, every single offer gets a written response, even if it's just "Offer rejected!" signed by the owner. It's illegal for me - as a Buyer's Agent - to contact the owner directly to confirm that they know about an offer, or I would. I could really get behind a law that said I could send a postcard to the owner that says: "Dear Mr./Mrs. X. My client made an offer on your property recently at 1234 Name Street. If you are already aware of this, please disregard this notice. If you are not, please contact your listing agent about the details. If they cannot satisfy you as to whether you previously saw it, please direct all complaints to the California Department of Real Estate at XXX-XXX-XXXX." Boy would that be a good use for postage. Agents who did their job would have nothing to fear; agents who failed would be out of the business fast.



The motivations of the seller are to show that property as often as possible, to as many people as possible. No showing means no offer. No offer means no sale. Therefore, anything which is a nonessential impediment to showing that property should be dealt with, and agent restrictions are one of these. Believe me, I understand about not wanting client phone numbers in MLS databases, because the last time I had a listing decide they wanted to postpone the listing (therefore withdrawing it from MLS), they told me they got over a hundred solicitations from agents who ignored both the "do not call" list and the fact that I still had a valid listing contract at the time, which they didn't bother to ask about. It's illegal to solicit another agent's listing in California. If it wasn't, people who list their properties would be getting phone solicitations from 8 AM until 9 PM every day, and the junk mail would kill entire forests.



But the seller, whether they realize it or not, wants their property shown as often as possible, to as many people as possible. That's how you get get good offers, or even better, multiple offers that you can play off one another. Anytime you make it more difficult for anyone to view your property, you make it less likely they will view it, less likely they will make an offer, and less likely that it will be a good offer. The sharks out there don't care about viewing restrictions. They're willing to make their low-ball offers sight unseen, albeit with inspection contingencies. And even a shark's offer is better than no offer if you need to sell.



So how does a Buyer's Agent deal with problem personality listing agents? About the only thing I can do is not waste my time and most especially that of my clients on their nonsense. The only one with the power to deal with such antics is owner of the property. Just insisting that you want to see all offers isn't enough. How are you going to know? You can ask that instructions go into MLS for making certain that you get duplicates of all offers. E-mail, fax number, address, or even a PO Box if you have one. Buyer's Agents can't bypass the Listing Agent, but they can send duplicates if the MLS instructs them to.



Even better is to insist that the Listing Agent forswear the possibility of Dual Agency, or they don't get the listing. In other words, no matter what, they will not get the Buyer's Agent's part of the commission. As I have said many times, make them pick a side of the transaction - yours - and stick to it. The listing agent can refer buyers to another agent, or the buyers can go without representation - it's not your problem. Actually, as a seller, you would prefer that the buyer go unrepresented. Not only will you get a better price from the poor fool, you get to keep the Buyer's Agent Commission. But this way, the listing agent has no motivation not to present offers from other agents. You are perfectly within your rights, by the way, to make whether you are going to pay a buyer's agent commission part of your decision making process on offers, but it isn't a good idea to make too big a deal out of it. Most of the reasonable offers you get will be represented by a Buyer's Agent of some stripe.



Nor does it demotivate them from open houses and all that. It is more likely that the people I meet at open houses will want to buy something else anyway. Oh, I do sell listings through open houses - but the one who actually buys that house is usually a contact of the neighbor who comes in with no possibility of buying themselves. Curious neighbors at open houses may be the most likely source of the kind of sale price that makes clients happy - if you treat them correctly. Internet marketing is cheap and easy and effective enough that it's worth doing just to get the listing commission. And when the property goes into escrow and people call about the ad in the monthly magazine I put an ad in, well I just find something similar if not better to sell them. Remember that I'm always looking for bargains, and I've usually got several properties in mind where the sellers are more desperate than I ever allow my listings to get.



This isn't all of the games that listing agents play to try and get themselves a larger commission. Many try to require a pre-qualification letter from a particular lender, which is right on the borderline of illegality, or even that you use their loan brokerage, which is illegal - no borderline about it. I ignore either of these requests, and I'm not above bringing the latter to the attention of the Department of Real Estate. The vast majority of all pre-qualifications are worthless. Nonetheless, the tactics I've suggested cover you against them pretty thoroughly. One more worthwhile tactic if you don't follow my advice about disallowing Dual Agency is to walk into their office at random intervals, and insist that they pull an agent report - as opposed to client report that is all the general public is usually allowed to see - for your property in your presence and give it to you. You are allowed to see agent reports on your own property (and only on your own property), as the privacy reasons that restrict agents from showing agent reports to the general public do not apply. Look at the showing instructions. Does it say what you want it to? Are the requests for making offers restrictive? If not, you may have legal grounds to terminate the listing, and you should want to, because the reason MLS evolved the way it has is to encourage the widest possible interest in your property. A listing agent who wants to restrict that so that they can receive both parts of the commission is moving you back into the days of the single listing half a century ago, and that is not in your best interest, not for price, not for timeliness of sale, and not for the ability of prospective buyers to actually qualify.



Caveat Emptor

UPDATED 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're going to achieve a positive result.



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.



Now, 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 and apartment buildings 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, there is no reason why you shouldn't take advantage of it.



Caveat Emptor

UPDATED here