Buying and Selling: January 2014 Archives

One of the hard things to get through to sellers is to understand the characteristics of the sort of buyers they need in order to have a successful transaction. If a given set of prospective buyers can't afford the property, they might look anyway. They might even make an offer, and it's possible the offer might even be accepted. But in the current loan environment, the necessary loan won't fund, so the transaction isn't going to actually happen.

Furthermore, it's a good idea to know the income characteristics you're aiming at by the price you set. If you set a price of $400,000, what does someone who can afford a combination of cash and loan that add up to $400,000 look like, in the economic sense of the word? You'll know better than I who makes and does not make that kind of money in your area, but you should know it. I know it for San Diego. This isn't the kind of knowledge that comes from 10 minutes on the internet. I know what professions do and do not make the required money, and what professions for which it's a matter of where a particular prospect falls on that profession's pay scale, but it's taken me years to learn, just for San Diego, and every city is different.

The point is this: Once you've figured out how much various professions make and the price you think the property is worthy of, that gives us a lot of information about how to get the property sold. You have to figure out how to get the attention of buyers in that category, you have to have a plan of how to set the bait so they will go look, you have to figure out how to make the property attractive to them when they do go look, and they have to have a clear action to take in order to make an offer. In theory, this is nothing more than the standard marketer's AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) sequence, but the practicalities take a lot of effort to learn in this specific instance.

Most areas have their own character. Some neighborhoods have a working class character, while others attract highly paid professionals. Some have an artsy orientation, others are very matter of fact. Properties have their own characteristics. The one property in the neighborhood with a panoramic view of the area is not going to appeal to the buyer who's looking for any hole in the wall, so long as it's in that neighborhood so their kid can go to Super Education High School. Put property character and neighborhood character and the price you want to obtain together, and if you're a listing agent, that had better give you an idea of exactly who you're hoping to attract to your property. Like all targeted marketing, you won't turn away someone from out of the targeted demographic, so long as they can actually get the transaction done, but you don't have to be in the business long to discover that you'll do better by appealing to the degreed professional who makes the money to qualify based on Debt to Income Ratio for an 80 to 90 percent Loan to Value Ratio loan, than you will targeting the fry cook who's saved and invested for twenty years and is all of a sudden ready to buy the property now that he has a 70 percent down payment. That fry cook may show up on their own anyway, but how many people do you know who save that much over that long a period and then want to spend it all on real estate? As opposed to the newly married professional couple who've been in their careers a few years each, have a little bit of money saved, and now they want to stretch their budget as far as they can? Most people take precisely this latter path, and that is why you should concentrate your efforts to sell to those people most likely to buy your property.

The rates are going to change a little bit every day, but in most cases, it's not going to be significant change. Things like interest only loans will stretch their qualification a little bit, but those are best approached with a trembling hand for purchases, and you're better off planning for the buyer being advised that the property may be too expensive for them in such an instance, and having a plan in place, than you are hoping that everything goes perfectly for you to sell to an unsuspecting buyer. Yes, you're selling and once you get your money, you really don't care what happens. But these days, a lot of agents and loan officers are suddenly discovering the advantages of really looking out for their client's best interest, and you don't want to assume that your prospective buyer's agent will not be one of them. Remember, you're trying to look ahead and get a consummated transaction for the best practical price - and a buyer with a loan that does not fund is not the one you want, no matter how good the initial offer.

Not all loan amounts are the same. Conforming Loans are better than Temporary Conforming which are in turn better than "Jumbo". There is no more 100% financing except for VA Loans (and they have issues of their own). Subprime was kind of in Never Never Land back then (now it's mostly dead). If you read between the lines of what their reps were saying before the industry imploded completely, they wanted A paper borrowers who didn't know they could get an A paper loan. And nobody wants to touch stated income loans right now, no matter how good the credit score or down payment. Fact. Whether you're a seller or a buyer, you can live with it and plan for it, or you can fight it and still lose.

So what I'm going to do is compute the monthly cost of housing on purchases of a given size, together with the income to qualify. I'm going to assume this is California, with California property tax rates. Furthermore, I'm just going to make a flat allowance for Homeowner's Insurance plus Association dues of $250 per month. It's not exact, but it'll put you in the right ballpark. With a specific property, you can get closer, or course.

Let's start with 90% financing, a 90% loan with PMI, because that's the only way to do it right now. This obviously requires the buyer having a 10% down payment plus a bit, and limits us to conforming (and now temporarily, jumbo conforming) loan amounts. I'm also going to do the numbers at an assumed 6% loan rate, because that is a better long term rule of thumb. Here's what it takes:

In other words, a family who wants to buy a $400,000 property with a 10% down payment needs to be making almost $82,000 per year. Them's the facts, and that's not including any existing debt service they may have. Credit cards, car payments, student loans, etcetera. If other debt service is $500 per month, you raise the income to qualify by over $1100, and the yearly income by $13,000 plus change. San Diego's Area Median Income is a little over $69,000, and a family making that much money can afford a loan of about $320,000 currently - if they don't have any other debt. If they have a huge down payment, of course, it's easier, but how many people have you encountered recently with huge down payments?

Now, let's consider people who actually have a 20% down payment. Most likely, they bought a condo a few years ago and now they've sold it, but they had enough equity in the condo to account for that 20% down on the more expensive property. Or they sold the condo and bought a starter home, and now they've sold that and are looking to move up again. This is without PMI, and having some equity means that not only are the terms of the loan more favorable, but you don't have to borrow as much to buy a property that costs the same, and so a property of the same value is much more easily affordable.

Once again, this assumes there's no other debt service involved. But if you've got a home with a $700,000 price tag, you're still looking at trying to lure in a buyer family that makes a minimum of at least $10,000 per month. These kinds of buyers are not going to go for old carpet and a carpet allowance. They want your seller to have already dealt with it. Even if it's the cheapest, most beat up property in Rancho Santa Fe, on the smallest lot, the sellers are still going to take a hit on the price that's a lot bigger than the actual cost of such things for not dealing with it themselves.

For a successful listing, you need to know your target market - know who you are trying to sell to. It's a hard lesson to get across, but it really is necessary to pick your targets in order to hit them. Some people do buy properties that are apparent mismatches between their lifestyle and the property, but not many. As listing agents, we need to understand what is and is not a match before setting off to attract a buyer, and recommending appropriate measures to the owner before it goes on the market. We need to write the listing promo appropriately to attract to needed demographic, and not only we but our clients as well are much better off by concentrating our marketing efforts where they are most likely to net a fully consummated transaction at the best possible price.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Somebody asked me that.

Well, I'd want to set some aside for liquidity and reserves, in case something happened where I needed money now. invest those funds in a diversified mutual fund and money market portfolio. Once that's done, I'd buy some rental properties, because when government inflicted economic sabotage shakes out, anything I buy now is going to be a lot more valuable in real terms. Leverage the money right, and we're talking at least two to one return, probably more like four to six.

Specifically, Condominiums, and Townhomes. High density housing.

Why? Well for an illustration as to the first part of that reason, look at my article Economics of Home Ownership in High Density Areas. We're in a phase here in southern California where we're getting ready to switch, by economic necessity, away from the single family detached property on its own lot and towards the community interest lot. Land is just too expensive. The average person or family, making an average paycheck, can no longer afford single family detached housing within commuting distance of work unless they've got one heck of a down payment. The demand is too high, and the supply too limited, for everyone who wants one to have one. When that sort of situation happens, price goes up until enough people get priced out.

Here's the trip: When you're talking rent, half million dollar single family detached housing rents for maybe $1800 per month. But if you buy a $200,000 condo, it rents for $1000 to $1200. Put 20% down, and it's very possible to have a positive cash flow on such a unit - something it's not currently possible to have with the detached house. The fact that the spread is so small is temporary, of course, but in the meantime it's an opportunity for a sort of arbitrage.

Furthermore, the average family can afford a fairly nice condominium or townhome. It's just that during the Era of Make Believe Loans, people were told they didn't have to "settle." So they purchased properties far beyond their real means, because they were being told they could qualify for those ridiculously high dollar value loans.

(I call it the Era of Make Believe Loans because the agent made believe people could afford more expensive properties, the lender made believe that people could qualify, and the consumers made believe that there weren't deadly traps they were falling into on every single one of them. It was seductively easy for everyone. The agent didn't have to sell only the property the client could afford, or "settle" for the smaller commission. The lender and loan originators could make money hand over fist on paper. The consumers could pretend they could afford a property far beyond their means, and didn't have to "settle" for what they could really afford. And people are still making believe that the Era of Make Believe Loans is going to come back.)

But denial has a definite half life when it encounters pervasive economic reality. Once it's become accepted that the housing market has stabilized from its free fall, people will be forced to look reality straight in the eye. We had the bubble, we had the pop, and now it's time to start going up again. Once it starts happening, families will be forced to confront the fact that they can't get the American Dream all in one easy step by essentially clicking their heels together and declaiming, "There's no place like Oz!" They will have three options: Stay a renter forever, move away to somewhere there is less demand or more supply, or settle for what they can afford, leveraging it to something better. When larger number of people realize that those are their choices, the demand for and price of condominiums is going to shoot up.

So, put $40,000 or $50,000 into a $200,000 condo, rent it for $1200 per month, and your cash flow is just about even. That's the second half; the situation right now, as it exists. I've predicted rents are heading up in the near future several times. Rent goes up, I'm making a couple hundred dollars per month while values are climbing. In a few years, I've a property that has doubled in value while making me some small cash in the meantime. Multiply this by a dozen, and I've got two to three million dollars from an investment of six hundred thousand or so. Plus, of course, I'm going to pull all the old flipper's tricks just before I sell them. Yes, there's risk - risk that can be minimized and dealt with. That's why I wouldn't be sinking every last penny I had into it, a mistake way too many people have made in the last few years.

Right now, the market in Southern California is very highly segmented, meaning that prices and demand for some things (Single family residences in desirable parts of town) is through the roof while there's a glut of other things (condos). Condos are, for most people, what my econ professors used to call substitute goods for single family detached housing. But when people figure out that it's condos or rent or leave the city where they really want to live, they'll start going for the condos. The hassle of HOAs is nothing near as bad as having a landlord.

Of course, nobody's giving me a million dollars. But if you have $50,000 sitting around, you can make about 10% per year in the stock market with a reasonable amount of risk, Over ten years, that's turning your money into about $138,000. Or, if California real estate increases at an average rate of 5% per year for the next ten years (our forty year average is about 7%), that $200,000 condo turns into a $325,000 condo, while your loan has been paid down to $125,000 and you walk away with $200,000, not counting the cash in your pocket between now and then. If we should actually tie our long term average of 7% annualized increases, that's a $390,000 condo and you walk away with $265,000. Meanwhile, the cash flow picture gets better every year as rents increase. Your choice, of course, but I'm not the only one who sees an opportunity here.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

If a home for sale has a refrigerator included on the listing report, and the buyer's agent does not write that it goes to the seller in a contract, is the buyer actually entitled to the refrigerator. I am actually going through this right now.

The listing does not matter. What does the purchase contract say? That is the complete controlling fact of the whole entire transaction.

If the contract is silent, what matters most is whether the refrigerator in question is appurtenant to the land or not. Appurtenances are things which are physically and structurally attached to the land which is always the primary thing being sold in a real estate transaction. For a standard house, nobody would seriously argue that they have the right to remove it, because it is attached securely to the property. There are service pipes coming out of the ground attached to the ground and a foundation it is attached to. There are electrical service wires, telephone wires, and cable TV wires. All of which would come up if you pulled the house away. So the house is appurtenant to the land. This is how all real estate transactions are really structured, by the way. You are buying the land, and the house, if there is one, comes along because it's attached to that land.

So if the refrigerator is somehow built in, such that removal would be a nontrivial project, then it's appurtenant to the land. If all you have to do us unplug it and push it away on a dolly, that's not appurtenant, and there is no more reason why they should have to leave that than why they should have to leave their dog, cat, or child.

Now this is not to say that you can't build an excellent court case based upon the fact that there was an implicit promise made in the listing, and everything else in the contract was built off of what that listing said. Talk to an attorney for more information than I can ever give you on that score.

Even if they're not obligated, the seller might leave the refrigerator anyway. Maybe they've got another, maybe they are just living up to what they promised even though they might not be legally required to do so. It's not like most people go around looking for ways to be evil. I've never met anyone who acted like a Disney villain. I have met some pretty shady characters, but mostly they're more sophisticated about it.

The thing to do, if you're concerned about the refrigerator or anything else where you want it to stay, is to put it in the purchase contract. If the listing says these appliances stay, putting it into the purchase contract won't offend the owner - it should be something they expect.

In any of these cases, the seller can force you to go to court by being an obstinate donkey, even when they haven't got a leg to stand on, legally speaking. It's not like you have the magic power of enforcing agreements. That power belongs solely to the executive branch of government, which will take no action in cases like this without a court order. Whatever the court says is final. Be aware, however, of the cost of bringing the law into it. Unless it's some $25,000 wonder fridge, it is not likely to be worth going to court over, and maybe not then. Much cheaper to buy a new refrigerator, and your expected return on investment is much higher.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I am seeing a very disturbing trend these past few months. Rather than do the work they should be doing, listing agents are treating the entire short sale process as a kind of "Black Box", delegating the negotiations with the lender to a negotiations firm, treating the negotiation firm's advice as if it were handed down from on high, and expecting buyers (and their agents) to blindly follow along in profound indifference to the buyer's interest. Sadly, they're getting a lot of cooperation from buyer's agents who should know better but are acting more like sperm donor agents than real agents.

I have seen the following demands from these knuckleheads :

• trying to require buyers to pay repairs, termite etc before they own a property, when in fact the transaction may never come off
• requiring buyers to pay the negotiation firms that they had no role in hiring, because the lenders allegedly won't allow it to come out of sale proceeds. Maybe you should take the hint the lenders are giving you - these negotiators and their recommendations do not serve the interests of any of the three principals to a short sale transaction. The interests they serve are those of a lazy (and horrible) listing agent
• Agreeing to keep the offer open at least sixty days without an accepted purchase contract

The answer to any of these demands is short, simple, and to the point: No.

You want my client to pay for repairs to a property they don't own (and most often the sellers don't want to take it off the market)? How can agreeing to this not be a violation of buyer fiduciary interest?

You want my buyer to give keep an offer open two months without a valid purchase contract?

You want my buyer to pay a firm that they have no role in hiring and does nothing to represent their best interests?

First off, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have a valid purchase contract, the thing to do is walk away. There is a world of difference between "offer accepted pending lender approval of short sale" and "we have submitted your offer to the lender" In the first case, you have a contract with one contingency - kind of like a loan or inspection contingency on the buyer's side, only from the seller's side instead. Nothing wrong with that. Transactions with seller contingencies happen every day. But it also means you have an accepted offer. There can be only one accepted offer, and once there is an accepted offer, the property needs to be removed from the market and no other offers may be considered until this one falls apart. In other words, the seller is stuck with the buyer every bit as much as the buyer is stuck with the seller.

But if you don't have an accepted offer, what you have is "Hope I get it". Kind of like the Little Engine That Could, except there is no defined end to the process and it's not under your control. It's just repeat the mantra of "Hope I get it' until you get told that you didn't. That choice of phrasing was very considered, by the way. Under this scenario, listing agents submit multiple offers to the bank - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one from both the perspective of the buyer and the seller. If the bank keeps getting offers, what are they going to do? That's right, keep the property on the market hoping for a better offer. Whereas if you show them some hard back and forth negotiation and one or more prospective buyers dropping out of the process until only one is left, that's good evidence that that is all the property is worth.

Understand this in your bones: That short sale lender wants one thing above all else: Their money. As much of their money as they can possibly arrange to get back. The owner's job transfer, illness, etcetera, are not their problem. I straightforwardly advise buyers to avoid short sales but some people decide they just have to try for one. That lender needs to see conclusive evidence that there is no way they are getting any more money out of this property and this owner before they will approve the short sale. They need to understand that this is all the market will support, and that the current owner cannot pay them any additional money, and that if they don't get off their fat backsides and approve this pronto, not only are they going to end up with less money when this buyer walks, but they're going to have to pay the expenses of getting it sold as well as the penalties for having a nonperforming asset on their books.

The way to approach that is to negotiate hard with prospective buyers, as if the lender weren't part of the picture. You still have to disclose short sale status, but negotiate as if it's a regular sale (Sadly, may listing agents can't even do that). The best evidence that this is what the property is worth is that you tried to convince multiple people to offer more, and this one you picked is the one that's the best for the lender. Submitting more than one offer to the lender is a recipe for Delay and two different forms of Denial from that lender. They are going to want to wait until they get still more offers.

The lenders do have a secondary concern to getting their money, and that is time. It may be difficult to believe for agents and buyers and sellers who wait three months waiting for the bank to make up their mind, but the bank really would rather move quickly. Time costs them more money. It's just that most listing agents do not and will not do the work of actually getting the offer approved by the short sale lender - which they accepted responsibility for when they took that listing. "Short sale specialist" means a lot more than hiring a negotiating firm!

This nonsense about asking buyers to fork over cash for repairs before closing, asking them to keep offers open without an acceptance of that offer, and asking them to agree to pay the negotiating firm are all things that an appropriately represented buyer is going to ask for concessions for. Concessions on price, concessions on indemnification, concessions just for putting up with the ridiculous nonsense on stilts. This all translates to the buyers who are well-qualified and have plenty of resources walking away, while the ones who are marginal or even below qualification level are perfectly willing to hang around in the hope that a miracle will happen. What else this means is that the property sells for a lower price. But the Broker's Price Opinion has no way to reflect these unattractive things making the property worth less to the buyers. It is therefore going to come in higher than the sales price. So we have two additional ways that the transaction falls apart because the listing agent couldn't do the correct thing in the first place. With stuff like this happening, is it any mystery why four out of five short sales fail? Is it any wonder that the better buyer's agents advise their clients to avoid short sales?

Short sales done correctly are really pretty much like regular sales, albeit with one long, difficult and thoroughly unpleasant step added. But what happens before that step shouldn't be any different for a short sale than any other property. Nor should what comes after be any different, except that the seller cannot get any cash out of the deal. The one extra step that is actually necessary does impact buyer desirability, but not nearly so much as all of the unnecessary nonsense (euphemism alert!) that some listing agents insist upon adding.

All of this is, incidentally, one more piece of evidence that most major real estate brokerages are built around the seller and listing property for sale for minimum effort on their part, especially of any actual licensed agent involved. The buyer can go hang. In some cases, literally. No buyer's agent worth what comes out of the south side of a northbound cow is going to counsel their buyers to put up with this stuff, at least not without a lot of concessions including a major downwards adjustment on price (and as I covered above, the lenders will deny such sales when the broker's price opinion comes in too high). But people still keep calling listing agents about their property without having a buyer's agent to advise them. Given that, the agents think they'll find some clueless victim to sell it to. All too often, someone proves them right. In the meantime, like Tina Teaser, the worthless listing agent who is really impeding the sale of the property uses the listing to make contact with as many buyers as possible.

Buyers can't force sellers to sell, much less to sell to them in particular. But sellers and listing agents shouldn't be blind to things that cause buyers to walk away or to be willing to pay less simply because the sellers are not getting cash out of the deal. Especially in a short sale situation. They may not get cash, but soon enough they will be back to getting 1099s for forgiveness of debt, a taxable event. Every dollar they can prevent the lender from losing is going to help them.

The general statistic is that one short sale in five actually comes off. Given the nonsense listing agents expect buyers to put up with, it's no wonder that buyers getting disgusted and walking away is right at the top of the list of reasons for fall out. Sellers need that buyer - without a buyer, they don't have a sale, and nobody sells their property on a short sale without a need. Nor does this nonsense on stilts motivate the bank to get off their backside and approve the short sale. Quite the opposite, actually.

Caveat Emptor (and Vendor)

Original article here

I want to sell my home for sale by owner. Is 1.5% a good amount to co-broke? Or will agents avoid me?

In most of the country, this is a buyer's market right now. You need to compete more strongly for that buyer's business than anyone else in order to win the sale.

When I'm working with a buyer, the contract says that my brokerage gets a certain percentage of the sales price. So it doesn't matter too much to me what your co-broke (aka CBB, paid to a buyer's agent by the listing agent or seller) is to me. If you don't pay it, my buyers will. Furthermore, my contract is non-exclusive, so I have incentive to get them into whatever property is going to make them happiest, as soon as possible. If I won't (or can't) do it, somebody else will, and that's how it should be, so if your property really is the best property for that client, the low co-broke won't stop me. As I said, I get my minimum percentage from any property I help the client with. Better the minimum off yours than nothing when somebody else turns them onto yours. So you're not going to be eliminated by good agents on that scale alone. However:

Even to agents in situations comparable to mine, a low CBB like that is very indicative of an owner who is overly greedy, has over-priced the property, and won't negotiate it down to anything reasonable. I've seen this at least dozens of times, probably hundreds. No exceptions to this rule yet. Better I just don't waste my time or worse, that of my clients.

This is on top of the constant issues of dealing with a For Sale By Owner (FSBO), 99% plus of whom want me to act as their agent. or at least do the work of their agent and assume that liability, as well as the buyers'. Well, I don't do dual agency anyway, and I certainly don't do it unpaid, and because there's nobody with E&O insurance on the other side of the equation, I can do all of my due diligence and then some, but because the seller lies, I still end up sued by an unhappy buyer because I'm the only one involved they can get money from. FSBOs have literally 100 times the disclosure problems agent represented properties do. Trying to persuade owners who think they did everything they need to by putting a sign in the yard to fulfill the rest of their legal obligations is a painful process, and getting them to negotiate in good faith is chancy. I've had - and heard from other agents - more "chiseler" episodes from trying to buy a FSBO property. The probability of dealing with the "chiseler" goes up by at least a factor of 10 for all FSBO properties. And if you think I don't cover this with my clients, you're wrong. It's part of my job to let them know the risks of what they might be getting into, before they're in the middle of them. A good percentage of all clients comes straight out and tells me that they don't want to consider FSBOs once I've explained the facts.

Yes, a lot of this is "guilt by association" type judgments. Nonetheless, it's how you are asking people to view you. People who hang out with outlaw biker gangs are presumed to be outlaw bikers. Doesn't matter if you wear a suit and tie and a $400 haircut and have a nice genteel manner. You're an outlaw biker gang member, and until and unless people get to know you as an individual, that's the perception you're going to have to live with. (Lest my meaning be mistaken, I'm pulling a hypothetical example. I don't think I've ever actually met or seen an outlaw biker gang. There was a large biker club seated next to us at a restaurant not too long ago. Their clothes and haircut were a little out of the ordinary, but they were mostly like other folks. Had a great conversation about our respective kids with one couple). I'd like to have the time to individually know all of the properties available well enough to discard guilt by association, but there aren't enough hours in the day.

Finally, if my buyer's cash is a little tight in the first place, the fact that they're going to have to come up with that money out of their pocket can be a deal-killer right there. Buyer cash to close is the number one obstacle to a successful transaction. It's a "lose your license" offense for agents to attempt to negotiate a higher CBB at point of offer in my state. Agents do it anyway, but I have zero sympathy for them when they get caught. But having to come up with that extra amount of cash can drive my buyers below a breakpoint on the loan, and possibly even torpedo the loan altogether, which means it's significantly harder to convince myself your property is the best one for the client.

One more thing: For agents who get exclusive buyer's agency agreements, as opposed to the non-exclusive ones I work with, your property is not a contender. Period, end of sentence. You're making them work too hard, plus they want the highest CBB they can get, and they get paid no matter who helps the buyers buy, and they have enough control to make it very difficult for a buyer to go to a place with a low CBB. Not to mention that their usual CBB is higher and this means yet more difference between what you're paying and what their contract calls for, meaning that even if their client should somehow find your property, and love it, the cash to close issue is going to make it very difficult for them to do business with you.

So you make the call:

Buyer's market, you have to make your property look more attractive than anyone else's to even attract attention. Price, condition, location - you've got to have something that stands out above the market to attract an offer in the first place, and everything else has to be competitive as well.

Add the fact that a low CBB tells experienced buyer's agents that you're someone to stay away from

Add all of the FSBO issues, and there's a lot of them. They're not minor from the agent's perspective, and they're even worse from an informed buyer's.

Then top it off with hitting the buyer's cash to close, potentially killing a viable deal, and both the buyer and their agent want to know why they should bother with your property, as opposed to the one across the street, with a CBB that pays the buyer's agent what they've got coming without the buyer having to come up with cash, with an agent on the other side who at least might know your market and price it correctly, and is unlikely to try to deceive my client by not disclosing known issues, and is going to get all of the work done in a timely fashion without me having to work them over, because they want to get paid too, and they don't want this transaction coming back to bite them any more than I do.

Which of these two properties do you think buyers and their agents are going to find more attractive? Even if they're equivalent properties priced the same?

People aren't looking for reasons to buy your property. They're looking for reasons not to buy your property. If you want to sell your property, get a good agent to list it for you, list at a price that reflects the current market, and offer an average CBB for your area. If you don't want to sell your property, why are you putting yourself through the hassle and expense of putting it on the market?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I just got off the phone with an agent who claims to have three offers on the property, but he doesn't want to counter the offer. He just wants my client to voluntarily throw more money (or more something) onto the table.

We're going to decline to do that.

The offer we made was good. The other agent, if they knew what they were doing, would just be fishing - or rather, hoping to get us to go fishing voluntarily, adding more and more bait until they finally decide they had better hit it. Not really a horrible strategy, but wickedly vulnerable to agents who understand negotiation. The only reasonable way to respond is to ask the other side to take it, leave it, or tell you what they really want. Someone who understands negotiation is going to tell them exactly what I did - which is "You can take it, leave it, or counter. But we're not going to go on a fishing expedition. Tell us what you want and we'll talk about it."

However this particular agent either didn't know what they were doing or were pretending not to know. As a rationalization for his actions, he said, "I've had multiple offers and lost them all when I countered."

So?

Every listing agent gets desperation checks. Sometimes they're flippers looking to turn a quick buck. Sometimes they're serious investors. Sometimes they are even people who intend to live there forever and ever. What all three of these (and many other situations) have in common is that they say to themselves, "Let's see if we can get it for that."

The intelligent way to respond is usually to counter offer. Below a certain point, of course, you want to respond with, "Offer rejected - do better!". But if they're in the right general ballpark, the way to get what you want is to tell them what you want. You won't get everything. That's what negotiation is all about. But you would be amazed at how often terms that are quite important to one party are something the other party can meet without any downside.

Furthermore, you don't want to sell to a "Let's see if we can get it for that" offer. Yeah, some folks will walk away if you counter. Those are the folks that you don't want to sell to anyway. Even if every single one of ten offers walks away, you haven't lost anything - because those people weren't willing to offer a reasonable price. If you price the property correctly, it will get offers, and you will be able to sell to one of them for right around the market price. If you over-priced your property, desperation checks are all that you're likely to get. If you underprice the property, you will get hordes of offers, but it's unlikely to be bid up as far as where it should have been in the first place.

(How can a consumer tell if their property is over-priced or under-priced or priced just right? By the offers you get and their timing, of course! It's one of those zen things like the chicken and the egg. It's also why the discussion of list price should not be easy for anyone - because by the time it becomes apparent you went with the wrong answer, fixing it will only repair some of the damage)

You never know which offer is and isn't going to come back with something better. So you give them a reason to offer you something better by telling them what you really want. Yeah, number one on the list is usually money. But sometimes it isn't. And sometimes subsidiary concerns can make all the difference, even getting the property for fewer dollars than another offer.

Being unwilling or unable to counter without losing good offers is the mark of a very weak agent. Unfortunately, by the time you find out they're a weak agent in this fashion, it's probably too late. When I'm the buyer's agent, I don't really want the first offer accepted, and those few of my clients who've had it happen can testify that I really am mortified when it happens. I want to talk about what my client wants, and how we can go from the first offer to something both sides are happy with. Whatever happened to "never take the first offer"? Don't they teach that anymore? The first offer is just an opening, like "hello" in a conversation.

One legitimate fear is that an unqualified buyer may sign a counter exactly as it is, creating a purchase contract that ties the property up for months while you find out they can't really qualify. That is the only situation where I delay the actual counter until I am certain the buyer can qualify. But I do call the offering agent and ask for more evidence the buyer will be able to qualify. This is in line with the precept of "ask for what you want, and explain why they should give it to you" precept. After they provide information that persuades me these folks will qualify for the necessary loan, they'll get a counter.

If a qualified buyer signs one of several counters I make, that's not a disaster. That's exactly what I want. Every counter I put out there is something that would make my client happy. Do I care which offer gets signed? Well, sometimes when something about their situation (like having a known problem agent representing them) makes me hope it isn't them. But that doesn't stop me from putting the offer back out there. It's my clients needs that are important, and if my client needs me to deal with these issues, that's part of why I'm getting paid.

Not being willing to counter is like hoping the fish is going to jump right into the boat. Yes, you know they're out there in the lake, but you haven't hooked them and you definitely haven't landed them yet. The counter is the hook - it lets them know exactly what you want, and why they should give it to you. You're more likely to get what you want by telling a buyer what that is.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The stock market has a phenomenon where a company's stock is "Priced for perfection." It may sound nice, but "priced for perfection" is emphatically not a good thing. It's where the stock price of a company has been bid up so much that only if absolutely everything goes the company's way is it going to be a good investment. If anything doesn't fall the company's way, their stock will prove to have been overpriced because the income stream will then not support the stock price at current market levels. In a nutshell, an analyst who tells you a stock is "priced for perfection" is telling you that it's very likely you'll lose money in the short term, and even if it's a good solid company the time to buy is not now.

Real estate has a similar phenomenon. Real estate agents aren't stock analysts, so I've never heard someone else use the phrase in this context, but it's very similar to the stock market phenomenon of the same name. I saw a property a few days ago that brought the concept to mind more strongly than any other I've seen recently.

The first thing that leaped out at you was that this property was a work of art. Someone had put a huge amount of money and labor into this property. The kitchen was almost brand new, well laid out, and had pretty much every amenity or convenience I can think of. The floors were all beautiful. The back yard pool needed to be resurfaced, but the entire thing was laid out beautifully for entertaining. The front bedroom had been converted to a very functional and attractive office. Both bathrooms were gorgeous and modern. The electrical was wonderful. Even the garage had been done up with a dozen or so tall cedar (cedar!) storage cabinets.

But the more I thought about it, the less I liked the property. First off, it was a tiny house with tiny rooms on a tiny lot - it was only the fact it was vacant that prevented it from driving this point home on the level of a ball-peen hammer between the eyes. My clients were talking about moving walls to make it more livable, and with everything they thought of, I immediately had a reason why they didn't want to do that, relating to either eventual sale value or severely impacted livability in the meantime. You literally could not do anything to improve the house without adversely impacting something else. My clients were hung up on how gorgeous the whole thing was "But this room is small and we want it bigger" and I had to explain that you could get the room by taking it from the kitchen or garage. If you take it from the kitchen, there goes that beautiful kitchen you love and the family area goes away. If you take it from the garage, you lost half those storage cabinets you love. Want to expand the master? Same trouble. The Second bedroom? There goes a third of that yard you love, and all that's left is a small ring around the pool. There simply was no room. The current owners had done literally everything that could be done.

Then there was the matter that the neighborhood was in such a condition as led me to believe it had seen better days, and this was the smallest house on the smallest lot. The investment potential in such circumstances is limited, to say the least. The house was priced with a premium for how beautiful it was now - but new appliances get old, beautiful surfaces do age, and entropy will take its toll. The more I thought about it, the more strongly I was against my clients buying it. The only thing in favor of buying it is the same thing in favor of buying any residential property right now - the generally low price condition of the market in general.

The entire effect was a property that just oozed the "I'm beautiful! Buy me!" vibe that works so very well on the majority of middle class buyers. And if it was a "forever and ever" house where you just wanted to live there exactly as it was, and didn't care about how much your heirs get after you die, there would be no reason not to buy it. But such buyers are exceedingly rare. I can think of one such set I've had in the last three years, and the people I was with weren't them, so as I explained the property's shortcomings to them, I kept going back to what their Plan was, which included likely moving again in a few years.

Lest you misunderstand, it was neither a Misplaced Improvement nor a Vampire Property. It was in excellent shape; the only repair bill I could see coming was resurfacing the pool. And the neighborhood supported its value just fine, thank you. No, the neighborhood wasn't beautiful, but it was decent, and everywhere you looked were bigger properties on bigger lots. If they weren't so exquisitely cared for, they still supported the value of this property just fine. The problem with this property was precisely how beautiful it was, which made it attractive to Mr. and Ms. Middle class, and therefore quite likely to bid the sales price up and considerably over the real value of the property. Future value appreciation would be limited to general market increases, less the effects of time on all of the beautiful surfaces that are freshly installed now, less the effects of what looks like a neighborhood that is on a gradual downslope relative to the general market.

Would I have pointed any of this out if I were the listing agent? Are you out of your mind? When listing, my responsibility is to get the highest price for the quickest sale and the fewest issues. If I were the listing agent, I would have pointed out all of the beautiful areas and exquisite craftsmanship, and kept my mouth shut about how small it was and how their plans to move this wall or that would adversely impact everything else. That's the listing agent's legal duty, it's good business and it's even fair, honest and ethical dealing.

In this case however, I was acting on behalf of the buyers, so I had an obligation to talk to my clients and save them from being seduced by the property, or at least enter into the relationship with their eyes open. If on sober reflection they had wanted to make an offer anyway, I certainly would have done so, but it's the buyer's agent's legal duty to point out and explain any downsides they see to a property. That many alleged buyer's agents fail in this is not an excuse for me to do so. It's also a crucial difference between a discount agent who rebates a percentage of their commission and a real buyer's agent. I saved my clients a lot more than the entire agency commission by talking them out of this property; something a discounter would never do. Not to mention that they would have been miserable the entire time they were in the property. Which means I may not get paid for my work that day, but when I do get paid, I will have earned every penny before they even see the property they eventually do buy, by keeping them out of this financial disaster waiting to happen. It will happen to someone - but not my clients.

This is one more illustration of why you want a good buyer's agent, and why you want to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agency agreement. A bad or discount agent will never spot this problem, and if you don't give them the security of knowing you're willing to keep working with them as long as they do a good job, there's no incentive for even the good agent to mention it. I would have told them anyhow - what's right for my clients is right for me, period. But it shouldn't be news to anyone that there are agents who will keep quiet about such things if you're only asking them to show you one property. Find a Good Buyer's Agent and be willing to sign the standard non-exclusive agency contract. It really does protect you.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I am buying a home, but the contract said they wont sell the oil rights, what does this means? should I buy

That was J Paul Getty's great contribution to real estate, and why he got so rich. He retained the mineral rights on every parcel he sold, and it has become standard practice in the industry nationwide, if not worldwide, with respect to most property. Such rights typically pass without any rights of ingress (meaning they can't enter your property), but it typically isn't difficult for the holders to buy rights of ingress from someone in the area. This means they can't sink a mine shaft on your property unless you sell them the rights to do so. It is to to be noted that you're not likely to be real happy if one of your neighbors sells them access, either, but you can't control that directly. Zoning boards and conditional use permits and all of that, not to mention the courts. I'm neither a lawyer nor any kind of elected official so I am not going there.

Odds are that the person selling you the property does not, themselves, own the mineral rights. Most developers have bought the property without mineral rights attached, or if they did buy them, they have most likely long since sold them to some speculator. Even if you buy from a developer, they probably don't own the mineral rights any more, let alone the property's post developer homeowners, who didn't buy them in the first place. Since they can't sell what they don't own, that's what the contract is going to say, period. It isn't a matter of negotiating skill or them holding on to a mineral windfall at your expense. Those mineral rights are no longer part of the surface parcel - they've already been sold off, most likely before the developer did the first minute of work on the land to get it ready for the houses to be built. Somebody else owns them. If you want a parcel with mineral rights, look elsewhere. If you want a place to live, all it means is that the chances of you getting a mineral windfall change from remote to zero.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I just moved into a rental house with an option to buy. I figure I can probably save up around $40-45k for a down payment in three years. how should i save? The Roth IRA tax loophole for first time home buyers maxes out at $10k and takes 5 years anyway. It sounds dumb, but the best safe short term investment I can think of is savings bonds. There has to be something better!

When I originally wrote this, a down payment was not a requirement. For people with not too horrible credit, who could document enough income to afford the loan, at or below a conforming loan amount, 100% financing was available. Unless you've got access to a VA loan, that is no longer the case. Every other loan requires one. I'm confident lenders will start doing 100% loans again within a few years, but if you wait until then, you're going to miss the appreciation that's going to convince them to bring it back.

As to the possibilities: A Roth IRA, along with traditional IRA, 401k, etcetera, are special accounts with tax advantages which are mostly forfeit if you intend to use them for relatively short term goals. More important is your choice of investment vehicle.

Your major constraints here are a relatively short time frame and you want a certain amount of safety. The idea of investing the money is that you want to get more money, not lose your investment savings.

So if you're going to move outside the realm of guaranteed investments for this purpose, you are going to worship at the altar of diversification. Stocks generally go up, but can go down (roughly 28 percent of all years since records have been kept), and indeed, are not anything like a panacea. Therefore, if you're going to risk the stock market or the bond market in order to obtain their higher returns, you're going to want to diversify, diversify, diversify in order to prevent anything short of a general market decline from ruining your investment.

With that firmly in mind, individual stocks are probably not a good idea. If successful, the idea is that the income will be mostly capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. Unfortunately for this idea, it's hard to get efficient and diversified individual stock investment for less than $100k. At $100,000, you've got a down payment to be extremely proud of.

The same with individual bonds to an even greater extent. When most bonds run in $10,000 to $50,000 denominations, diversifying is not really an option when you're just trying to save up for a down payment. If one of your bonds suffered a significant downgrade, bond price would take a hit, and therefore a very large part of your investment would suffer a setback.

Next on the list is government savings bonds and bank CDs. These offer a guaranteed return. The problems are that it's a mediocre return at best, and it's all ordinary income. Still, 2.5% or so for bank CDs is safe and secure, even if it reduces to about 2% after taxes. US Treasury securities have a four year minimum holding period to get their guarantee. Me? I stopped loaning the government money decades ago.

All of the various insurance products are a bad idea. You're saving for something you want within five years, not something forty years away or trying to insure a possible loss. Nor does the tax treatment help. Secure commodities investment is one of those oxymorons like "plastic glass".

Finally, there are mutual funds. These are diversified by their very nature. In fact, my usual complaint is that they are too diversified, but in this case, that's actually good. Pick a good fund family that covers all of the major asset classes, including bonds. Yes, you pay management fees (and advisement fees or a sales load if you are smart to help keep you from over-reacting to short term market events), but you can average nine to 13 percent per year, pretax, seven to ten afterward. A large portion of gains will be capital gains, taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. This isn't a certain or guaranteed investment, and can lose some of your principal, even all of it in theory. Nonetheless if you're comfortable taking what is in my estimation a small amount of risk, it can really pay off.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

My husband and I bought a golf course-view house in DELETED. We closed 5 days ago; moved-in 4 days ago; and 2 days ago found out that the golf course is scheduled to close. It was announced by the golf course management 2 years ago at the home-owners' association meeting, and the seller and her realtor most likely knew. But they did not disclose it to us, even though they had ample opportunity to do so. They had advertised the house everywhere as golf course view. We definitely would not have bought the house if we had known that the view is there only for 2 more months. We paid for the view and know that homes without a view like that go for a lot less.

Now a school or more homes are scheduled to be constructed in its place. What are our legal rights? Can we "return" the sale of the house?

Please advise. Thanks.

First off, I'm not attorney, so this is layman's perspective. Get an attorney who specializes in real estate in your state, and ask them. Each state has its own law.

Here in California, agents and sellers are liable for disclosing not only what they knew, but what they reasonably should have known. They are required to disclose all such information that a reasonable person might consider in their decision on whether to buy a particular property, and by well precedented legal extension, whether to pay a particular price. Cases have been decided based upon an increased water bill, that the court ruled should have tipped the owner off to the fact that there was a leak somewhere, and water is notorious for its erosional capability, among other things. Were you in California, it appears as if you might have a very strong case. I have no idea whatsoever about whether it's worth pursuing, even if the law in your state is similar. For that, you need to talk to a local attorney.

The first question that attorney is likely to ask you is what evidence you have that the former owner knew, or should have known, that the golf course was closing. Announced at homeowner's meeting is good. In the minutes is better. HOA informing all of the residents directly would be better yet. Neighborhood vows to get together and fight the closure? Probably best, especially if your home's former owners were somehow listed as being members or directors. That's the evidence they knew part.

Evidence that a reasonable person might not have bought that property at that price is pretty easy to come by in this case. Golf courses are highly desired, highly sought after neighbors on the part of many people, and golf course views are valued. Schools, not so much. People want good ones close, but they don't want to deal with playground noise, or high school football stadium noise for that matter. Advertisements of the property as being next to a golf course, or looking out over a golf course, would likely be good evidence to have, because it would show that the owners knew that golf course view was a part of their value, and they were committing this deception maliciously.

Then we get to the real crux of the matter: How certain are you that they didn't slip one piece of paper that says, "The golf course is closing so they can put a new school in" into that ream or four of paper you signed at closing? Or a few sentences on one of the standard disclosures? Not only whether they informed you, but also when and in what manner can be important. If they had a marching band blowing a fanfare to attract your attention to this fact before you had come to a final agreement, that likely blows any case you might have out of the water. If they slipped it into your stack of papers at closing, that might be a horse of a different color. Talk to your lawyer about that.

Now as to remedy. No matter how egregious it was, you're unlikely to get a free house out of it. Possibly, if the agent knowingly misrepresented the situation and you can prove it. Less likely if all you can show is that the seller know, but the agent may have been acting in good faith accordance with the seller's wishes. They shouldn't do this, but let's stipulate that nobody is perfect, and maybe they weren't being paid for that part of a listing agent's services. You may also be able to sue your agent, if you had one, for failure to protect you from these scalawags and perform their due diligence. Then again, if you didn't have a full service buyer's agent, you're not likely to be able to sue them successfully. If you're stuck with the former owner as your only legal target, you may still be able to get not only damages, but legal fees and possibly punitive damages out of it. Alternatively, you might also be able to force them to buy the property back, if you so desire, instead of the other remedies. Talk to your lawyer.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Over the last couple of decades, there's been a rising movement, mostly on the part of those who want a piece of real estate agents business, to sell agents as a toll booth. Tollbooths sit there, guarding the entry to the road you want to travel on. Once you've paid, you get access to the wonderful world of MLS and making offers on real estate - or having offers made upon your real estate. This movement has accelerated in the last ten years or so, with the universal advent of broadband internet connections and ungated sites with all of the listings for sale in a particular area.

Even a large number of allegedly "full service" agents and brokerages have sold themselves based upon the tollbooth model. "Sign up with me, and you get access to all of these wonderful things along this road to where you want to go."

Unfortunately for these agents, there's always someone willing to provide a cheaper tollbooth.

The bar to get into the real estate business, when you really look at it, is absurdly low. I've seen good arguments with valid points for either making it much more difficult or eliminating licensing requirements altogether. Score seventy percent or above on a multiple choice test that doesn't have math any more complex than multiplication and without any practical applications whatsoever, pay a toll of $100 or so to the state of your choice for licensing, and another $100 or so for MLS access, and you're in business! They even let you use a calculator for the math on the test!

It shouldn't be any great surprise that we have large numbers of agents who think that's all there is, let alone members of the general public. Therefore, agents who pretend to be agents - and look like they might be, on paper - can cut the toll to access MLS and the world of making and receiving offers on real estate. They pretend that they do something important, sitting in their offices with a fax machine and ZipForms. It even looks impressive enough, on the surface. "I went into this lady's office, and she fired up a computer and it spit out this contract for me to sign, and she faxed it off to the other agent and now I'm in escrow! Best of all, she's going to give me 2% of the purchase price for doing business with her!" So all of the friends and relatives, who according to the way they think are making $5000 or $10,000 by using this person, drop by, and she makes $2500 to $5000 on every single one of them, by pretending to do something valuable, that can really be done by any high school graduate capable of using a word processor. Alternatively, "I went to this guy's office, signed a listing contract that pays him 1% up front instead of 6% when it sells, to put my house on the MLS, He even let me pick the price I wanted to sell it for!" Now every agent worth their license knows what's wrong with both of these scenarios (and if you are an agent who doesn't, you need to learn before you talk with any members of the public), but the average person who doesn't know what they're getting into. They don't even know what they don't know, and they think they're getting a real bargain.

Lest it be said that I'm being all holier-than-thou, I'm perfectly willing to make $2500 to $5000 acting like a high school graduate with a word processor and fax machine. And a license, can't forget that license! I'm even happy to do this work! And if all you need is someone to grant you that access, like paying toll to access that road, I'm perfectly happy to collect my little toll and send you on your way. Instead of one full size toll that takes me dozens to hundreds of hours to earn, I can earn one of these half-size tolls every couple hours. People who come to me for this level of service may wonder why I never try to "upsell" them on the more expensive package, or at least the majority who don't understand what's really going on do. Furthermore, the probability of such tolls coming back to bite me, legally, is practically non-existent. I made no representations as to the state of the property - I didn't even go visit! I advised them of their responsibilities ("get an inspection!", "fill out this TDS!") and have their signature on documents that say I did. And I never promised their property would sell, or that the property they're buying was worth what they were offering. Whether or not they realized that's what they were doing, they were saying they were perfectly capable of handling all those aspects for themselves, and they signed that piece of paper that says what I am and am not going to do for them.

But once again, there's always someone who's willing to build a cheaper tollbooth. That's not the future of a successful real estate agent, to get paid less and less for doing nothing, anymore than that's the future of a successful software company, a successful health insurance plan, or a successful anything. And for those people who think they're getting a some kind of bargain, would you be happy paying a word processor that kind of money for a couple of hours of work? There's always someone willing to operate a cheaper tollbooth, but unless you really understand what you're up to, a tollbooth is not what what you are really looking for.

What's going on, of course, is people who don't understand what they're not getting are just thinking in terms of cost. If you don't understand what you need to, if you don't even understand that there is more to what a good agent does than MLS access, a word processor and a fax machine, if you've dealt with agents who expected full pay for being MLS access, a word processor and a fax machine, then you think you're getting a deal when someone offers you a discount. But if you're an agent, you have to ask yourself why people should be willing to pay you that much money when people are willing to take less. If you're one of those discounters, you should be asking yourself why people should continue to be willing to pay you 1% when there are people who will do it for 1/2%. And if you're one of the latest wave of internet based super discounters, making money hand over fist, you should be wondering why they should continue to pay your half a percent when someone starts offering it for 4 tenths of a percent, 3 tenths, or less than one tenth. They can still make money at that level, but anyone can do nothing just as well as anyone else, and with a little more time, we get down to the economically stable point where you have people in a sweatshop in Bangladesh typing and emailing a contract they took over the telephone for $10 per transaction, all working on one license that the owner of the company got 15 years ago. Or completely automated, without human interface at all. No service, no knowledge, no liability, and no protection for the consumer, but they certainly are cheap. That's the endpoint of the tollbooth model of business, and it's visible from here.

If you want to know how this shortchanges the consumers, check out any one of dozens to hundreds of domestic real estate forums. Every day, you see people talking about having already made a mistake that is going to cost them a dozen times what a good agent would. These people generally want to know how to get out of the situation unscathed, but you know and I know that's not likely to happen. You've got to be ahead of the curve and not make the mistake in the first place. There are sharks out there for whom such people are nothing more than their lawful prey. Some of them are the agent sitting on the other side of the transaction. Others are investors, hoping to snare someone who doesn't understand everything they're doing. The uneducated buyer thinks "It's a beautiful house, we love it, somebody says they can do the loan - what could go wrong?" The list of tricks that get played on sellers is, I believe, probably longer than the list that gets played on buyers. More tricks, smaller market shares.

One of the things I keep harping on is the fact that real estate deals are for large amounts of money. Numbers big enough so that 10% is more than a lot of people make in a year, and I've seen at least a gross of 10% coups - or bigger - pulled off in properties I have actually been in and compared to others on the market within the last year. What does this mean? If you're a shark who can pull off one 10% coup per month, you're in Fat City. You've got the Manhattan penthouse, the private jet, and the rock star lifestyle - more and more so as your deals get bigger and more frequent. If you pull off one 10% coup per year, instead of making $60,000 per year, you're making $100,000 per year immediately, and with just a few years like that, you're living the rock star lifestyle also! And you know the best part of all? Most of the suckers think they got a bargain! I went and talked to the guy that got taken worse than anyone else I knew of a while back, who paid over 40% more than he could have had a basically identical property for a quarter mile up the road, and he's happy as a clam, because he likes the property and he got 2% of that 40% back in the form of cash! Nor do you have to make 10% per transaction to be profitable. If you can consistently pull off 5% coups, or 2%, you're still in the money.

When I'm acting for buyers, my business model is that of a big game hunting guide. For this, you need to know the lay of the land (market), where the most desirable game is, the tricks to spotting its trail, the ruses it may use to escape, etcetera, etcetera - and all before some other big game guide leads their client to bag my client's trophy. You've also got to know the traps laid by the dangerous predators and avoid them. My goal is to make a 10% net difference to my client's final position, Either 10% cheaper, or a property comparable to one that might legitimately fetch 10% more. Buddha forbid my clients don't end up with anything, but that's preferable to shooting some farmer's prize cow, or the farmer themselves! Meanwhile, the people who don't understand this are singing Tom Lehrer's Hunting Song, whether they realize it or not. The problem is that in the real world people who figuratively shoot "Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow" instead of the deer they were after face some pretty severe and ongoing consequences.

Before the new appraisal standards, considering appraised value, the lowest difference I had made the previous year was a little over 15%, and that's just negotiating capability and market knowledge. I had got a couple of strictly honest appraisers, and not one of those purchase appraisals came in lower than 115% of purchase price. Even with all the problems the new standards are causing and the fact I have to take whatever turkey the appraisal management company assigns me, I'm not having difficulty on purchase appraisals. To change the independent element (me negotiating purchase prices for the right property), those same appraisers I kept using torpedoed almost 30% of the refinances I was hoping to do. Add the number of traps I've kept those same clients out of by spotting problems before we made on offer, and it adds up to quite a chunk of change they've got in their pocket, or that they don't owe some lender, because I did my job as an agent, not the least part of which is that I take responsibility for not selling them something they can't really afford.

As a listing agent, the process has a lot more lead time. I can interview buyers in the morning, and if they're as ready to buy as they think they are, get an understanding of their situation in an hour or so, be looking at properties myself that afternoon and showing the ones that pass my muster to them the next day. Listings take longer, and are more like a fishing expedition. First, you have to know what kind of fish you're able to catch with the bait you have available. You're not going to hook a sperm whale with krill. You've got to know where these target fish hang out. Then you've got to figure out how to make the bait look attractive to the target fish, how to get them to notice this bait, how to get them to hit it hard enough that you can set the hook and haul them in. Among the factors you have to understand is how much patience the client has. Just like in fishing it doesn't do any good for the fishermen to keep hauling the line out of the water before the right fish is willing to hit it - but the real trick is working the bait so it gets hit as quickly as possible. Sometimes the situation isn't right - usually because the bait won't catch what the fisherman wants, no matter how much you do. Nor does getting the bait hit (getting an offer) necessarily mean a landed fish (consummated sale), particularly not at the offer price.

A lot of the people I counsel to wait, or who don't like the asking price I want to set on a property will go sign up with someone else who's willing to promise the moon to get that signature on the listing agreement. I've never had one of them call me up to gloat that I was wrong. The ones that I've seen actually sell sold for less than I believe I could have gotten, and it took months. Some were even victims of the "Jaws" phenomenon as well. That is what happens when the homeowner gets desperate for any offer - the big shark comes along and eats them.

You may have noticed that both of these analogies are pretty violent, and the better known activities they emulate tend to end up very badly for the big game, or the fish, at least on a successful mission. Nor is there any kind of "catch and release" program. Whether you realize it or not, that's the way the game is played. The language is normally civil, not something out of pro wrestling trash talk, but it's no less deadly for being played with offers and contracts instead of rifles and gaffes. Military men who intend to kill the enemy if they can are very careful and very respectful of capable opponents - they live longer that way. They know somebody's going home in a body bag, and they don't want it to be them. With the amount of money at stake in real estate, the incentives are there. Look at some of the reality shows on TV, and what the contestants go through for much smaller prizes. The tollbooth model of agency seems to be producing an ever larger number of willing fish and game. Actually, they're eager!

Real estate may be the largest transaction of most people's lives, but most people don't do it very often, particularly not in the same area. People will move cross country to a new city they've never been in before, and expect to buy real estate within a month. They'll expect the rules for sellers now are the same as the rules for buyers ten years ago when they bought - if they even understood the market then. They have been led so far astray by the popularly pushed tollbooth model of real estate (and its media depictions), that they have no idea what they're doing wrong - or what they're not doing that they should be.

There's not only marketing to consider on the listing side, and search on the buyer's. There's knowledge of laws, of procedures. There's negotiating tricks that put you into a better position, or prevent someone from disadvantaging you. There's sucker bait, and being able to recognize it - or far more than someone who doesn't do this for a living can. There's buyer qualification issues and property maintenance issues. Do you know how to spot them? Here's a couple free hints: The answer to the first has nothing to do with prequalification letters, and the answer to the second should not be, "Get an inspection!" The former are a waste of paper and the latter is leaving an issue to be resolved at the final point of no return and hoping it gets caught there, and hoping the other side is willing to renegotiate the agreement in accordance with your views as to what reasonable is. There are location issues, condition issues, amenities issues, price issues, market issues, financing issues, and issues that mix several of these.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch in the real world or in real estate. You can be careful, do your own due diligence, pay the fees for superior service, and get someone who acts as an effective guide to big game, or an effective charter sportfisher, or you can pay your little toll and likely end up as the fish or venison on the table. Yes, it's work. No, it's not easy. If it was, anyone could do it just as well as anyone else. Since that is not the case, then we need to consider alternative hypotheses, and using the one that best fits the facts.

The people who habitually dine well on fish and big game? Either they buy and sell enough real estate in that area that they are effectively agents themselves, or they've learned what a fantastic investment paying a good guide is. Yes, the good guides can also eat very well off their profession. That doesn't change the fact that you end up with a better dinner, even considering the chunk of meat you paid them, and if it keeps you from being the meat on the table, well, you make your own call how much not having your financial antlers nailed to a wall somewhere is worth to you. Think of it as financial evolution in action.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I recently got an email from a reader that was coming into a property as I left. I dropped my card and we did the lockbox shuffle thing, then there was an email when I got back to the office that said, "That was ME with the other agent! What did you think about the property?"

No.

What I think is that if you're not going to give me the opportunity to earn the business, I'm not going to put my license, my insurance, and most importantly, my reputation on the line. I am in business to make money. I am not a charity. I earn my money by advancing your interests, by saving you more money than I cost, by preventing you from getting into bad situations, by warning you about them and knowing what protective or ameliorating actions to take before it all blows up. If you want to brag that you did it without an agent, you are not a potential client - but you're not someone I'm going to give free advice to, either. I don't begrudge "do it yourselfers" coming in to read my websites, but as I've made clear on many occasions, there's a world of difference between general knowledge and knowing how to diagnose whether there is a problem, if so, knowing what that problem really is and what is causing it, and knowing all the tradeoffs between the various methods of solving it. All of this stuff is "free" to clients, or at least, part of the package. But if I do it where you're not my client, not only am I possibly creating an agency relationship despite the fact that I'm not getting paid, but I'm removing some of the most important reasons why you should do business through me.

I'm going to decline to do that.

There seems to be a fundamental confusion on the part of many people. They want free information as to where the bargains are, free information on how to handle all the issues and problems that pop up, free opinions on the state of the property, free information on how to fix it up for maximum profitability, free this, free that, free everything. Then they turn around and say "Agents don't do anything!" Kind of like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Agents aren't just about putting the property into MLS, putting up a lockbox, and on the buyer's side, opening the door so you can take a look, no matter how many people tell you otherwise. Maybe that's what the shake and half-bake agent at the do nothing discounter says, or the "do it yourself" real estate author trying to sell fairy tale books. There are people out there who are fully capable of working without an agent - but they don't make requests for basic information like these examples. They realize that by being unwilling to have an agent get paid, they're assuming these tasks and decisions themselves. Folks who are qualified and able to do it themselves are sharp cookies - sharper than many agents who benefit from large advertising budgets. I admire that sort of do-it-yourselfer for being sharp and dedicated enough to take on the difficulty of real estate as well as whatever else they do for a living. But if you're asking about basic questions, you're not one of them.

Agents are paid on a unique basis. It takes anywhere from weeks to months of work to earn a pay check, and the whole thing can fall apart at any time, and if it does we make nothing. Yes, it may seem like a large number of dollars, but we don't get to keep all of those dollars. Outside of the real estate field, I can think of exactly one example of this, and that's lawyers taking the case on a contingency basis, who make thirty to forty percent of every dollar they recover, not a mere 2.5 to 3% of the amount in question. By that standard, agents are ridiculously cheap. We're assuming all of the transaction risk, and we're at many times the liability risk of the legal profession, where even if your lawyer was a grossly incompetent tool who took bribes from the opposition, you have to get through members of a profession with more history of protecting fellow members than any other. Lawyers have written the law so that lawyers are less responsible to their clients than anyone else. But real estate agents get scrutinized by lawyers, so that is not the case with us.

What you're doing by asking for free advice is no different than asking for a free steak from your supermarket, a free cake from your bakery, or free legal advice from your lawyer. Actually, it's worse because there's no prospect of a business relationship or income from it, and there is potential liability. Your supermarket might occasionally give you a free steak because of your continuing custom and other purchases - mine's done it twice, actually. A bakery you go to anytime there's a birthday or other reason for a party might give you some freebies because you spend a lot of money there. Your lawyer might decide not to bill you for an unrelated discussion of another issue you ask about after the main business is done - but in all of these cases, it's due to an ongoing business relationship. If you asked for such favors without the relationship, the answer would definitely be "no". For an agent who gives free advice to non-clients, you're putting yourself on the line liability-wise, without the paycheck at the end. I'll give free consultations to prospective clients, I'll go over your situation and all of the other stuff. All contingent upon a successful transaction. If there isn't one, it's because you were working with another agent and they got the job done better and first, which is a risk I willingly assume. But the general doctrine in real estate is "If there is no transaction, there is no foul and therefore no liability" This is why slimy loan providers get away with so much, and if there's another agent who did the transaction, they're on the line, not me.

But if there is a transaction with no other agent, and I gave advice on it, I'm put my license and my pocketbook on the line. If I do that when I'm not getting paid, why should people use me as an agent? How the heck am I going to feed my family as an agent? Which means no more expertise for those who would use me as an agent, do a transaction, and get me paid.

This applies just as strongly to people who want to use other agents, but use my expertise. It's not for nothing that one of the recurring themes here is firing bad agents and learning enough not to hire them in the first place. There are way too many bad agents out there. Many of them are involved in a lot of transactions, because they do know how to market themselves even if that's the only thing they do know. Chances are that if you need to ask another agent's opinion, you should fire the one you've been with. My expertise is for my clients - you want it, you've got to be one of them.

I am willing to work hourly instead of contingent. But that requires you being willing to write a check to the brokerage right away rather than being able to lump it in with the costs of a successful transaction. It's not what people think of as being cheap, either. Most people aren't willing to part with that sort of cash, deluding themselves that they'd rather have what they think of as a "free" transaction. To be fair, it's usually much cheaper to sign the agency agreement where I get paid contingent upon a successful transaction. Doing real estate agency right is a very time intensive thing. I've usually got 200, 300, or more hours invested in a client before the transaction closes. Multiply that by my consulting rate (that some people really do pay), and you've got a very tidy sum; far in excess of what I make on transactions under a million dollars or so for even a 200 hour investment, and I don't do many million dollar transactions. And on hourly rate, there is no possibility of me not getting paid when the transaction fails to close because something made it fall apart. I did the work, I put in the time, you owe me the money. So when you really think about it, the normal small percentage, contingent upon closing, is an incredibly good deal for the client. Many people get freaked out when they see what agents make for a transaction, but considered in context of what a good agent provides it is both incredibly cheap and incredibly cost effective.

So unless you're one of those folks who really does know enough to do it themselves, make sure you've got a good agent who will do the work themselves instead of delegating it to a ten dollar an hour new hire fresh off the street. If they're not a good agent, fire them and find another - because the money we make is too much to spend for a bad agent. Finally, understand that what agents agents make is very much worth the cost of the money they make, and having them make that money is the price of having the end result of the transaction not only be more profitable to you, but reliably result in fewer and smaller problems down the line. If you're one of those who really doesn't need an agent, I'm not threatened and more power to you. But people who really don't need an agent don't ask me what I think of a property, how to price or market it, or how to handle the seemingly endless complicating details that can and really do crop up in most transactions. Nor do people with a good agent need to ask other agents those questions.

For everyone else, get yourself a good agent. If you're not in the areas I work, there are other agents that work on the same basis. Look around, read their websites - you can find them if you try. But if all the posts on the website are about sales and marketing, that's kind of a red flag that they're not really a good agent, and you should keep looking. Yes, sales and marketing are important for listing - they're what gets a property sold, or at least offers on it. But offers, even an accepted offer, does not necessarily translate into a sale, and it's a sale that sellers want. On the buyer's side, marketing means very little. Indeed, the ability to pierce and deflate marketing claims is one of the hallmarks of a good buyer's agent. Both buyer's and seller's agents need a lot of specific problem solving ability. And buyer's agent or seller's, if marketing is all they can do you need to keep looking for another agent.

Caveat Emptor

I am about to close on a condo unit. At the last minute, we received the resale document from the management company. All units are being assessed a one time charge of $3000 due in full Nov. 1 for roof repairs needed. I have not closed yet, but we are in contract. Who is responsible to pay this assessment? The current owners (sellers) or me, the buyer? I do not want to pay for this assessment as I am not the unit owner at the time this special assessment was placed.

This is a good question, and applies not only to HOA assessments, but property taxes, etcetera. The owner of record as of the assessment date is responsible.

However, assessments of this size generally have to approved by the association at large, so there was almost certainly a vote of the owners, so they knew about the assessment, and it should have been disclosed to you. Even if the owners at large didn't vote, it shows up in the minutes of the board, which the board is required to inform the owners of. The current owner knew, or should have known, and kept it to themselves in violation of the law. Most states treat this as fraud on the current owner's part (talk to a lawyer in yours). One more issue is why did the condo certification not show this assessment?

As for you reaping the benefits, that would be the case if they paid it now and you bought the day after. Tough cookies for them. It's part of owning communal property. The only way to determine who owes the assessment is who owns the property on the assessment date, but that doesn't mean that known assessments don't have to be disclosed. Indeed, homeowner's association information disclosure is a standard feature written right into all the standard WINFORMS contracts.

If they had disclosed this like they should have, it's likely you would have negotiated something as part of the purchase contract. As it is, you now have them in a hammerlock, because even if the assessment is due after the contracted closing date, their failure to disclose does mean that a reasonable person might not have entered into the contract you did. Even if it's not criminal fraud, it is a legal tort, and you're likely to recover legal fees and maybe damages if you sue (again, talk to a lawyer before you draw any lines in the sand). If they're smart, they'll pay the assessment out of sale proceeds and save themselves all that. On the other hand, if they were smart, they wouldn't be in this predicament, would they?

You probably have the option of bailing out, as well, even if the contingencies have all expired. Of course, all of the standard warnings about your deposit apply. Just because it falls out of escrow doesn't mean the escrow company will return the deposit. The other side has to agree, or you've got to get a judgment. Again, they're likely to end up responsible for your legal fees as well as their own and not getting the deposit anyway, so it would be smart for them to just agree. Unfortunately, all too many people aren't smart - they're hoping to scam something. The vast majority of the time, it costs them more than they might possibly have scammed even if they were successful.

This all applies to property tax assessments as well, except that around here the title search should have disclosed that, and it should have been on the title commitment (aka preliminary title report). Nonetheless, the owner and their agent are still responsible for disclosing it in a timely manner, although the exact period from acceptance of the contract varies. Ditto Mello-Roos assessments here in California, although there's a space in MLS itself for disclosing those. It's very rare for there to be a pending Mello-Roos, as they're used to pay for installing public utilities in new developments.

One more thing: Your buyer's agent should have covered all this. If you decide to bail out of this transaction, fire them. If you've been using the listing agent as a Dual agent handling both sides of the transaction, you've just had a practical demonstration in one of the hundreds of reasons why that is a very bad idea. Go get yourself a Buyer's Agent that is going to work on your behalf.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Some fathers, sad to say, are not involved in their children's life beyond conception. Maybe it was just a one night stand and they have no idea they even have a child, maybe they were involved with the mother on some longer term basis and left, never to return. I've seen the term "sperm donor" applied to such fathers many times. I think it's equally applicable to the common concept of the buyer's agent.

The real estate business is set up around the listing of property for sale. NAR and all of its subsidiary associations are built upon the listing agent and being responsible to sellers, if that. One of the big reasons why most agents center all of their efforts upon listings is because they will pick up buyer clients who don't know any better simply by virtue of listing property. Many of the best listing agents I know think of the buyer's agent as an afterthought. The usual come-on is to rebate part of the "Cooperating Buyer's Broker" percentage to the buyer client in order to drum up business, with predictable results. The "Cooperating Buyer's Broker" percentage set up in MLS was an afterthought to encourage listing agents who picked up the confidence of one set of buyers during an open house to show their property, and for many years (until the courts started hammering on it) a buyer's agent was required to accept subagency for the seller, giving the seller their primary allegiance. Even today, that's the way a lot of agents think because they (or their trainer) learned the business when that was the case, and they think that buyer's agency is just a little bit of paperwork. But that is not the case; indeed representing a buyer's agent's job thusly is a recipe for disaster. There's a lot more to being a good buyer's agent than filling out a little bit of paperwork.

The fact is that choosing someone who's trying to sell you one particular house is a rotten way to pick a buyer's agent, almost guaranteed to get you someone who's just trying to turn a transaction. Fact is that in that situation, they should be focusing all of their effort on getting you to buy the house they showed you, that they have a listing agreement for, that they have agreed to carry a fiduciary responsibilty towards the owner of. This means trying to sell that property, not trying to pick up buyer clients by dangling your listed property out there as a lure for buyers to make contact. Tina Teaser is a horrible listing agent, and probably even worse as a buyer's agent.

I do not know how the urban legend about an agent being a disinterested party got started. It serves the interest of the huge chains that control the National Association of Realtors (and subsidiary associations) or it would have been firmly squashed by now, but it is completely false. An listing agent owes a fiduciary duty to the seller, a relationship which legally requires them to place that seller's interests above their own. They theoretically owe a duty of fair and honest dealing to all, but that is much harder to enforce legally, and not nearly so honored. As evidence, all of the listing agents who say they've got multiple offers when that is not the case.

A buyer's agent is precisely the opposite, owing a fiduciary duty to the buyer, but "only" fair and honest dealing to a seller. As for dual agency (representing both), would anyone like to tell me how anyone is supposed to serve two masters with diametrically opposed interests while preserving fiduciary duty to both? It'd be like trying to serve in the Union and Confederate armies simultaneously, shooting bullets back and forth with the aim of hitting targets that include yourself. It can't be done. Every agent needs to pick a side and stay on it for at least the duration of the transaction.

Too many people only pick their buyer's agent after they've already settled on a property, with the result being that said buyer's agent is all too often the listing agent, or someone with an economic motivation NOT to speak up and tell you you shouldn't buy that property, or that you should buy it only under such terms as require major negotiation and a significant probability of a seller who is unwilling to be rational. "Sperm donor" agents is a charitable description of such activity. Yeah, you can probably get the property by giving the seller everything they want, but do you want the property that badly that you're willing to potentially deal with years of problems costing thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, until you find out that you can't sell it because of something your buyer's agent should have told you before you bought?

The fact is that a buyer's agent is more important than a listing agent. You're going to be living with the results of what the buyer's agent does for as long as you own the property at an absolute minimum. Most likely for the rest of your life. It isn't just a matter of "you paid too much" or "You paid more than you needed to," although those are huge factors. All of the negative issues that should have been brought up before you made an offer? Blame your buyer's agent. Crummy resale value due to floorplan, location, etcetera? Blame your buyer's agent. Nobody wants it due to some unfixable negative factor? Blame your buyer's agent. Houses with large and recurring repair bills? Blame your buyer's agent. Possibly in conjunction with other professionals such as inspectors and engineers, but your buyer's agent should get a share of any blame. At minimum, for not pursuing the issue if an inspector, etcetera raised a red flag. The Buyer's Agent is far more important than a listing agent to your future happiness. Do you want to trust someone with a fiduciary duty to the seller to point this all out? Especially given that if they do point it out, they are violating that fiduciary duty? "Known violator of fiduciary duty" seems like it would be a slam-dunk reason not to use them for your agent to me. This isn't a court of law and you don't need the verdict of a jury - you were a witness to the violation. You're not trying to send them to jail - only to determine whether or not they're a worthy guardian of your hard earned (or yet to be earned) money.

Many buyer's agents don't want to say negative things about the property they show. That's like a pilot who doesn't want to take off or fly the airplane; they only want to land. It's part of the job they take on with buyer's agency. I know how much harder it makes it to sell property, believe me. It's still part of the job. If they're not doing it, they're not buyer's agent's no matter what they call themselves. They're the agency equivalent of sperm donors.

It is dead simple to find a good buyer's agent. You (the consumer) only have to know one thing in advance: Sign only nonexclusive agency agreements. This lets you work with all the agents you want to until you find one that really does the job. You can have dozens of non-exclusive agreements in effect, allowing you to shop effectively for a buyer's agent by giving them all a chance - you simply stop working with the ones that don't measure up.

You should have at least one buyer's agent before you look at property. One of your buyer's agents should accompany you every time you visit a property you might like to buy, especially developer new construction. If you visit a property without your agent, you may be waiving your right to have a buyer's agent. I've heard from a couple dozen people in the last few months that were completely hosed by developers, but there's nothing I or any other agent can do after the transaction has already closed.

There are major rewards for sellers who make a property appear just a little bit better than it is. On a $500,000 property, it's pretty easy to make it look like it's worth another $50,000. Misplaced Improvements, Vampire Properties, unpermitted additions, just plain old money pits and properties with less obvious defects are out there. Just last week I had someone tell me via email "I just realized what a snakepit the property market is!" like it was some kind of revelation he'd just had. Once you buy, you are on the hook and it is very difficult (if not impossible) to undo the transaction. You might get lucky on your own, or with a "sperm donor" buyer's agent, but is that something you're willing to bet hundreds of thousands of dollars upon? Remember, it is very possible to lose this bet - people find out they lost it after the fact every day. Admittedly, you can still lose the bet with the best buyer's agent in the world - but it's a lot less common.

A good buyer's agent does a lot of work. This work saves their client a lot of money hassle and work way more often than not and people who don't want a buyer's agent find out why they really needed one after the fact.

Find a buyer's agent first, before you start looking at property. Get comfortable with them, expect them to say things that shoot holes in most property. That's their job, and there really is no such thing as a perfect property. It may be harder to persuade yourself to put in an offer on a property with known defects, but would you rather know ahead of time or not know? The defects are still there, either way. A good buyer's agent will tell you about them. A sperm donor agent will not. Avoid the sperm donor agents, and fire them as soon as you identify them. Knowing enough to only sign non-exclusive agency agreements allows you to fire them pretty much at will, by just not working with them any more.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Market segmentation is what happens when certain things are much more in demand than others. For instance in the hot market brought on by the tax credit of 2009, the central area of San Diego was in high demand, simply because it's so close to everything. That's where the jobs are, all the cool nightclubs and restaurants, places to go and things to do. The Eastlake area was in very high demand, because you could get an almost new highly upgraded 3000 square foot house for half what the developers were selling them for five years previous. The North County Coastal region was probably hotter than anything else, because of the common belief of being where all of the really wealthy people live - the strip between Del Mar and Carlsbad has long been some of the most desired real estate in the world, and Rancho Santa Fe is the most expensive Zip Code in the country.

Once you get away from those areas, however, things were a lot more friendly to buyers. Some clients put in an offer on a property in Escondido, and some others on a property in Ramona, and instead of competing against a dozen or more offers, I'm pretty sure we're the only offer despite what one of the agents is telling me. La Mesa saw movement, but not anything like what happened in North Park despite being maybe 6 miles further east and usually being able to get to Mission Valley and points north quicker from my house than from most of North Park, simply because it's such a pain to get out of North Park. Downtown might be five minutes longer from La Mesa. South Bay is usually quicker from La Mesa. The houses are similar construction built at comparable times, and on average the La Mesa houses are larger and situated on bigger lots. Yes, gas is headed back to $5 per gallon because our current government isn't going to follow up on what President Bush did to drive the price down, but don't confuse "lesser distance" with "use less gas getting where you need to go." North Park is a horrible place to drive when you consider anything but the nightlife right there.

Pretty much every area is seeing more movement in the market than just a few months ago, but some areas are seeing a normal market with give and take, while others are seeing a white hot seller's market with ten or more offers on everything. Those extremely hot markets are seeing a lot of movement and if it weren't for HVCC preventing honest evaluations, we would have seen an even stronger recovery.

Some offers are more equal than others, and the new appraisal standards make them even more so. An "all cash" offer beats everything else for the same number of dollars. Offers under 70% loan to value offers beat everything except "all cash". Offers with twenty to thirty percent cash down come next in line. Exactly what beats what gets complicated and varies from property to property, but absolute bottom of the barrel is minimum down payment FHA loans. If you've got something near the top of this ladder, competing in the white hot areas may be something you can profitably do, particularly if you're willing and able to waive the appraisal contingency. Those areas are going to see rapid price appreciation in this environment, particularly if the industry forces lined up against it (NAR and NAMB, among others) manage to get those new appraisal standards repealed.

If, on the other hand, you're one of those trying to buy with minimum down FHA loan (or something else way down the preference ladder), you're not going to be able to compete with the offers at the top of the ladder. It's not really completely reasonable, because FHA standards aren't nearly so obnoxious as they to be, but they still take longer, have more opportunity to fall apart, and require more from sellers, even if you're not asking for seller paid closing costs. If you are asking for a seller paid contribution, then the sellers are understandably going to want an even higher offer from you to offset those costs, as well as a premium to convince them to sell to you rather than the people coming in with a conventional loan with 25% down. This raises the specter of whether or not the property will appraise for the necessary value to consummate the transaction, with it being increasingly unlikely. Lenders in particular are unwilling to consider these sorts of offers for lender owned property because they often require the lender to spend money fixing up the property and can then fall apart anyway, the ultimate bad trip for them.

So what buyers in this situation need to do is zig when everybody is zagging. Look in the less trendy areas where the competition isn't so severe. Consider properties that are solid, but not necessarily so visually appealing. In such a situation as yours and a market such as this, you want to offer on properties where you may be the only offer, or only need to compete against people in similar situations. It isn't forever and you don't have to stay there the rest of your life. It may take longer for property appreciation to hit these sorts of properties, but it will hit when people start to realize that San Diego is never going to be this affordable again. Remember 2002 and 2003, when people were glad to get a rotten little tiny property in bad shape (and way out in the boonies) even though there was no way their family was going to fit into it? Those days are coming again. Proportionally, those properties will see even more appreciation from this point than those that are already highly sought after. I'm advising people with lots of ready cash to buy as many condos as they can, as condos have been hit especially hard in the downturn. And as I've said a time or two, buying such a property makes it likely you'll get what you really want sooner. The ability to harness leverage in your favor is more powerful than any other investment you can make, if it succeeds. The current environment makes carefully structured plays on leverage very likely to succeed. Not guaranteed, as
There is No Such Thing as a Risk Free Investment, but very likely to succeed.

There is always some segmentation in the real estate market, but we're seeing a higher level of segmentation now than I have ever seen in the past. Some types of property are more attractive to the aggregate market than others, and command a higher price as well as higher demand for them, and people are fighting like
gingham dog and calico cat over them. But those properties few people are considering now because people are still used to the buyer's market we had can be obtained more easily and for a bigger discount now simply because everybody is competing for the big beautiful properties in trendy areas will show a larger percentage gain later, when the big beautiful properties in trendy areas are completely out of reach, and large amounts of people start looking for substitutes because that's all they can have. The big beautiful properties in trendy areas are doing very well right now, thank you. They are quickly returning to nearly their peak price levels and the time to get a real bargain on them was a year or so ago. But the substitute properties, while severely lagging now, will catch most of the way up later, meaning that money invested in them will earn a higher return and quite likely enable those who do so invest to afford the big beautiful property in a trendy area once it does.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Here are the facts of the situation, whether you're talking about San Diego or Manhattan, the Bay Area, Los Angeles, or any of the other densely packed, high cost areas where all the employment and career opportunities are.

Fact 1: Land is expensive. The cheapest unimproved little 8000 square foot irregular lots in the area I work most - no tests done, no utilities on the lot, even though they may be close, no permits whatsoever and zoning R1 at best - run just under $200,000. Matter of fact, I consider that one basically unsuitable for housing due to the freeway that runs through where the back yard would be. Here's the worse news: Prices are going to get higher. They're not making any more land. Demand is increasing. More people want to live in those high density areas every year. More businesses want to open. Not far from my office, there's a 9500 square foot R1 lot someone is buying for about $250,000 with a condemned residence on it. He's going to have to scrape it himself, and assume all risk of the city issuing the permits for new construction, and he was glad to get it, even though he knows the soil needs to be repacked also. (Manhattanites may jeer at the low price if they'd like - for now). Land is a scarce good in high density areas - the very places where everyone wants to live, needs to live, because they have to live within commuting distance of their career. Lots like this are where we're going to get buildable lots in the future, and usually, those purchasing them are going to pay for the single family residence that happens to sit on it now. There. Is. No. More. Dirt.

Land with residential structures, specifically, 8000 square foot lots that happen to have one residential structure are equally costly, in and of themselves, as the 8000 square foot lot next door which happens to have six residential structures, Or a commercial warehouse, manufacturing facility, office building, etcetera. They use the same amount of area on the earth's surface. With the exception of location and the soil that happens to be there, everything else that's been done to that land is completely artificial. This starts with the utilities that may or may not be there, extends through zoning and conditional use permits, and arrives at specific structures that may be in existence. All artificial. Absolutely nothing to do with any natural virtue of one parcel over another.

The first statistic I find says that cost of construction per square foot is roughly $150, while commercial buildings sell for roughly $300 per square foot locally. So, you can pay $200,000 for that lot, build one fifteen hundred square foot building, and sell for roughly $450,000, having made $25,000 net (450-225-200), and that's providing there's no existing structure. Second Choice: You can build a huge 3000 square foot house that relatively few people can afford at $700,000, netting twice as much (700-200-450=50). Or you can build six twelve hundred square foot two story buildings (or six one story units, three upstairs and three down), still have space for some kind of communal outdoor area, sell for $360,000 each, and make $2,160,000, leaving $880,000 net, still maybe $600,000 if you had to pay for the single family residence that used to be on it as well. I'm intentionally neglecting transaction costs, by the way, which swing the figures even more decisively in favor of the high density alternative. Question: Under which of these two scenarios is it more likely that they'll cut the price? Under which is it more likely they'll raise it? Question: Even if the price isn't cut, which of these two alternatives can more people afford? Which is a more efficient use of the land? Which ends up giving the better return on investment, indicating that more of them will be built? There's hardly an infinite supply of either, but which is likely to remain more affordable, as builders build more and more of them in relation to the alternative? Shared lots, particularly when paired with communal outdoor areas, make a whole lot more economic sense than single family residences, they will always be more plentifully available, and the more demand is placed upon a given amount of land, in the form of people wanting to live, work, and play there, the more strongly the economics will favor shared lots. New Yorkers have been used to this for decades. Now, some other areas of the country are becoming just as solidly built upon, if not yet nearly to the depth Manhattan has seen. In fact, by the standards of most cities worldwide, Manhattan isn't particularly dense. Many affluent old world cities have it beat like an dirty old rug when it comes to density per square mile. It's just that it seems dense by comparison with the rest of the US, where we have long been accustomed to lebensraum.

Corollary: The closer to commercial and recreational opportunities a particular parcel is, the more desirable it is. For those skimming this in their sleep, this means the price of that land is raised by people competing more strongly for it. This is one of those things everybody knows (ask people whether the lot by the beach is more expensive than the one twenty miles inland), but few people stop to think about all of the implications. The closer you want to live to the commercial zones, the closer you need to live to all the commercial zones, the more valuable the underlying land is and the more likely it will have some sort of communal lot arrangement. It doesn't matter if you don't drive, can't afford a car, or what, any more than nature cares how badly you want to fly in applying the force of gravity to you. It's nothing personal, any more than the saber tooth picking out one of our ancestors for dinner was after payback, movies or no. It's just a fact of the universe, and the fact that it's economics, measured in dollars, does not make it any more mutable than if we were talking about the thrust of the rocket, measured in Newtons.

For those reading this whose response to the above is governmental in nature, you cannot mandate the building of more affordable detached single family residences. The economics is not there to support it. Developers will build what can make them a profit. They won't build what won't make them a profit. Putting up regulatory hurdles only makes the affordability threshold rise further - if they have to pay an extra $100,000 to get the permits, they need to make $100,000 more in order to build anything. You can have the city, the state, the federal government subsidize individual people into them, but that amounts to giving a band-aid to a decapitated body, economically, because the number of people who can be thusly accommodated is microscopic as compared to the number of people there are who can't afford where prices are now, let alone where they are going if you try this route. Furthermore, limitations on the benefits when these people sell such units short-circuits all of the economic reasons why people should get into home-ownership. It amounts to creating, not a class of homeowners, but a class of privileged renters! It's not even permanently privileged renters. Those units of these "low cost housing" I've been involved in have clauses where if the bureaucratic or political masters can manufacture a reason, you can be dispossessed. If there are no such restrictions on the sale of the unit, then the lucky recipients get a windfall at the expense of taxpayers and/or everyone else who buys within the development! Kind of like forcing taxpayers to buy hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of lottery tickets per year at the point of a gun, with the suckers getting about their current fifty cents per dollar back, only in the form of real estate rather than cash to those few lucky winners. Except, such winners won't be random. It's like if the bureaucrats and politicians could pick the lottery winners, because they can. But I digress.

My point is this: in high density areas, single family detached homes are going to get less and less affordable from this point on. So, for that matter, is everything else. Go back to supply and demand. Demand, which is to say, population of people who want to live there, is increasing. Supply is constant. If I have three apples to sell, and there's only two people who want one, the price is very low. If I have three apples to sell, and there's three hundred people who want one, I set up an auction and the three people willing and able to pay the highest prices get apples, while I get a lot more money than the first case. Same principle with real estate. It doesn't matter that the other 297 people can't afford apples. It matters only at which point that 297th person drops out of bidding, leaving the remaining three winners.

(Some people are going to note that we have to put those 297 people somewhere, which is true, but that's not the concern I'm addressing here, although I will state we can plan to do so in a way that's economically logical, or it will happen anyway, no matter what the law and the planning commissions may say. The first way will be a lot more pleasant for everybody.)

If you're in a high density area, you can leave or stay. If you are able to leave, as for instance, retirees can, you're not who I'm planning for here. If you're one of those few who are sufficiently affluent to be able to afford whatever the economic costs are, you don't really care. Real Estate is still going to be every bit as fantastic an investment as it has always been. In fact, the higher the demand goes, the better the investment it's going to be. Real Estate does not increase, over the long term, at the same rate as wages. It increases at that rate plus an additional factor to reflect increasing demand in a constant supply market.

Suppose in my previous example, that I have some magical way to convert one apple into ten oranges? Persons 288 through 297 get together and outbid number 298. They can't have an apple. They decide, however, that it they can't have an apple, they do want an orange and are willing to pay for it. Between them, they outbid person number 298 for that third apple, and have me convert it into ten oranges so that they each can have one. I make more money, and persons 288 through 297 are happy, also. The only person who's unhappy is person 298, who then decides that if he can't have that apple, either, he at least wants an orange, and so he goes and trades some of his money to person number 288, who, if he doesn't have an orange after he makes the deal, does have more money than he started with, assuming it's a willing sale. So now I'm not the only person who has made a profit. Person 288 has also made one. Similarly, person 299, who observed person 298's experience, and still has his apple, voluntarily decides he wants to convert his apple into ten oranges, and offers me something I want in exchange for doing so (remember, I'm the one with the magic trick, aka the construction industry). Person 299 now has ten oranges, and proceeds to sell them to persons 279 to 288. This nets him enough to buy the remaining apple from person 300, who goes and buys person 279's orange with some of the proceeds, while person 299 decides that at this point they're happy and wants to keep this apple for themselves. Look at all of the people who made a profit and came out ahead because I could convert one apple (detached single family residence) into ten oranges (condominiums). Every single choice of every participant here was purely voluntary, and would not have been made if the recipient had not been made happier thereby. Note also, that there's eighteen people who have a place to live, where they would have been homeless if I (the construction industry) couldn't convert apples into oranges. These are all cold hard facts.

Like it or not, Manhattan and the surrounding area represent the way that other high density areas in this country are going to go. Let's leave all the non-essential stuff out of this, and consider only the economics. When the cost of land is high because there's a fixed amount, the only way you can create more space is along the vertical axis. You can go down, or you can go up. You can put multiple units on the same space where there was one. You can stack them fifty high or more. In any of these cases, it's no longer single family detached housing. The better you plan for your city's density, the more of your citizens have a home and the fewer that go homeless or have to relocate. My transform apples into oranges ability in the example raised the number of people who were able to afford housing by a factor of 7, but that's hardly the maximum possible.

If you don't have the money for an apple - single family residence - now, it's going to take some kind of major change in your circumstances to enable you to afford one. Get your law license, your medical license, win the lottery, make several million dollars in business, get a professional sports contract, something. Your circumstances are not going to change by magic. If you're a shoe salesman, even if you're making $20 per hour, and you're not doing something to change that, it's not likely to happen on its own. Matter of fact, it's going to keep getting more difficult. Right now there's 300 people who want to live in your area. What happens to the price when there's 500? A thousand? Ten thousand? This is an easy answer, straight from the pages of your first economics lesson. The price goes up, and not just in relative but in absolute terms.

If you don't have the money for an apple - single family residence - now, you can choose one of two options. You can decide not to play. Stay a renter forever, or at least until you realize what a mistake it is. Rents go up, and landlords have to pay mortgages and property taxes also. They can also decide to stop playing the landlord game and sell for what they can get at any time. I've heard from a lot of bitter renters who were displaced when their former landlords decided to take the money and run when the market was hot. Furthermore, the rental market is going to keep getting more expensive as the population, and therefore demand, increases also. Right at this moment, there's even more upwards pressure on the rental market as people who lost their properties through foreclosure need a place to stay. The vacancy rate locally was 2.6% when I originally wrote this. There is no way around one cold hard truth: Renting leaves decisions about your future in the hands of others, and of random fate.

Your second alternative is that you can decide to buy an orange - a condominium. Condominiums are going to see every bit of the long term gain single family detached housing will, at least proportionally. So you've only made $300,000 when your $300,000 condo doubles in price, as opposed to your $500,000 house doubling in price. Actually, I'll bet you that from this point on, in areas like San Diego, they see just a little bit more appreciation than single family detached homes. Right now, there's still a very large proportion of renters telling themselves they're going to own a house someday, but they're not interested in a condo. As that becomes more and more out of reach for them the majority of them - all of the rational ones - are going to switch their goal to the closest practical equivalent. Condos are never going to be as expensive as single family detached homes, but more people can afford them, and they're going to be more expensive per square foot of living space. Why? Because of the implicit cost of all that land that the single family detached home is not using for living space, which isn't taken into account. Because so many more people can afford a tenth of the lot than can afford the entire thing. When you've got the last single family residence on its own quarter acre lot on Manhattan, someone who sees the profit to be made in higher density construction is going to make you an offer you won't want to refuse, and eventually, you will sell voluntarily. Maybe that person will even be the owner, themselves, converting the lot into higher density housing.

This doesn't happen all at once. It happens piecemeal, over time, but it does happen. Already, I can take you back to the neighborhood I grew up in and the surrounding area. I can show you all of the buildings that weren't there thirty or thirty five years ago, and San Diego hasn't been completely built up anywhere near that length of time. Some of them were vacant land then. Most, however, have been converted from lower density to higher density. I cannot point to a single place that's gone from higher density to lower. People who are middle aged now or older have watched it happen in slow motion, so slow that all of the implications haven't sunk in to most of us, yet. Indeed, the slowness has allowed a lot of people to keep pretending it isn't happening. This doesn't change the fact that it is happening.

Some people don't like oranges (condos). For that matter, some people don't like apples (single unit detached housing). The ones who can afford single unit detached housing but prefer condos don't have a problem. The ones who can only afford condos but prefer single unit detached housing do. I've gone over the most obvious solution to this problem before, in Part 2 of Save For A Down Payment or Buy Now?. There are others, but they all involve similar principles of solution.

The bubble everyone (including me) was talking about a while ago is gone. In fact, it's more than gone. San Diego is experiencing a strictly temporary depression in prices, caused by psychological factors and fueled by governmental idiocy. When everything shakes out, the only thing that can cause it to be permanent is governmental idiocy. Mass media always paints things as being better than they are when they're good, and worse than it is when they're bad, causing people who believe mass media to over-react. This means opportunity, while it lasts, until a critical mass of people figure out that things aren't so catastrophic as they have been painted. Some people will see this article, and instantly decide to try to time the market. Don't. You'll mis-time it, with results worse than if you just acted. There are any number of studies that confirm this. When I first wrote this I had debated, in person and via email, three bubble advocates in the previous week. Every single one of them tried to start moving the goalposts on me, citing prices of college for the kids, prices of cars and this and that. These extraneous factors have been there for decades. They've never been absent. They're been living in the equation so long that people forget they've already been taken into account, even though they've been there all along. But that's the only way these folks with so much emotional investment in the bubble can pretend that prices are going to keep going down.

The condominium market, in particular, has been hit hard for several years. Stuff that was legitimately worth $300,000 several years ago declined in price to where $150,000 was a good offer. There are condo owners who wanted to sell four and five years ago who still have their units, but no one's been making offers. Part of this was "too much, too fast" - converting apartments to condominiums and building new condominiums, in the hope of cashing in on the rush, but the rate got above what were the current market requirements. This doesn't mean condos aren't going right back up in price once the housing market snake has digested that lump, especially with increasing demand as more people figure out their options are a condo or nothing.

The larger part, however, at least in my estimation, has been "elephant hunting." This is a well known phenomenon in just about any sales occupation, but real estate had been rewarding turning squirrels into elephants these last few years. The hardest part of making money as a loan officer or as an agent is getting clients to work with you, and it takes about the same amount of effort. When you've got a set of buyers (or borrowers) in front of you, the temptation is there to sell them the a larger home with a larger loan than they can really afford, so you get a larger commission. The sort of warm body loans that were available the last few years facilitated this practice. The people want to buy, but can't afford what they want? Instead of trying to talk them into limiting their budget to what they can afford, which risks them leaving your office and going to your competitor, sell them what they really want, with a stated income loan. If you need to lower the payment, make it a 2/28, spread it out over forty or fifty years, add an interest only period at the beginning, or just scrap all that and put them in a negative amortization loan from the get-go, further inflating your loan commission. I've seen estimates that over eighty percent of the sales locally at the peak of the market used one or more of these tricks in support of it. Like I said, turning squirrels into elephants so you can hunt elephants. These people should almost certainly have been buying condos, but weren't. Given the state and shape of the socio-economic pyramid locally, there should have been more condominiums bought and sold than single family detached housing, by a factor of about 3 to 2. That was not the case. The ratio was over 2 to 1 the other way. And if that's not quite a sufficient indictment of the ineffective regulation of the real estate profession (and financial ignorance of the American public) to measure up to Emile Zola "J'accuse!", it'll nonetheless have to do.

(I should mention that with all the political posturing about this, nothing has been done by the government to actually fix the problem. What actual change there's been that might repair the issue has been introduced solely by lender and investor policy)

In case you haven't been paying attention to the financial news lately, the loans that enabled these tricks are now gone. History, and they're not coming back for years at least, until the lenders develop collective amnesia again. Meanwhile, agents and loan officers who are used to hunting elephants are complaining that they're all gone. Well, they weren't really elephants in the first place, but the lax loan standards made it possible to get an elephant's worth of meat off them, at least for the agents, the loan officer, and the seller. The buyer and the lender, of course, ended up holding the sack. My sympathy for the lenders is non-existent. They knew better. My sympathy for these buyers, on the other hand, is great.

So the condo market has been dead due to the loans situation, while agents and loan officers hunted elephants who were really squirrels. Now that it's rectified, agents won't have a choice. If folks can only afford the price of a condo, It's condo or nothing. There are ways to come up with a down payment if you want to. Lack of down payment is not an insurmountable issue for responsible people, and objections to this amount to "I don't want to". Ability to afford the payments on the loan, however, is a question that cannot be dodged without dire consequence.

Let's hypothetically consider an FHA loan of $221,000 loan on a $225,000 condominium with homeowner's association dues of $250 per month. When I wrote this, for one point total retail, I had a thirty year fixed rate loan at 5.25%, with PMI of 0.55%%. Total payment on the loan is $1321.67, of which $1067 is tax deductible. Property taxes, at 1.25% (assumed - the base rate is actually lower), add $234.38 per month and are also deductible. Total: $1806 per month, and most buyers are going to get a significant amount of that back from lowered income taxes (married: roughly $150 per month, single, roughly $250 because the standard deduction is lower). Income needed, $4200 gross salary per month, or from just under $50,400 household gross per year, at most. This is well below area median income for 2006 of $64,900, and it's done with a sustainable loan, without any stated income tricks, without any special limited availability government programs for first time buyers, or anyone else, no MCC, nothing. These buyers are doing it completely on their own, without a large down payment. If they have a larger down payment, it gets a lot more affordable than this, fast.

Tell me you don't want a condominium, and I'll tell you that's fine, but I'm not going to let you pretend I didn't warn you about the consequences. Don't have the down payment? The fastest way to get it is to buy that condo, and I can prove it!

I've been aware for some time that I'm probably going to sell more condominiums than single family detached houses for the rest of my career. No, I don't have any objection to hunting elephants and in fact, yes, I would rather do so. It's just that there's more people who are going to be buying and selling condos out there than there are single family detached from now on, and I'd rather have the money from helping them than not have it, so I might as well hunt squirrels along with elephants. Not only will I make more money, those of my clients who do what is necessary to become elephants will likely come back with more business. And the fact that they listened to me about how to do it (and that this advice worked!) will be the obvious primary reason behind their ability to buy something bigger and more expensive later, making it even more likely they'll come back to me. Not that a commission on that $225,000 condo is squirrel feed, but when it leads to 2.5% of $600,000 to sell it in a few years as well as 3% of $1,000,000 when they can afford to buy that property they can't afford right now, my clients won't be the only ones smiling from ear to ear.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Okay, I did an article called Why Renting Really Is For Suckers (And What To Do About It). Fairness demands that I do a companion article on situations where buying is not a good idea.

There actually are some. First off, the math just plain works against it for less than about three years, as the transaction costs to pay for the acts of selling and buying can eat up more than your proceeds. If you know you're going to have to sell in less than three years, chances are that you shouldn't buy. This is not to say that professional speculators are stupid, just that they are playing with different assumptions than most people. If one victim isn't desperate enough to sell for thirty percent under the general market, they'll go find someone who is. But they don't buy for a place to live. They're buying with a professional eye towards making a profit, and sometimes they don't. If your situation is that you're looking for a home to live in, and you're going to have to sell it instead of renting it out after less than three years, chances are you shouldn't buy. In this instance, it's not the idea of being a property owner in general that is the major factor in the decision, it's how long you're going to own that property.

This is not to say that nobody has ever made money buying for less than three years. The decade long seller's market right here in California is the counterexample to that contention. But real estate appreciation happens when it happens, and you never know until afterward what it was. If people could predict the market with that much certainty, then it would make sense to try and time the market. They can't, and it doesn't, at least not for the ordinary person.

You shouldn't buy a particular property if you can't get a sustainable loan that you can afford. Setting your sights lower, for a property that can be obtained within your budget, is a better idea. If you don't have at least three years of a fixed rate on an amortizing loan you can afford, you should probably not buy. Five is my real comfort level, and it's better yet if you can afford something fixed rate, even if you choose a hybrid ARM in order to save money on your interest rate. The market returns 5 to 7 percent per year on average. That is a very different thing than five to seven percent every year. Some years see values shoot up 20%. Other years end up twenty percent down. If you have a sustainable, affordable loan, you'll pay some principal down and you should be able to refinance when the adjustment hits if there is one. This doesn't apply with negative amortization, interest only, or shorter term loans. Particularly if there's a prepayment penalty, you'll likely eat up all the principal payments you made with that prepayment penalty. Now suppose you got caught in a twenty percent down year? Over longer periods of time, things even out, trending towards the average return of 5 to 7 percent per year. But that's no comfort whatsoever to those people who bought into unsustainable loans on overinflated properties in the last few years and are now facing huge problems because they can't sell for what they owe, and they can't refinance into a payment they can make. I didn't do it to anyone; I could have made a lot more money if I was so willing. But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them out there.

The market is unpredictable. The cycle always turns. I cannot tell you precisely when, and neither can anybody else guarantee a time frame. Economic models are a lot more precise as to what than they are as to when. All I can tell you for sure is what is happening right now. The only time the value of your property is important is when you sell or when you refinance, but if you haven't got a stable loan, you're looking at what is essentially a mandatory deadline for refinancing, which is one of two times when your value is important. If the market doesn't support the refinance you need before that time, the eventual market upswing will be of no comfort. Eventually, I'm confident you'll make a better profit from real estate than you could anywhere else. But eventually can be quite a while, and if your time constraints don't stretch far enough, that's a problem. A big problem.

Third group of people who shouldn't buy is those without a sufficiently stable income, particularly if their available cash isn't enough to smooth out the bumps. If you need $6000 per month, and you make $24,000 in one whack about every four months, that might appear to be enough, but consider what happens if for some reason it is six months between paychecks? Once you're a couple of months behind and your credit score is toast, it doesn't make that go away if your next check after that is only two more months.

I think I've been clear enough on the evils of buying too much house for your income. People should not overstretch financially to buy a home, but the majority do. You get a month behind on rent, and it is a problem, but if you get a month behind on your mortgage, that's part of your credit score for ten years, and puts you in a whole different class of borrower for two. Plus you're likely to be behind on your next month, and the one after that. This is a lot less of a black mark for renters than it is for owners with a mortgage. If you find this out the hard way on a mortgage, then when you're ready and can otherwise really afford a mortgage, you can't get one or you can only get one on prohibitive terms. So save up enough to smooth out the bumps, and it certainly doesn't hurt to have a down payment also, as that will make the hurdles you have to get over with irregular paychecks that much lower.

That's basically it. If you think you have another one, I'm interested in it, but those are the only three I can think of. The mathematics and economics do generally favor home ownership, even without that generous tax allowance given for the interest deduction and state property taxes, but there are cases where the general rules get overridden. Contrary to what many people were saying not too long ago, you can lose money in real estate, as the fact that property values locally are down about 30 percent from peak should attest. You can also become financially crippled for years. Nonetheless, if you take care to keep it within the realm of what you can afford, and what you can afford to make payments on indefinitely, then the worst that is likely to happen is that you'll owe more than the property is theoretically worth for a while. If you don't need to refinance or sell during that period, that's just unimportant. In cycles stretching back hundreds of years, real estate has always come back to higher prices than before, even accounting for inflation. The critical thing is to make certain you can wait it out.

Caveat Emptor

Original here