Buying and Selling: December 2007 Archives

At a very young age, my parents bought me a book of Aesop's Tales. Aesop has gone out of style, probably because these are stories with a moral lesson, and it seems the modern society is actively averse to moral lessons. But one of the ones that has stuck with me was the tale of the dog with a bone and the reflection in the water.

It happened that a Dog had got a piece of meat and was carrying it home in his mouth to eat it in peace. Now on his way home he had to cross a plank lying across a running brook. As he crossed, he looked down and saw his own shadow reflected in the water beneath. Thinking it was another dog with another piece of meat, he made up his mind to have that also. So he made a snap at the shadow in the water, but as he opened his mouth the piece of meat fell out, dropped into the water and was never seen more.

It is precisely this mistake that I'm writing about, and it applies to all real estate transactions. The dog's mistake wasn't that he wanted more. That's normal and natural, and I've certainly never done business with anyone who didn't. The dog's mistake was wanting the other benefit as well as his own, and not realizing he placed the benefit he thought he already had on the line in order to obtain it. But, as he discovered, the goodie that the dog in the water had was only a reflection of his own goodie. In order for the dog to have his own goodie, the dog in the water had to receive his. They are mirror images of the same thing, and one cannot exist without the other.

A lot of what gets written alleging to be good financial advice violates this very simple lesson.

Some things are a cost of doing business. If I don't pay for all the things that enable me to serve my clients, I'm out of the real estate business. Yes, they cost money, but if I didn't spend that money, my income would be zero. For consumers, this includes things like property taxes and HOA dues and Mello-Roos. If you want that property, they are inseparably attached. It is correct to include them in calculations as to whether a property is worth acquiring or worth keeping; it is not only pointless but counterproductive to try and get out of paying them.

This applies to the costs of acquisition and selling, as well. Be certain you understand the real costs involved. They may be large, or seem large, but doing without any of the professional services that have evolved is likely to end up being a lot more expensive in the end. If one is cheaper than another, there is a reason. Find out why; and while it may be that someone is just comfortable making less money, other explanations are such as they do not provide important services that really do make a difference are more likely to be closer to the truth. Don't expect them to tell you this, though, especially since most people will just believe fairy tales like "full service - discount price", and won't investigate why prices or loan quotes are lower. It shouldn't surprise any adult that sometimes it's worth paying extra. If this were not true, none of us would have our own cars, let alone seven seat luxury model vehicles. Cars are about the most expensive mode of transportation there is, but the vast majority of all adults in this country own and drive at least one. Including me. The reason is because the abilities they convey are more valuable than the costs they entail. if you don't pay the cost, you don't get the benefit, and yet many people will fool themselves into trying.

Most importantly, though, the lesson applies to negotiations for the sale of real estate. There's nothing wrong with making the best deal you can, but once you have the contract, honor your end of the bargain. Negotiate issues revealed later reasonably, and in good faith, based upon their own merits. It sometimes happens you find out the other side is getting something fantastic out of the deal. That's not a problem. It's a benefit. Insurance they're going to carry through with their end of the deal, which is a good thing because you wouldn't have signed off on it unless you thought you were getting about the best deal possible, right?. Real estate transactions are based upon making both sides happy with their side of the deal. You can't force someone to sell a property to you or buy it from you. Even attempting that is a felony. There can be circumstances that make it more likely someone will accept a proposal that they might not in other circumstances they would not, and very few people have unlimited time, money, or energy for a transaction to happen. But whatever the other person - other people - in the transaction are getting out of it, those benefits belong to them, and if it appears as if those benefits are in jeopardy, the other side can usually get out of a purchase contract. It may cost them something in some instances, such as the deposit, but successful suits for specific performance are rare, and more so where there's a competent agent involved on that side. Not to mention all those court costs.

The practical upshot of all this is that if you fail to act in good faith, that good deal that you thought you were getting is completely gone, and there's a significant chance you'll end up spending thousands of dollars on legal action as well. All transactions flow from perceived mutual benefit. The other side has to believe they are getting a benefit in order to want to consummate the sale. Figure that if the other side wants out, they can get out. In fact, many over-aggressive later negotiations give the other side grounds to exit the contract without penalty. Nobody's going to buy a property where they can't run the water or flush the toilets, but once the sellers agree to fix that problem in an acceptable manner, don't try to get anything extra out of them. If the septic system is bad, they can either install a new one, (maybe) fix the existing one, or hook the property up to the sewer. Asking them to re-plumb the entire house is not (usually) reasonable, and asking them to re-wire the entire house is, in the immortal words of Monty Python (Book of Armanents, chapter two, verses nine through twenty one), right out. If you find out you're not getting such a great deal, then you're likely to be the one looking to exit the contract, and if they fail to give you satisfaction with a newly discovered issue, maybe you should want to. There's nothing wrong with exercising the inspection and appraisal contingencies, assuming you have them in the contract, or forcing the buyer to consummate the transaction or get out of the way of someone who will, or getting the lender to deliver the loan they said they would.

Greed envy is one of the banes of a successful transaction, and if you don't have a successful transaction, you don't have anything positive, and you quite likely have significant extra expenses. To go back to the dog and the bone, a failed real estate transaction is worse, because not only have you lost your bone, you've lost everything you spent in obtaining it, and you still don't have what you wanted, whether it is your new property or cash for your property or new financing. If you make your initial choices based upon the benefits to you, the fact that someone else is getting a benefit as well is not something to cause you heartburn and make you want to take it away from them. That way lies disaster. Instead, think of it as insurance that you're going to be getting that benefit that you wanted enough to sign the contract or loan application in the first place. And if you're not going to be getting the benefit you thought you were, maybe you're the one who's going to want out.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

Is there any program that i can qualify for a home with no down payment?

Lots of them. We may not be talking number of grains of sand on the beach or drops of water in the ocean, but there are more ways to get get into a property with no down payment than most laypersons would believe.

Many loan officers would have you believe that it is a hard loan or that takes something special to get 100 percent financing. It doesn't. In 95 percent plus of all cases, that's just setting you up for three points of origination, setting them up to ask you for referrals, and trying to get you to not shop around. Nor is it a difficult loan to do. As long as you meet the guidelines, 100% financing is routine. Many lenders are begging for these loans, even today. It's still almost to the point where fat middle aged men like me have to be careful not to allow ourselves to be alone in the office with young attractive female lender representatives. When I wrote the original article, I talked about how in my humble opinion, some of these lax underwriting processes were setting the lenders up for unbelievable losses, but as long as I and my clients are telling the truth and playing by the rules, there was no reason why my clients should not benefit. I don't often say "I told you so!", but I did.

The first way to get 100% financing is obviously to have a lender loan you 100%. However, the best way to structure it, in the vast majority all cases, is the 80/20 "piggyback" loan. Unfortunately, right now lenders aren't doing piggybacks above 90% of purchase price. This will likely change when the market is restored to rationality, but we have to live with lender rules, good or bad. He who has the gold makes the rules, and all that. As I discuss in One Loan Versus Two Loans, avoiding mortgage insurance (PMI) saves you money, if you can. There are also a plethora of other ways to structure it, if there is a reason to. One rule that I have learned the hard way is never apply for a first and a second from different lenders, even if it looks like the rates will be better applying that way. Even if both wholesalers swear on the name of Domingo Montoya, don't do it. You are wasting your time. If the lender who wants to do the first won't do the second, there is a reason, and the reason is that this person is unlikely to be approved for the second, and the transaction doesn't close until both loans are ready. If I've got the first with the lender, that's leverage that a good loan officer can use to get them to approve marginal seconds. Not so with lenders who are just doing the second. Not to mention that there is ten times the potential for confusion and several times the work coordinating between lenders.

What do you need in order to get 100% financing, you ask? Well, that's a variable. If you have can prove you make enough money to justify the loan (see Levels of Mortgage Documentation), a credit score of 600 to 620 is still sufficient. The higher the credit score the better the loan, but if you've got a 620 and can prove you make enough money to qualify, the loan can be done. The possibility does not vanish completely until you are below a 580 credit score, although comparatively few lenders will go below 600 for 100 percent financing, and they're all high interest subprimes, competing for loans no one else will do.

If you can't prove you make enough money, some subprime lenders may currently do 100% financing on a stated income basis down to 680 credit score, and maybe down as low as 660. A paper 100% stated income is a thing of the past, and I don't anticipate it returning soon, if ever. Be very careful about overstating your income as you are still going to have to make that payment every month. Stated income loans are a good way to get in serious financial difficulties if you don't understand their limitations. Therefore, despite the ability to inflate your income, I strongly advise against it. Furthermore, as I've said elsewhere, the rates for stated income loans are higher than for full documentation loans, and they become progressively more so the worse the credit score gets. Plus, sub-prime loans aren't as good as A paper in the first place, having higher rates and pre-payment penalties which can only be bought off by accepting much higher rates. Not only is it difficult to get 100% stated income financing, but it will be 2% or more higher than the rate that the person who can prove they can make enough money will get. For all of these reasons, I strongly advise you to stay within a budget where you can prove you make enough money, even (especially!) if it means you have to settle for a lesser property.

Now things like being 30 days late on your rent, and how long of a rental history you have will also influence your ability to get 100% financing, not to mention the rate you will be offered. As with so many other things, take care of your credit and it will take care of you. Make payments of whatever nature, in full and on time. Better yet, don't incur any debts you don't have to. The number one obstacle to being able to afford the loan, and therefore the property, is for most people existing debt.

Suppose your credit is so bad that you do not qualify for 100% financing from any lender? Well, not all hope is lost, although it really does constrain your choices. Most lenders will permit seller carrybacks, so long as they are subordinate to lender financing. So if the lender is willing to give you 90% financing, you can do one of the things that called 80/10/10 financing: 80% first, 10% second, 10% third that is a carryback with the seller. There are a multitude of ways to structure a deal if you know your limitations in advance, but you do have to know them.

Now not every seller is going to be willing or able to carry back money. They are selling the property because they want money, or something that money can buy but the property won't get them. If the seller doesn't have enough equity to cover the costs of selling plus what you're asking to borrow, your offer is probably not going to appeal to that seller. A good buyer's agent will steer you away from properties where the seller doesn't have the equity to work with you. Another thing is that sellers may want you to offer more money in order to accept your offer. Furthermore, they might charge you a really hideous interest rate as an incentive to pay them off ASAP. And they may realize that the reason the lenders won't give you 100% financing is because you are not the best credit risk out there. I certainly don't hesitate to tell my listing clients a lot more about the limitations of carrybacks than there is space for here. I'm a decided non-fan of seller carrybacks, as the request tends to indicate a poorly qualified buyer who may not be able to secure any financing. Nonetheless, given the current buyer's market, some sellers are willing to carry back financing in order to get rid of the property, particularly if the offer is for top dollar. Once the market turns back towards the sellers at all, the ability to do this is likely to vanish. There are many advantages to being willing to shop in a buyer's markets, of which that is only one.

So obviously, you need to know if 100% financing through the lender is possible or likely for someone in your particular situation. You need to know this before you go making any offers to purchase property - and there are types of property where 100% financing is only an option with a seller carryback.

Now, a couple of final points: Just because you can get 100% financing does not mean it's a good idea, or that you should. You get better rates from lenders if you put money down, and writing offers that include having money for a down payment shows a seller that you are serious about buying the property. Other things being equal, I'm going to counsel my sellers that an offer that comes in with even a 5% down payment is a much stronger offer than anything that comes in wanting 100% financing. As a loan officer and buyer's specialist, I've dealt with enough of these that I know the questions to ask to determine if it is likely to work, possible, or ain't gonna happen.

Furthermore, speaking of strong offers: You will need a decent deposit to convince the seller that you're serious about buying the place. Most 100% financing escrows are currently failing, a fact most listing agents are painfully aware of without having any clue as to how to tell if the buyer is qualified. The seller is going to spend a lot of money on the escrow for your attempt to purchase that property, and has to give you sole shot for however long an escrow period you agree to. This means they can't work with other offers while they're working with you, and time is money to a seller. They want to know that if you can't consummate this contract in a timely fashion, they are going to have some compensation for the trouble and expense. Prospective buyers with 100% financing can expect to have to put a larger deposit down. Somebody offers a $500 deposit on a $500,000 property, that's going to be rejected so fast and so thoroughly that your fax machine will spin. So if you really have no money, even though you can obtain 100% financing, trying to buy a property in this fashion is likely to be a waste of time.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

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

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

It would be very popular to answer "yes".

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

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

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

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

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

There may be municipalities somewhere where this is permitted under their local programs, but I've never heard of one, and I do suspect it's prohibited in the legislation and regulations for the federal administration that funds these local programs. The First Time Buyer programs are intended to stabilize neighborhoods, and make it a little easier for people to be able to afford to buy housing they intend to live in. They are not intended to help you build a real estate empire - as a matter of fact, that's somewhat counter to their purpose. They are also never free of strings. If you intend on taking advantage of these programs, it would behoove you to make certain you understand what those strings are, as well as all of the implications, before you've got a purchase contract. Some of the strings on first time buyer programs are real deal-killers. For example, a city about a half hour's drive from my office has one that looks really nice at first glance, but restricts both who you sell to and what you can sell for, eviscerating the economic benefits of ownership and making you essentially a renter who also pays maintenance and property taxes. Unless you're just going to live there forever, which may not be under your control, that's not a desirable situation. Probably better to buy in the city next door, which has a more useful for your financial future "silent second" program much like the one described above. You need to be careful with first time buyer's programs, lest you end up in a situation that does not justify your expenditures with future benefits.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most salient part of a buyer's agent's job is to keep you from wasting money - paying more for the property than you can get an equally valuable property for nearby. By the time the listing agent comes on the scene, that's a moot point. The property is what it is and is worth what it's worth. If it's good, the listing agent has a much better success story. If it's not, all the listing agent can do amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. On listings, it's really rare that I have have more than two weeks to work with a property before it hits the market. I can help the owners make what's there more visually attractive, but I can't really change it much in most cases. When I'm helping buyers, the vast majority of the time I can keep them from dealing with a problem property at all.

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

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

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

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

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

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

Moderately good news for sellers, not so great for buyers.

I wrote a few days ago about the federal government and lenders agreeing to freeze rates.

This isn't a panacea, by any means. It may not help people who had interest only loans, which will still begin to amortize. It won't help those already in default. It certainly won't help those who bought with negative amortization, who never were paying the real payments.

That said, it will give those who could afford the initial cost of money, but have been frustrated by the fact that prices have declined and they're upside-down and therefore cannot refinance into a "normal" loan type because of that fact.

Practical effect on the market: Nothing immediately, as in right this instant. But based upon statistical summaries of who has what loans, at least half of the people who would have been forced into foreclosure in coming months are going to be able to hold on. The vast majority of these, given the five year breathing space given by the government deal, will be able to keep making their payments until such time as they are able to sell or refinance normally. This means the "huge tidal wave of foreclosures" that market doomsday advocates have been going on about becomes a shallow wash.

The statistician and the financial planner in me are actually both in admiration of this move. It not only doesn't cost taxpayers any money directly, I suspect that the longer term effect will be to save us some money, as fewer lenders go down and we have to stand up for fewer government guarantees. It won't help those who couldn't afford their loans in the first place, but it will give aid and comfort to those who suffered solely from price declines. I've said over and over again that the only time the value of a property is important is when it's bought, sold, or refinanced. Unfortunately for those who bought with 2/28s or 3/27s that have now reset higher (or are about to), refinancing is one of those times. They bought with a loan that they really could afford now, just not indefinitely. They knew they were going to need to refinance, and were counting upon their value not to have decreased critically when that time came. However, prices in much of the country have critically decreased. This means that when they needed to refinance because their rate reset, now they were prevented from doing so by the terms on which lenders will extend replacement financing.

Yes, these folks should have limited themselves to properties they could afford on a thirty year fixed rate basis, and I lost a lot of business through preaching about making the situation sustainable. However, I don't have it in me to throw people out of their homes for the (sarcasm on) horrible crime (end sarcasm) of not following my advice. The agents and loan officers who gave such people horrible advice are heaving a huge collective sigh of relief, but my desire for schadenfreude isn't great enough to endure the consequences for all those others, either. Furthermore, the more the market declines, the worse everyone gets hurt. This includes people who were thoroughly blameless as well as people like me, who did our best to avert the disaster. I also suspect that most of the malefactors are still going to get burned, having advised clients to do things which are not covered by the government agreement.

In fact, the government plan helps affected homeowners in direct proportion to how well they really could afford their property in the first place. Also being voluntary on the part of the lenders, it wouldn't have happened if they didn't see it as being in their best interests. The plan gives them cover for doing en masse what they would have had to do for those borrowers individually. All in all, the government has accomplished a noteworthy feat of financial judo.

Furthermore, it carves the heart out of any predictions of coming disaster in the housing market. There is not going to be a huge amount of involuntary supply hitting the market in the coming months. In point of fact, a large percentage of the people who would have lost their homes to foreclosure have already "voluntarily" placed their properties on the market, as the least damaging avenue available to them as individuals. Many of these did not even know they could ask their lender for a modification. Some still don't know that it's true in general, but due to the publicity about this deal, have done so about their loan in particular.

Indeed, I would expect a certain number of people to withdraw their properties from the market, as they contact their lenders and find out they can now afford to stay. They bought these properties because they wanted to live in them, after all. It's only been four days since the announcement as I write this, so I wouldn't expect to see such results of that yet, as it's going to take a while before the homeowners are sure they can take it off the market.

Here's one fact: we've seen a slight uptick in new escrows locally this last week over last, from 450 to 470. The ratio of supply to demand, at 40 to 1, is the lowest I've seen it since the early days of summer. Smack in the middle of Christmas season. You might have seen me write that nobody wants to move the Christmas Tree before, despite it being the best time of year to buy, not only vis a vis sellers but also for tax reasons. Given the market environment, this is indicative of an uptick in demand more than anything having to do with supply. In the middle of Christmas season.

So here we are seeing a small increase in demand as well as the seeds of a decrease in supply. At the time of year when activity is usually at its lowest. What does this tell you?

I've been saying for six months that mass psychology is the only thing keeping this market down. The old Fear and Greed, reversed in their effects from two years ago. People afraid prices are going lower, or greedily betting that they will. But trying to time the market - any market - is a bad idea.

San Diego Area Median Income is now $69,700 per year. For the mathematically challenged, that's a monthly income of $5800 per month. Using standard Fannie and Freddie standards (and A paper lenders have been sitting pretty these last few months), that means that the median family can afford $2613 per month. As I type this, I've got a 6% thirty year fixed rate loan for less than one total point. If someone doesn't have a down payment, add PMI of just under 1%. With $100 per month for insurance, they can afford $320,000. With $200 per month for HOA dues, that's still almost $310,000. There are seventy-five properties on the market in the same zip code as my office where the asking price is that low. If you consider the properties where it could be bargained down that far, it's at least 120 and probably over 150. In one zip code. Median income families without a down payment, and below average (but not putrid) credit. There are over 100 zip codes in the San Diego MLS.

There were 774 sales consummated in the last 30 days, throughout the county. And keep in mind that $69,700 median includes statistics of minimum wage people as well as CEOs. A couple where each earns $15 to $20 per hour can easily afford a starter property, even without a down payment. No, they can't afford the brand new 5 bedroom 4 bath 3000 square foot mini-mansion that advertisers are telling us everyone "needs", but they never could, either. Our parents raised families of five in three bedroom 1200 square foot homes, our grandparents raised families of eight in one and two bedroom 600 and 800 square foot apartments. There's no reason why a family of four can't fit in either one - no reason except envy, that is. For the last decade or so, marketers have been telling people that they didn't have to settle. Well, that was never true, and the loans that enabled people to pretend it was are no longer to be found. I wrote yesterday about the long term benefits of home ownership. You can have what you can afford, or you can miss out on the benefits altogether. Matter of fact, as I've said before, the best way to leverage yourself into what you want is to start by buying what you can afford now.

Given these facts, I'm thinking that we're seeing the low point of the market right about now. The horrible part about relying upon mass psychology and using it to try to time the market is that mathematically, at least fifty percent of the people who do so will be left in the dust when the market takes off. All it takes is one good month, and a market turn fueled by the mass psychological phenomenon (or the collapse of such) becomes a positive feedback loop. In fact, if the market does get worse, that only exacerbates the strength of the recovery when it happens. Affordability-wise, we're back where we were in 2003, or maybe 2002. Given the scarcity of new land for development and other constrictions of supply, and the fact that we're not suffering from any shortages of people who want to buy property here, this may be the best opportunity to buy in San Diego we'll see in our lifetime.

Caveat Emptor

I had the idea for this article some time ago. It took me a long time to decide to share it publicly, because quite frankly, knowing what I know now, I was an idiot. I was still young enough to think I knew more than I did. Now that I've learned a lot more, I still don't know what I thought I knew then, but I'm getting closer. When I repeat transactions of this nature now, I don't repeat these completely boneheaded mistakes.

The year was 1990, and I was still working for the federal government in my first career, air traffic control. Controllers are not your most humble of people, and for better reasons than most. Most days, I could go home secure in the knowledge that without me there, a couple of airplanes would have crashed together, and even if everyone walked away from it, however unlikely that was, there would have been anywhere from a couple hundred thousand dollars in damage to millions. But, as you're about to see, this has nothing to do with competence in real estate.

Before I go any further, let me tell you that things could have been much worse than they ended up being. I understood a lot of things about real estate and finance, even then. Even then, I knew enough to know how simply full of excrement most of the people claiming do it yourself real estate was the way to go were. Ignorant. Guilty of wishful thinking. Neglecting terms in mathematical equations. Just plain wrong.

I simply thought I was better than that. At the time, I thought I did pretty well. But in retrospect, boy did I get taught a lesson by a pro.

Let me tell you what the problems weren't. It wasn't that I didn't understand how to check out a property. I grew up a contractor's son. From the time I was old enough to wield a paintbrush with a modicum of control, I was helping my dad on his projects. Some of my earliest memories are of helping my dad mix and pour concrete. You name the project, I've pretty much done it. I learned how to spot construction defects, problems, and things that needed to be fixed before I figured out that girls didn't have cooties. I have an excellent idea of what's involved in fixing most of them, much better than you get by watching any of those home repair or decorating programs. Furthermore, I had my dad with me to help me spot potential problems.

I did pretty darned good on the loan. Through both intentional and accidental learning (i.e. formal classes and having friends and co-workers older than I was, and listening to the problems they had had), I had a pretty good understanding of the pitfalls there. I knew what the options to compare were, and I knew why a 5/1 ARM is better than even a 7 year balloon, and how both compare to 30 and 15 year fixed rate loans. Through the financial markets, I understood that there was a tradeoff between rate and cost. I could have maybe shopped it a bit more, and probably should have taken a less expensive loan, but the higher cost for the lower rate worked out in my case.

(Amazing that for all the "do it yourself without an agent" advocates out there, I've never encountered a single person encouraging you to be your own loan broker, despite the fact that I can get a newly licensed person up to speed on common loans a lot more quickly and easily than I can teach them the rest of what they need to know to act as an agent)

My problems wasn't location, or lack of knowledge of the area. I bought less than three miles from my mom's house, about four from my dad's. I had been on that street at least dozens of times prior to buying that property. I knew the area cold, and I love the area even today.

It wasn't a failure to shop, or not knowing what would do well upon resale. I did my homework, and looked at a dozen properties before I made my offer. It certainly wasn't failing to do research, on the internet or elsewhere. I read several books that are still well-regarded today. Yes, this was before the World Wide Web, but newsgroups and forums existed back then, and were easy to access, and I always had a good internet connection. It's become easier to use the internet since then, but the signal to noise ratio has gotten considerably worse. Not that it was stellar in the first place, but I find more spectacularly wrong "information" out there now with an agenda of selling some thing or idea in particular, than I did then. At least in the newsgroups, you could always count upon having opposing points of view. Just surfing the world wide web, you're at the mercy of the publisher of that particular website if you don't know any better.

Now here's what the problem was: My ignorance. Ignorance of the market, ignorance of procedures, ignorance of what everything meant and the implications thereof.

Let's be honest. It could have been much worse than it was, even with everything else covered.

What I was paying attention to was asking price, not comparable sales. Furthermore, since I hadn't been in any of those comparable sales, I didn't have the basis for a valid comparison and pricing. That listing agent did. Furthermore, the local real estate market at that time was getting ready to fall, much like things were in much of 2006. Sellers were just starting to realize things were not likely to fall their way in the future. A good first offer would have been $10,000 less than I offered, then negotiate hard, and settle on maybe $8000 less than I actually paid. Considering prices were much lower then (still under $100,000!), I overpaid by about 10%, and there were enough properties on the market, and few enough buyers, that if they hadn't been willing to negotiate, I could have walked away and found something just as good for about that price in the exact same area.

It gets worse. Because I didn't know what local procedures were, I ended up paying just under $3000, more than a buyer's agent would have made, in various fees that were really the seller's responsibility. Not to mention using the wrong escrow and title company.

All told, my ignorance cost me somewhere between ten and fourteen thousand dollars, out of a purchase price significantly under $100,000, and it could have been much worse. There were no issues with title of construction defects or anything else. This meant ten to fourteen thousand dollars more to pay interest on. Rates then were higher than most people have since become accustomed to (The seller was proud of the fact they had an assumable loan at 10%). I can do a better loan cheaper today on a thirty year fixed rate basis than was available on a 5/1 ARM back then. On top of that, it made the difference between not needing PMI on my loan and PMI being required, at about $80 per month in addition to the extra interest. PMI used to be much more expensive than it is now, also, and the whole piggyback loan thing was not yet a real option.

Lest you not understand, the listing agent was doing nothing other than her job with all of this. She was responsible for getting the best possible deal for her seller. If a sucker swam into the net, so much the better. I understand this now. I didn't then.

One more thing that may not be clear to the average reader: Most real estate transactions doesn't get dissected like this, in retrospect by someone who is now a trained professional with lessons to learn from it. Most people never realize how much they've been taken for, and I did a lot of things right that most people working on their own behalf don't.

Why did I make this mistake? I was in, "I don't want to deal with sales people!" mode, even though that's precisely what I was doing, and even if it had been "For Sale By Owner," that doesn't magically change the fact that the person who wants to sell it has become a sales person by that act. I was so focused on "not wasting money with a commission," that I rationalized doing one of the biggest transactions of my life without expert help. Even if I had ended up paying the buyer's agent commission out of my own pocket (I wouldn't have) that would have been at most a quarter of what not having one cost me, and it could have been much worse. Even so, I rationalized my way into completely wasting four to five times the amount I would have spent. The difference between 99 percent of the "do it yourself" crowd out there and me, is that I have subsequently looked at what happened with more experienced and educated eyes, even though what I have now learned makes me want to hide my face in embarrassment.

I could pretend it came out better than it did. This was before I was married, and the only person who was hurt by this was me, and my wife wasn't there, so she doesn't know enough to keep reminding me about what a loser I was (not that she would). But that wouldn't help me not to make the same mistake again. I can have my ego and false illusion of invincibility, of thinking "I'm da MAN!", or I can face my mistakes, learn from what I did wrong, and not make those same mistakes again. I know which bodes better for my financial future, and that of my family. I've decided I can take the ego hit more easily than I can take repeating the same mistakes next time, let alone for one of my clients. I've since acquired one of the most valuable skills anyone can have: The ability to assess when you're beyond your level of competence. I've done a lot of loans since then, and a not insignificant number of real estate transactions, and I keep learning new things with most of them. The largest difference between me, now, and me, then, is that I've learned a lot more about the problems with believing you know something that is not, in fact, true, and how to investigate and research and just plain ask other professionals who have previously dealt with a given issue. This knowledge and experience and skill doesn't come at a price most people consider "cheap". But it will save most likely save you several times what it costs. Offer most people the choice between spending a flat $1000 or a ninety percent probability of being forced to spend between $4000 to $5000, and the rational, logical choice is obvious. It's the cheapest insurance you will ever buy, in terms of real cost to expected benefit - you're getting several times the expected value in return. Now consider that with property values several times higher than that now, the amounts at stake locally are ten times that or more.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here