Buying and Selling: August 2008 Archives

This has always been a portion of the market, but right now, more and more people are emphasizing it, or at least the ones who are able.

Actual Rent to Own is rare these days, a sign that the market is being driven by sellers, selling to poorly advised buyers. I can't remember the last time I heard of one happening, because there is an actual ownership interest right away, and the buyer is entitled to a share of the money put into rent, whether or not the deal is actually consummated. On the other hand, Lease Option seems to be a common Idea of the Moment, because the prospective buyer basically gets nothing if they don't want to buy, or if they cannot qualify for the loan.

Just like any other purchase contract, everything about these is negotiable, but the basics are thus: Buyer and seller reach a purchase agreement, with the date of actual purchase delayed by some amount of time. In the meantime, the agreement is for for the buyer to rent the property, usually for an above market rent. Part of each payment gets set aside for the buyer's down payment if and when the option is exercised. The difference between Rent to Own and Lease with Option to Buy is that in Rent to Own, a part of each payment is actually due back to the buyer if they decide not to buy, whereas in Lease with Option to buy, that money is just gone if the option to buy is not exercised.

Why do this?

For the prospective buyer, it's a way to engage in forced savings for a down payment. If rent is $2000 per month, with $1000 being credited to the buyer and $1000 in rent, over a period of two years, you've got a $24,000 down payment, and this is treated exactly like any other down payment, except that the seller already has it, so you only have to come up with the purchase price less this down payment money. This is useful for people with rotten credit and/or poor savings habits, especially if credit is expected to improve withing the time frame of the agreement. It's horridly inefficient, and I've never seen a residential situation where it wasn't better to buy outright, but if you have a problem qualifying for a loan or saving for a down payment, this is one way to go about dealing with that problem. With 100% financing currently dead except for VA loans and a few Municipal first time buyer programs that run out of money at warp speed every time they get a fresh allocation, this is one way for people to get their foot in the door of property.

For the seller, it's a way to create a captive purchaser. These buyers have rotten credit and/or zero dollars for a down payment. Nobody else can do business with these buyers, because the buyers will not qualify for the necessary loan. They have Hobson's Choice: This one or none at all. This creates bargaining power for the seller even in the strongest of Buyer's Markets, because most sellers in such markets do not have the ability or willingness to offer a Lease with Option to Buy. They're not as powerful as offering a Seller Carryback, but they definitely give sellers pricing power they would not otherwise have. You can get an above market rent and an above market price, to boot, and the prospective buyers are more motivated than your average tenant to take good care of the property.

So why isn't everybody doing them?

First of all, the reason the seller has the property on the market is because they want or need to sell now, not two years from now. With either rent to own or Lease with Option to Buy ("Lease Option"), they aren't getting any equity out of the property now to enable them to buy their next property. Furthermore, they've still got all of the expenses of owning that property. Finally, the reason that buyer can't buy anything else is because the most generous assessment of their financial skills possible is "Needs improvement." Bad credit does not, generally speaking, happen like a lightning strike out of a clear blue sky. It happens because they don't pay their bills on time. There are some exceptions - mostly people who had major unexpected medical expenses, but there are limits to how badly one account can hurt your credit. Chances are high that they'll be late with the rent - which is money you're counting on to pay your mortgage, your property taxes, your insurance, etcetera. It takes a certain financial solvency to be able to offer these. Not to mention that until the tenants exercise the option to buy, you still own that property, which means you've got all of the headaches and obligations of being a landlord, or you're going to have to pay someone else to take care of them. Repairs, maintenance, etcetera.

For buyers, the prospective pitfalls are even worse. First, you're paying above market rent and agreeing to a price that is usually significantly above the current market. It might be below market when you actually exercise the option, but right now, it's almost certainly a goodly premium over the price that you can get similar properties for - because they're offering something extra that most sellers are not willing or able to offer, and if you didn't need it, you wouldn't be willing to pay for it, right? If you don't exercise the option to buy, the extra rent money you fork out is basically gone. There has to be equity in the agreed upon sales price, and there has to continue to be actual equity. No lender in the known universe is going to approve a short payoff for a Rent to Own or Lease Option, no matter how ironclad your contract. If the current owners lose the property to foreclosure, you're basically SOL. And it wouldn't be the first time sellers pocket the rent while not paying the mortgage, or even taking a cash out refinance. I'm not certain what the law is on this point, but I don't see a way to keep the current owners from doing any of this. It's a good idea to record the option, but that doesn't mean anything if the lender forecloses or is owed more money than the strike price. You can sue, but suing broke people is throwing more money down a black hole from which you're not going to recover it. Finally, and here's the rub that kills a very large proportion of the prospective buyers who enter into these agreements: You're still going to have to qualify for a loan for the rest of the agreed upon purchase price ("strike price") before the option period expires. Usually the market goes up, but sometimes it does go down, and the appraisal is less than the purchase price. If you can't make up the necessary difference between the biggest loan you can get and the strike price, you're not going to be able to buy. For that matter, if interest rates go up significantly, you could find yourself unable to afford the payments on that loan. In fact, these two phenomenon usually go together. Rates go up, therefore payments and cost of interest on the same number of dollars rises. People in the aggregate cannot afford to pay as much for real estate as they could formerly, and therefore, prices fall. Basic economics.

There usually is a significant deposit made, as well. Not as much as a regular purchase contract, but just because there's a time delay involved doesn't mean the seller isn't going to demand a deposit they can keep (maybe), or rent to a tenant without a deposit. The rules on whether they can keep a tenant's deposit are also somewhat different and more advantageous to the current owner than California's renter-landlord law generally is (Don't ask me - I'm not a lawyer. I'm mostly parroting what I've been told on this point).

The prospective seller is entitled to do all the due diligence than any normal prospective seller or landlord is, and ditto the prospective buyers/tenants. Personally, I would want that inspection contingency period to run the full duration of the option period, and there really isn't an effective loan contingency period, as the owners already have the prospective buyer's money, and most Lease Option contracts are pretty solid upon the point of not getting it back. This point is negotiable, but usually that money has already gone to pay mortgage, property taxes, etcetera. What did I just say about suing broke people?

Rent to Own real estate and Lease with Option to Buy real estate are always a risk for both parties. The tricks are myriad, at the very least. This is not something to try without a very sharp agent representing your interests, and as for dual agency in this situation, I have it on excellent authority that slow roasting yourself while basting with acid is less painful for prospective buyers. With that said, if the situation is right and both parties act in good faith, it can be a way to make both sides of such an agreement very happy, when otherwise they would both have been very unhappy. The seller gets an above market price, albeit delayed, and a much improved cash flow in the meantime. The buyers can buy property, where otherwise they would not be able to.

Caveat Emptor.

Article UPDATED here

Dan,

Okay, so now I'm in the process of just making an offer on a house and it's already getting confusing despite all my reading. It would have been worse has I not spent all this time reading but just when I think I have a solid grasp of this process something else springs up.

The agent is saying that with the offer we have to say who the lender is and if we change lenders we have to ask the seller for permission, basically, since it's a part of the offer. Is that normal?

It's a short sale (seems like everything we look at is!) and on the home there are two loans. This is what I heard from the sellers agent. The first lender signs off on just about any offer (and so far I'm told there are offers all the way to $189k) because for the most part they're going to get all their money back. The second lender has not signed off on any offer so far but the sellers agent says if you offer X (it's $199k in this case) they'll take it. First of all, how can the sellers agent even go into details like that? (And he told ME because I called him after I talked to our agent because I couldn't believe she knew all those details about first and second loans and what the second lender would settle with.) Second, how would he know how much they would settle for and third, why would that lender tell anyone what the lowest they would take is? Seems to me this is all speculation on what that second lender might do.

Okay, so the asking price is $199k and my agent knows we have about 3.5% saved, that's it! So we go and get pre-approvals from lenders for $200k. So far so good. Then we find a house we like and the asking price is $199k. And we lean that if we offer the asking price chances are it'll get accepted (usually we learn that there are 3 offers already and we need to offer more . . . yes, even in the down market!). Once I finally get over the fears and decide to do it the agent tells me we should offer $204,500 to cover closing costs. WHAT? I'm confused again.

Any light you can shed will be greatly appreciated.

I don't know much about your market and its current state. Some things are appropriate in some buyer's markets, but will only get the door slammed in your face in seller's markets. On the other hand, some things are necessary in seller's markets, but are giving away far too much in buyer's markets, and there is an entire continuum between buyer's markets and seller's markets. Handling offers and negotiations in a manner inappropriate for the current market will pretty much guarantee failure, either by asking for something so outrageous that the door metaphorically gets slammed in your face, or by giving away all sorts of things including money that there is no need for. To know what is and is not appropriate, you need an agent who knows your local market, who's willing to really work on your behalf, not just fax offers back and forth.

As far as the lender goes, I have NEVER named a buyer's lender in a purchase offer, and I'm not about to start, for precisely that reason - and the fact that its none of the seller's business. But it might conceivably be part of the standard contract in your state, for reasons I don't understand, being a California boy. Some state laws are a bit, shall we say, different? On the other hand, some lawyers I'm aware of could build a serious case that this particular item, however, is a RESPA violation, which is federal law and applies everywhere in the US.

It's easy to figure out approximately how much they owe. The original dollar amount of existing liens is public record, everywhere in the US. From there, you can make a pretty good estimate of how much they owe. Not that it's generally a good idea to focus on what is owed. Whether it's free and clear, or upside down, the property is only as valuable to you as it is. You're not going to pay $400,000 for a property that's only worth $200,000 if they're upside down. Neither is there any reason to be willing to pay less if they own it free and clear. It's still worth what it's worth, and failing to understand that, by either the seller or the buyer, is a recipe for failure. Buyers do not care what a seller "would like to get," and sellers don't care about what a buyer can afford except as it applies to the question, "Can they afford this property?"

A short sale is a short sale is a short sale. Unless there are reasons like "pretty much everything is a short sale", buyers should avoid short sales. Even done right, it's a month and a half or more process of the lender trying to beat everyone up for more money by wielding a VETO. If you do decide that you want that particular property badly enough to fight through the short sale process, I wouldn't start by accommodating the lender. They're still going to try to beat you up, only they're starting from a better point for them and a worse one for you.

As far as over offer to cover seller paid closing costs: We do live in a net world. Are you asking for seller paid closing costs? You shouldn't if you don't need to, but if you are, it's kind of like an equation. If X, a price they will accept on an offer without seller paid closing costs, equals $200k, then X plus $5000 for closing costs is $205k. Actually, since they pay commissions on the higher amount, you should feel lucky if they agree to a price that doesn't add anything more than the closing costs cost them.

The critical questions I usually ask are: Suppose you get it at that price. Happy or sad? Suppose you don't get it at that price, but someone overbids you marginally and does. Angry, or don't care? Finally, how many real competitors for your business are there? Is this property head and shoulders above everything else with a comparable asking price, or are there hundreds of others just as good, that you could just as easily make an offer on and be happy with? The answers to these questions will help a good agent determine what a good offer is, and what it isn't. A bad offer can poison the well, and a too good offer gives away too much. You want the property on the best terms possible, but you do want the property. If you're a flipper looking to score on a low ball offer, you don't care if you poison the well (you're pretty going to walk away if they're not desperate enough to take the first offer or something close), but pretty much everyone else does.

From your email, I'm getting suspicious there's some tendency on behalf of that particular agent to inflate the price so they get paid more, and possibly even collusion. But there's no way to be certain, and no way to tell that it's even the way to bet without knowing more about your market. Only another agent in your market would know about that, which is one reason why any specific negotiating advice you're going to read in a forum with a national audience is so much wasted breath at best. There are possible exceptions to everything I've written in this article, and I know what they are and where they would be applicable, but it all has to do with a given local market at a given temporary time or specific situations where you're going to be getting something extra in exchange for giving up something that isn't normal. For anything beyond a particular local market under particular market conditions that apply in a very time limited fashion, detailing these would be so much wasted space on the page. All of this is one more reason you want a good buyer's agent on your side before you start looking at property. Dual Agency is a recipe for disaster for buyers.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

With the current popularity of pursuing a "green" lifestyle and some sustainability (garden plot, edible landscaping, micro-orchard, etc.) in one's yard area, I value your input about what to look for in an older subdivision with larger lots that aren't "vampire properties." And how do you factor in local ordinances? Thanks!

First off, I want to say that it's not my place to pass judgment on anyone's housing preferences. This person wants more green, so I'm going to help them with that.

If you're really looking to be green, there are a lot of reasons not to buy a single family detached home. In heating and cooling, materials, and most especially land use, single family detached homes are about as un-green as it comes. Talk to the sustained use experts, and they'll tell you that single family detached housing is horribly wasteful of everything involved. The "greenest" housing is high rise condominiums and apartment buildings. Not what everyone wants to hear, but nonetheless the truth.

With that said, there are degrees of "green". Small sized plots are not agriculturally efficient - that's one reason why Zimbabwe (to name the worst example) has gone from breadbasket to starving in a few years time - they broke the big farms up into little farms supporting one subsistence level family each. So you're not going to produce enough to offset what the land could do as part of a commercial farm or large public park, but you can do fairly well if you check with your local greenery experts. Locally, Kate Sessions (our most famous landscaper) was known for gardens that were both beautiful and water efficient - to the point where the City of San Diego doesn't water large portions of Balboa Park at all. Pretty much every greenhouse locally has someone whose advice to make the landscaping efficient is worthwhile. Even townhomes can be worthwhile - I know folks with dwarf fruit trees in the back yards of their townhomes, and if a homeowner's association was to make an effort, most of them would make far more more difference than a single plot owner - because while it is a common interest development, when you put them all together, you usually have several times the land available of most single family detached urban dwellings. Trees provide shade in summer and keep it cool - and they help break the wind and lower heating bills in winter. Obviously, check with someone local to you for specific recommendations because I'm pretty sure orange and lemon trees don't do so hot in Minnesota winters. Grass is nice, and good for resale, but it's a big user of water - a no-no for Green living in most of the west. It wouldn't be such a big deal to water grass with 'gray' (used water, no longer potable) if lawns weren't so notoriously un-"green".

For heating and cooling, double or triple paned windows and good, tight weatherstripping are pretty much mandatory for greens. Newer housing has this sort of thing already installed, and lots of older ones homes do, as well. Given the cost, it probably is not worth while to replace existing windows with modern ones for that reason alone, but that doesn't stop a lot of people. I'd think wood floors - replaceable, polishable, durable - would be superior to anything else, but I can't cite chapter and verse. I know a lot of beautiful hardwood floors that are the better part of a century old - while even travertine starts looking dingy in less time than that. When wood starts looking old, it can be re-polished to its original shine more easily than anything else I'm aware of. Finally, wood is a much more renewable resource. Trees grow back. Quarries do not. Petrochemicals do not.

Good insulation is a feature of eco-friendly housing as well, but be careful: Too much can actually be a health hazard, as it can cause Radon gas to build up to levels that are illegal in uranium mines.

Modern air conditioning units work without CFCs. R410a ("Puron") is what home systems are in the process of converting to, as CFCs and HCFCs are being phased out. I don't have any first hand experience with this, but if you're replacing your system, it appears to be worthwhile to consider replacing with a high efficiency modern system. The difference in price is smallish, and the difference on your monthly bill significant. The upshot is that you'll pay for replacing your prior system with a high efficiency system a lot more quickly than a low. I'm also told that simply running the ductwork underground for a certain distance can negate the need for heating and air conditioning altogether - all you need is a good fan to pull the air through. Be careful that the static ground temperature in your area will support this first - check with a local expert. Needless to say, that last suggestion about burying roughly 100 feet of ductwork isn't really an option for the owners of anything but single family detached housing, even though it needn't be in a straight line..

The square-cube law is always in effect. Heat and cold leak in and out via surface area, while you're heating or cooling cubic volume. The smaller the surface area, as a proportion, the longer it takes for heat and cooling to leak out. A featureless cube (or better yet, sphere) is more efficient than a rambling single story ranch house. Nonetheless, it's more efficient to heat a small structure than a large one, and body heat from the inhabitants helps more in winter. A 1200 square foot dwelling is more "green" than a 3000 square foot dwelling for the same family. Is that going to stop me from showing 3000 square foot dwellings to those who want them? Absolutely not. Once again, this is "other factors being equal."

If you really want to go green, especially in the west, you're going to get into recycling the water you use. Laundry water can be used for a lot of plants, as can bath water. The ultimate instances of this are pretty disgusting if you think about them, but people do go a lot further than this, and every drop of water on this planet has gone through such a cycle multiple times. It's all pretty much dependent upon how far you want to go on your own hook. My main objection to the City of San Diego's water recycling plan was that it wasn't good enough to get out all contaminants, and people weren't going to get their own discharges back, so they could drop stuff into the drain like old engine oil, and be confident it wasn't coming back to their tap.

Green construction is no better and no worse, as far as intrinsic durability and aesthetics go, than non-green construction. It can be more expensive (How many hardwood floors have been laid down these last ten years?), but quite often, you can actually save yourself money in the end if you're willing to make the up-front investment. How far you want to go is a function of your preferences, pocketbook, and your area of the country.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

(This is a companion article to What Sellers Need: What Buyers Should Want to Supply)

Quite often, I hear people talking about the real estate market as if it's all some amorphous blob, and buyers and sellers are no more different than they are in the stock or bond market, or for that matter, people using the bank to make deposits or withdrawals.

I cannot agree with this concept. Real Estate is not liquid, and real estate is not commoditized, and in the absence of some future world government building precisely one identical housing unit with precisely the same environment for everybody, I daresay it never will be. Since the chance of the rulers of that government limiting themselves and their cronies to the same housing everyone else has are nil, you can take it from there.

What do buyers need? They have the cash the seller (that would be you) wants, or the ability to get it via a loan, which comes to the sellers as cash - providing they can actually qualify, hence the preceding paragraph. What they need in exchange for that cash is the the assurance they will be getting a clear title, unencumbered by outside interests who may come after them later. They also need an assurance that the building - which is what 99.99% of all buyers are really interested in - is going to continue standing in good, inhabitable condition for the forseeable future. If there is a loan involved, the lender will want reasonable assurance that they can recover their investment if something goes wrong with the loan. Just as seller's issues become buyer's issues, so do buyer's issues become seller's issues.

This makes delivering clean title imperative. If there's a possibility buyers are going to put every penny they saved for three years into purchasing a property, together with putting themselves into debt for thirty years, and end up not owning that piece of property after all, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out that the property is worth much less to that buyer - or any other prospective buyer. There is a profitable niche in clearing title on real estate, but you've got to really know what you're doing, and you've got to be prepared to lose everything invested in a given property. There's a reason the standard California purchase contract requires the seller to purchase the buyer a specific very broad policy of title insurance, and why it allows and requires negotiation as to which title insurance company issues that policy. I want a good solid company that only insures good risks, because I want them to be around and able to pay the claim if one happens forty years down the line, as opposed to Fly Tonight Title that disappears as soon as it has the premium payment. If a good reputable company won't insure title, there is a reason, and title insurance that isn't there and solvent years later is useless. Actually, it's worse than useless because without that title policy that turned out to be useless, nobody in their right mind would have paid that anywhere near that price for that property. So yes, a good policy of title insurance costs money. However, without that title policy the property is worth a fraction of what you might get for it with that title policy - and this fraction is well under 50%. Paying for a title policy is part of the cost of getting as much cash as possible for the property. Examined in terms of return on investment, there's nothing that even vaguely approaches it.

As far as the building's structural integrity, inspections cost money: hundreds of dollars. It's not cost-effective for buyers to perform inspections on every property they want to make an offer on, and the owners - or their tenants - might have a little something to say about an inspector invading their personal spaces for three hours or so. But it is necessary that the inspector have legal responsibility to the buyer, and that's the reason why sellers are wasting their time getting an inspection. Yeah, it can help you fix problems before you put the property on the market. But no competently advised prospective buyer is going to accept such an inspection, because if there's something wrong or something missing, that buyer has no recourse to sue an inspector that was, after all, working for the seller. But if their inspection reveals problems, the buyer is going to want the ability to negotiate repairs, compensation, or to get out of the contract entirely, hence, the inspection contingency. This is one reason why sellers misrepresenting the condition of their property are not only fooling themselves, but costing themselves money as well. Furthermore, the general inspector can recommend further inspections if there is something beyond their competence. Until somebody pays you the necessary cash to purchase the property, the problems that may exist aren't buyer problems - they're seller problems. Buyers can always (at least until the inspection contingency expires) choose to instead walk away and make an offer on the identical floor plan down the street without these issues. It's up to the seller and their agent to motivate them not to do that. Consider that if this prospective buyer's inspector found the problem, it's likely that the next prospective buyer's inspector will, as well. Actually, a good
buyer's agent will probably spot things before it gets to the point of an offer. Until you have that escrow check in your hand for the equity, these problems are the seller's problems. Remember, that prospective buyer can simply decide they don't want the property. Until the property is successfully exchanged for cash, all of those problems are part of owning that property, and you need to find a buyer who's willing to deal with these issues in order to sell. Delivering what buyers need, a solid property without objectionable issues, is a seller concern. Good agents will help, but bottom line, it's the seller's profit or loss.

With the exception of all cash sales, a very small proportion of real estate sales, there is going to be a lender involved, and when there's a lender, the issues that buyers have with lenders become seller issues as well. It may be precisely the opposite of the inspection situation: It's always the seller's choice as to whether to work with a given prospective buyer, and buyer issues in this regard are subject to finding a seller willing to deal with them. Nonetheless, the vast majority of all buyers don't have the cash to buy your property without a loan, and if you want to restrict yourself to prospective buyers willing and able to offer all cash for your property, that's your prerogative. Doing that, however, restricts your pool of potential buyers far more than anything else. Drastically lessened number of buyers who could choose to offer all cash drastically reduces the sales price. Even those buyers who have the ability to pay all cash often do not want to, for various reasons, and this unwillingness on your part means that they will be willing to offer less for your property.

Every loan does have the real possibility of being turned down. I can do everything from verify all the buyer's information to checking the prospective loan against lender guidelines for issues, but if that underwriter turns down the loan, or (more commonly) puts conditions on an approval that the prospective borrower can't meet, that's pretty much the end of the loan. There is one vote that counts, and it belongs to that underwriter. The loan officer can reason, wheedle, and appeal, but the bottom line is that if the underwriter can't be swayed, the loan is dead. They don't reject loans very often when a loan officer has done the work beforehand, but it does happen, and is the reason that nobody except a loan underwriter for the lender you're submitting it to can guarantee the loan will be approved. Since no loan gets to the underwriter without a fully negotiated purchase contract and no borrower ever communicates with an underwriter directly, there is always a very real possibility that the loan the borrower is counting on will be turned down. For most loans, there's other places that will do the loan, albeit upon slightly different terms. Occasionally, though, there are loans where it's this lender or nobody, as nobody else has loan guidelines that will allow that loan to be funded. These two terms add up to the necessity for a loan contingency. If the buyer can't find someone to loan them money on terms that satisfy this purchase contract, they don't want to lose their deposit, and definitely don't want to be obligated to purchase the property. If you, as a seller, do not want to allow a loan contingency, that is certainly something you can choose to do - but it's going to cost you in terms of the proffered sales price, probably a lot more than the amount of any deposit. If a seller doesn't have good evidence prospective buyers can qualify for the necessary loan, I don't know any reason why they would agree to work with those buyers at all. If they do have such evidence, I don't know of any reason why they would want to focus on the deposit instead of the purchase price. The deposit is iffy at best and takes paying legal costs to get, not to mention it's usually not going to pay for the costs of the escrow period. The purchase price, once you get it, makes those costs stop, and it's a lot more probable than getting that deposit.

What the lender is looking for (absent evidence of impending fraud) is two things: Evidence of borrower ability to repay the loan, and evidence that they'll get their investment back if the borrower defaults. It is to this end that lenders require an appraisal from a licensed appraiser who has some demonstrated ability to (insurance or a bond) to repay them if the property does not, in fact, possess that value. Now, here's the kicker: If the appraisal is too low, you can pretty much bet that any lender on earth will reject that loan. There really isn't a need for a separate appraisal contingency, and if I and my buyer clients don't see the value in the property, we're not making an offer in the first place. Even in those rare instances of "all cash" purchases, that appraisal should be nothing more than a confirmation for the lender of something I and my buyer client already know. I'm willing to counsel my buyer client to offer that much because I believe that property is worth that much for their purposes. If they're intending to "flip" the property, we should both have looked at that situation and decided we're comfortable with it before making an offer. If my client intends to hold the property some number of years, that appraisal has absolutely zero bearing on what it will be worth at some indefinite date in the future. And even if they are that rare "all cash" buyer, if the value isn't there in front of your own eyes to justify that price, why did they and their agent make that offer? Therefore, there really isn't a good reason for a buyer or a competent agent who knows what they're doing to object to dropping the appraisal contingency. When I'm listing a property, I'm very cognizant of the fact that insisting upon an appraisal contingency is a sign of an uncommitted buyer, overly cautious or overly opportunistic, who's insisting on having everything exactly their way and is likely to chip and chisel at every opportunity. Such a buyer is also likely to bolt at the first chance of a better deal. It's also usually a sign of an agent who doesn't understand the process covering themselves in CYA to a pointless degree, because they should explain it to their client when the issue comes up if not before. This kind of agent is analogous to someone who calls themselves a paratrooper because they wear a parachute - even though they've never actually used it and have no intention of making a jump. Both such a buyer and such an agent are signs of a deal that's likely to not get consummated.

Just like sellers and everyone else involved, buyers would really like a nice smooth transaction that moves from fully negotiated purchase contract to complete consummation as quickly as possible without bumps, burps, or deal killers. There will be bumps in most transactions that can't really be avoided, but most bumps are caused by problem personalities on one side or the other of a transaction. Unfortunately for sellers, there's a lot more information on their attitudes (and those of the listing agent!) in a typical listing than there is information on the buyers and their agent in a typical offer. Don't raise the barriers to a successful transaction any higher than you need to - and don't let your listing agent do so, either. Quite a lot of them will insist upon useless pre-qualifications and pre-approvals from their favorite loan officer. Not only is this steering, and therefore illegal under RESPA, but it doesn't do you any good on determining whether or not they actually will qualify for the loan, and this notation can warn potential buyers with competent agents off your property until that property has been on the market so long that you're desperate. Listing agents will often insist for no good reason "seller to select all services." What's going on is that they want to select all services so that certain specific title and escrow companies are happy with them. You didn't tell them you wanted to select the services, did you? Even if you did, the law is quite clear that it is subject to negotiation, not that this stops that sort of agent. Wander into their office at random intervals, demand a listing agent copy of your property listing (You are entitled to such on your own property) and if it has any of these notations, fire that agent and their brokerage immediately. You've got all the justification you need in the fact that they're not only violating the law, but your best interests as well.

Now that we've gone over what sellers need, let's look at what seller's want. As any good salesperson knows, wants are far more important to making a sale than needs. People are funny that way, and one of the harder parts of a good buyer's agent's job is keeping the actual needs front and center with the wants. Most people would not believe how many buyers will ignore faults that will cause them to hate this property in about two months in favor of really neat, but unnecessary amenities.

What buyers want is the perception of a bargain. Notice I didn't say they want the bargain - but they do want to believe that the property is the best bargain they could have bought for the price they could afford. Quite often, the appearance is more important than the actuality, and I've certainly experienced more than a few people who thought they got a deal and couldn't wait to brag to me - but here's the kicker: They never want to hear the evidence against the brag they're trying to make - and there's always evidence against as well as evidence for. Every last negotiating coup I've pulled off had evidence on the other side - that's what a good negotiator uses to convince the other side to deal. If they don't want to hear the evidence against, that's a pretty good indication it's stronger than the evidence for, and that they didn't get a very good bargain.

One of the ways in which this manifests is buyer behavior. If your property is more expensive than another one that's essentially similar, those buyers are not going to want your property. You have to convince those buyers that there is a rational reason why they should want to pay more for your property than for the competing properties. If you cannot do this, your property will sit unsold. This is the reason every competent agent in the known universe counsels against overpricing a property. It's not like all the sellers in your local MLS receive offers in turn, strictly in accordance with order of listing the property for sale. Quite predictably, buyers make offers upon the properties that are most attractive to them at a given price. If you cannot convince your own agent that the property is more valuable than the competing properties, that agent is doing you a favor by telling you to reduce the price. I guarantee that not only that your agent will be kinder than any prospective buyers will be, but that they're trying to save you money as well. It's always a balancing act between too expensive to interest anyone, and not expensive enough so that you lose money you could have gotten. But remember that it's the appearance of a deal than most buyers want, far more than the actuality. Most have no clue what stuff costs and how easy or difficult it is to accomplish a given upgrade. They only know that they didn't have to deal with accomplishing it, and for that, they're willing to pay quite a lot under the right circumstances. A good agent will help you with all of this.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

(The companion article is What Buyers Need: What Sellers Should Want to Supply)

Quite often, I hear people talking about the real estate market as if it's all some amorphous blob, and buyers and sellers are no more different than they are in the stock or bond market, or for that matter, people using the bank to make deposits or withdrawals.

I cannot agree with this concept. Real Estate is not liquid, and real estate is not commoditized, and in the absence of some future world government building precisely one identical housing unit with precisely the same environment for everybody, I daresay it never will be. Since the chance of the rulers of that government limiting themselves and their cronies to the same housing everyone else has are nil, you can take it from there.

Let's ask: What do sellers need? Cash, the universal problem solver. As much of it as possible. Why? Because there is something about this property that no longer fits their needs, and it would be more trouble, and more cash than it's worth, to change the property. If it was cost effective to convert the property to the configuration desired, nobody in their right mind would want to go through the process of a real estate transaction twice in order to sell this one and buy something else. The only thing they can really transfer from this property to that next one is the equity. More equity means they owe less on the next property, they can afford a better property, or they have more money left over after buying the next property. Most sellers want more money than is possible or likely, going to far as to shoot themselves in critical locations in pursuit of it. If they are not ready to be rational about it, there is nothing you can do to force them. You can decide you want the property bad enough to pay the extra or you can move on to other properties. Of course, in the former case, the property wasn't really overpriced, was it?

There is nothing sellers want so much as as much cash as possible. If the transaction doesn't get completed, they don't get their cash at all - so if the transaction doesn't complete, they don't get any of what they really want: cash. In fact, they spend cash for every day that property is on the market, or in the process of the transaction. If you don't understand this, whether you're a buyer, a seller, or an agent, you had better act as if you do. Even if they're in a short sale or other distress situation, time is important to sellers. I would rather have no offer than an offer a buyer cannot or will not make good on. Every day that property sits unsold costs that seller money - and this time does not end with entry into escrow and a pending sign. It ends only with a successful sale.

When sellers enter into a purchase contract, they are essentially closing down the prospects of any other buyer. A real estate purchase contract gives one particular buyer the sole and exclusive right to purchase that property until it is properly terminated. It not only gives that buyer the right to buy that property, it requires the owner to sell it to them on specified terms. If someone else comes along and offers a better deal, the current owner is not free to take that deal - they are contractually bound to the existing one.

Buyers therefore need to convince property owners of two very important things: First, that theirs is the best offer that they are likely to receive. Second: That they are capable of consummating this transaction, as proposed, in a timely fashion with as few uncertainties as possible. Many listing agents want to take this way too far, into the illegal territory of steering, but their client, the seller, does have a legitimate need to know that prospective buyers can consummate this transaction in a timely fashion. That seller is making a decision whether to grant a buyer credit, just the same as the lender. They are entitled to ask for information that paints a coherent picture of the prospective buyer in fact being able to carry through on their end of the transaction. Sellers are not entitled to steer the transaction, and unless they're agreeing to a carryback loan, they are not entitled to information of a level sufficient to enable identity theft, but they are entitled to ask for and receive information as regards actual FICO score, verified income, current debts, source of down payment. In other words, an attestation where the person making it can be held accountable for any misstatements. The standard pre-qualification and pre-approval letters are a joke - not worth the paper they are printed on. I do them because lazy and irresponsible listing agents ask for them, and it's easier (and more profitable for my clients) to comply than argue them out of it. But the seller's issues become the buyer's issues, because if the prospective buyer cannot convince the seller that this is the best offer they're likely to get, the seller won't agree to sell to them.

One more thing sellers want. Actually, both sides want this: a nice smooth transaction, that moves from accepted offer to consummated transaction without any problems, hangups, or deal killers. If there's anybody who's willing to stand up and say they want all of these obstacles, I've certainly never met them. Here's the issue: Even the biggest problem personality in the known universe wants a smooth transaction. It's just that their definition is where they proceed to chip and chisel away further concessions the entire time. When a good agent submits an offer, they want it to move as quickly as possible and without the need for any further negotiations to a consummated transaction. Ditto a good listing agent on the counteroffer. Every time there are further negotiations, there is the possibility that intransigence on someone's part send the whole transaction south, and the reason you agreed to that contract in the first place was that you thought it was a good bargain to be making, and therefore, you should want it to close. There are good reasons why there are further negotiations after the contract on most transactions, but there shouldn't be multiple sessions, let alone one every couple of days when the other side thinks of something else they want.

Unfortunately, there is no method known to man that can guarantee to detect such twits before entering escrow. A good agent can know what the signs are, and at least as important, what they are not, but sometimes the warning signs aren't there, and sometimes they are there for someone who really is going to play it straight. The only real way to deal with these twits is upon confirmation of their nature. You don't want to refuse any transaction that very well might lead to a consummated sale, but you do need to be prepared to exit the transaction when such twits reveal their true nature, and if you don't understand when and how to do it, a good agent will really save your bacon - from a suit for specific performance, and paying their legal fees as well as your own.

Needless to say, you don't want to be one of these problem personalities either. So when you agree to a contract, it should be with full intent of carrying through on exactly the terms agreed - no chiseling allowed, only specific solutions for concrete issues that happen despite anyone's best efforts. The best way of preventing problems later is to come to an agreement in the first place which the other side should be pleased to honor.

Caveat Emptor

Article UPDATED here

Let's do a thought experiment. Any market in any commodity has two components: The demand, or willingness and ability to pay for that good, and the supply of that good.

Let's consider the demand half of that first. Specifically, ability to pay.

According to the most current credible statistics I could find, San Diego Demographics & Household Information, we have 421,952 workers in San Diego.

Let's consider what this means, first in terms of how much they make, and how many dollars they can afford to lay out:

Column 1 is the range, column 2 is how many workers reported that income, column 3 is percentage of workers in that bracket, column 4 is taking the middle of the range and translating that into dollars per month, and column 5 is what percentage of the total working population can afford that much or better.

Here's the income ranges and frequency:

Now, let's stop a minute here. Someone making less than $10,000 per year is not a full time employee. Minimum wage is $8.00 per hour in California, times 40 hours times 52 weeks is $16,640. So the folks in the first two ranges are not working full time. Period, end of discussion. I think they should have housing, but I have my doubts whether we should be concerned about whether they can afford detached single family residence type housing on their current wages. In most cases, I would posit that they're either teenagers working for pocket money or retirees working for whatever reason strikes them as sufficient. Also, I should mention that I arbitrarily used $240,000 per year as midrange for those folks making over $200,000. Such an estimate is probably too low, but let's face it: Those folks are doing fine.

Now, let's look at what these folks can afford: I took the midrange monthly for that salary range, and assumed they bought, with 5% down, a condominium with HOA dues of $225 per month, or a single family detached home with insurance of $100 per month. This assumes they do all their own maintenance for the detached home, but someone sufficiently determined can at least approach this. I assume property taxes of 1.25% per year (slightly high for most of California), and a fully amortized FHA type loan at 6.5%. For purposes of this exercise, I didn't stress about Jumbo or conforming, as I used the FHA as a basis, nor did I concern myself over whether it fits within FHA limits, as the point of this is simply to perform a thought experiment: How much house people can afford under these assumptions, which are quite reasonable. Once again, it would break down at the higher end of the scale, but folks on that end of the scale are doing fine. I was mostly after was Joe and Jane Average can afford. These numbers given are in terms of the loan amount, not purchase price, which the loan amount was assumed to be 95% of (in other words, $95,000 loan amount means it was $100,000 purchase price).

Column 1 is once again, that monthly midrange, Column 2 is 45% of that, the traditional back end ratio. Column 3 is the maximum condo loan they can afford, under the conditions described, Column 4 is the single family residence, and Column 5 is, once again, what percentage of all workers can afford this level or better.

Let's take a look at the results:

So even though someone making $12,500 per year is not a full time worker, they can still afford roughly a $70,000 condo if they want to own badly enough to do what it takes. I'm assuming fully amortized 30 year fixed rate loan, which when the loan is paid off, gets your monthly cost of housing down under the inflation adjusted equivalent of $300 per month in current dollars. There may be only 35 of these currently for sale as I log onto MLS, but I can't tell you why there are any.

Put two of these folks together, a married couple or two friends, it doesn't matter. Remember, neither of them is working full time, and they can afford a $250,000 condo loan under conditions described (Remember, there's only 1 HOA fee, and taxes are only collected once). Insist it be a minimum of two bedrooms, even. There are 3600 Active Listings right now that are asking at or under this price, and almost 3000 have sold in the last twelve months in San Diego County. No, these places aren't right by the beach or in downtown La Jolla, but they are affordable, they're livable, and they put your housing situation and cost forevermore under your own control.

Someone making $15 per hour, in the middle of the fourth range, is about where most folks would start saying, "This is someone who should be able to buy something," and they can: $129,000 worth of condo loan. 594 Actives asking that or less, 383 sold in the last twelve months. Get a roommate, friend, or spouse making the same amount, and you're looking at $273,000 worth of condo, more or less, or $290,000 worth of house. 4100 actives are asking $273,000 or less, even if you restrict your search to two bedrooms or more, and over 3700 of them have sold in the past year. Even if you restrict the search to detached housing, there are 1700 actives where the asking price is $273,000 or less. Two-thirds of all workers can afford this level of housing. In a market where the restrictions on building artificially limit the supply of housing. They may not have travertine floors and granite counters, but the majority of the people in the world would jump at the chance to live in them.

Let's consider someone in the middle of the sixth group, with a spouse in the middle of the fourth. By themselves, that professional can afford $285,000 of condo loan, $302,000 of house loan. Add in the spousal income, and you've got $437,000 worth of condo, $454,000 worth of house. Now, we're just talking over-inflated expectations, unwillingness to economize in other areas of your life, or some combination of the two. In any case, it's no longer affordability - it's that the folks don't want to do what it takes. My Gran had a standard answer for children like that, humiliating and painful, but a lot less so than missing this opportunity will be. Tough old gal, my Gran. Raised a family of six by herself through the Great Depression after second husband died, and she didn't take nonsense or whining from anyone. There are 9500 Active listings where the asking price is under $437,000. I can find you a fairly nice piece of property in pretty much any area of the county for those prices. Just under half of all workers, including part timers, are at this level or better, and the breadwinner (or main breadwinner) is smack dab in the middle of the most common earning range for all workers, and the secondary worker, if we're using one, is two income groups down. People have the ability to pay these prices if they want to. The ones who want to will find themselves sitting very pretty in a few years.

Why do I say that? Because of the supply situation. It's not like we can expand indefinitely in all directions. The Pacific Ocean is wonderful, and it brings a lot of people to visit and most of them want to stay and it helps moderate the climate, but you can't build housing in it. Lots of San Diegans like visiting Mexico, and quite for a number of them, the proximity of Mexico adds a lot to being here in sunny Southern California, but once you cross that border, you're no longer living in San Diego, with all the advantages of life in the United States that start at economic opportunity, run through a government that's actually somewhat accountable to its people, and where there's something resembling a rule of law. Great place to visit, Mexico, but I don't want to live there, where everything is subject to the whims of one of the most corrupt and unaccountable systems of government ever. It appears that pretty much everyone agrees with me. Then there's Camp Pendleton on the north. You can try and take it away from the Marines if you want. I'm not that stupid. They've got the US Government bankrolling them - their armor and weapons and ammo are government issue, which means that you're paying for them to shoot at you. Yes, this is more than a little over the top. The point is, Camp Pendleton is off limits to expansion.

So is most of the eastern portion of the county. Cleveland National Forest, don't you know. Great place to visit, hike, sightsee, camp - but people aren't allowed to live there. 300 million Americans, including all of your neighbors who have already bought and want prices to rise for when they sell, have set up the rules setting that land aside. This might change at some point in the future, but it would take, first, over half of all 300 million Americans changing their mind, then fighting epic court battles as the minority takes every chance possible to keep developers out. They have quite a lot of avenues to stop it; fifty years probably wouldn't be enough. Not to mention eighteen Indian Reservations, and none of the tribes appears eager to sell land to outsiders for tolerably obvious reasons. Lease it, yes. But most people want to own the land, and leasehold property has a fraction the value of land owned outright, even if it's held in a common interest development, because at some point, all leaseholds end and the property, together with all improvements, reverts to the actual owner.

Even in the settled areas where development is possible, look out your window, anywhere in the urban and suburban areas of San Diego. Chances are you're not seeing vacant land. Even if you are, there are zoning and use restrictions and open space preserves. Beyond that, there are permits required and environmental studies to fund, and let's not forget the court battles than pretty much anyone looking to develop open land can expect these days. They started fighting over what's now the 56 corridor in the late 1970s, and the battle still isn't over, by which I mean there's people who want to develop but still have court battles to win and environmental hoops to jump before they can. Question: Do you think all of this makes the supply of available housing greater or less? What do you think constricting the supply of housing does that do to the price of housing? Every time somebody wants to move to San Diego, and there isn't the housing supply for them, two things happen. One, the price goes up by just that little bit necessary so that one person can no longer afford housing. Two, you've either created a homeless person, or someone has been forced to leave.

There are an awful lot of people that want to live here. Add the weather and the beach to the economic opportunity and everything else that the area offers, and you're repeating those two events from the end of the last paragraph many times over. Price going up, people becoming homeless or forced to leave. Multiply them by three million residents of the county, and what do you have? Pricing goes up, up, way up. The "Sunshine Tax" people talk about that we pay for living here is quite substantial. There are areas of the country where two people living on minimum wage can buy a pretty good house. This isn't one of them, and never will be again. The supply is too limited, and the demand too high. Nor is it all housing that we're considering here. It's only that fraction that the current owners have voluntarily decided to sell. If 99% of the current owners are happy where they are and don't want to sell, only 1% of the properties that exist are available for those who want to buy. They bid against each other until enough people drop out of the bidding that there is a one to one match between sellers and buyers.

Let's look at what it took to bring the market to this pass. For several years, more than eight out of ten properties was purchased with an unsustainable loan. People literally did not believe me when I quoted official SDAR and SANDAG statistics that said forty percent of all purchases were with a negative amortization loan, and another forty percent via an interest only 2/28 or 3/27, and both of these were usually stated income. Agents didn't want to tell people to settle for what they could afford, and in the Era of Make Believe Loans they didn't have to. Nor did they want to risk their commission checks by having buyers find out they couldn't afford the prices they were agreeing to pay, and if one loan officer was telling people what they really could and could not afford, there were plenty of others who'd keep their mouth shut and pocket the commission check. Buyers, for their part, weren't exactly models of restraint either. If anyone did try and buck the tide in order to tell them they really couldn't afford a certain property they had their heart set on, they would simply find someone else who'd keep their mouth shut and make it happen.

This all ended rather predictably. Wile E. Coyote looked down, by which I mean that buyers stopped buying. In one of my first on-line articles, I wrote how I had called our county assessor out over this wishful thinking. Prices stopped rising. The increases in value all of the agents, loan officers, and buyers were banking on in order to make the situation not self-destruct came to an abrupt and screeching halt. No increases in value meant that refinances wouldn't fly. Few people could afford new payments, closing costs, pay their loans down enough to enable them to refinance, or do anything else to salvage the situation. Indeed, the sudden wave of all this happening meant there was a veritable tsunami of people who had no other choice but to sell. Indeed, inventory through most of the last three years has been four times or more what it was when the market was hot. When four times as many properties come onto the market, and their owners have no bargaining power, and suddenly nobody wants to buy, it's no surprise the momentum of the market has shifted. It would have been a miracle greater than parting the Red Sea if it hadn't gone the opposite direction just as strongly as it had been going up before. Remember, Supply and Demand.

Let's look at what's happening now. The forgoing chaos created a limited window of opportunity, and that window has started to close. Active Inventory is currently 17,344 listings in San Diego County. This is down almost 1000 in the last month, 5000 in the last four. It's a 24 week supply, down from 26 at the beginning of July. People are figuring this out, despite heavy negativity in the media. The ratios of short sale to foreclosure are shrinking also, as the distressed properties move through the foreclosure cycle. Furthermore, as I said a couple of months ago, a lot of what's out there is still in denial. I was searching detached properties with asking prices below $460,000 in La Mesa earlier in the year and getting roughly 140. I just searched at or below $500,000 and only came up with only 107. Furthermore, it's hit the good stuff disproportionately - all ten of my most recent Hot bargain Properties are off the market. The situation is similar in Santee (104 under $500k now as opposed to mid 130s below $460k), El Cajon (311 vs nearly 400, same circumstances), and San Carlos (18 now vs 33 last time I checked, once again with the maximum search price raised now).

So, does this sound like an overpriced market due for more of a fall, or an underpriced market beginning a recovery? Shrinking inventory at higher prices. Heavy competition for the bargain properties. People able to afford the prices that are being asked with full documentation loans, fully amortized, instead of needing stated income, interest only or negative amortization loans to qualify?

The time of greatest affordability is in the past. If you're looking to buy in San Diego, the time to get off the sidelines is now. The current generation of executives at the lenders who enabled the Era of Make Believe loans has learned their lesson. The ones that survive are not going to relax loan standards to where they were two years ago any time soon. There's not going to be another bubble fueled by speculative loans. There will, however, be an extended period where the disparity between supply of and demand for housing in San Diego is going to get wider and wider, rents are going to increase, if anything, faster than purchase prices, and it's only those who have bought who are in control of their housing situation. Quit trying to time the market - you've already missed bottom, and even the lenders have started admitting it - removing the declining market designation. In case you are unaware, that's a trailing indicator, happening after the fact, not a predictive indicator. If you want to buy here in San Diego at the best prices possible from here on out, it's time to get off the sidelines and act.

If you want to talk, here's my contact information.

For the sellers who have managed to hold off this long, it's only going to get better for the forseeable future, and therefore I'd hold off if I had other options. The only exception is if you want to move up to something more expensive, in which case, let's get a move on! Otherwise, wait. If you're selling to move elsewhere or move down, things are only going to get better as inventory drops and more buyers figure out that we've already hit bottom and are on the way up.

Now, as to whether these conclusions apply outside San Diego County: They do not. There is no such thing as a national housing market, and even a countywide market like I'm talking about here is pretty much a fictional idea, applying only as an amalgamation, as each and every neighborhood of every city in the county is different. But these methods of analysis apply everywhere. In the case of San Diego, they yield an increasingly coherent picture of market recovery. Your local results will vary with your local conditions.

Caveat Emptor