August 20, 2011

A Slap on the Wrist for Standard & Poor’s?

Posted by martikilby under Mortgage Securities, Standard & Poor's | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

According to a NY Times article, the Justice Department is investigating whether or not there was anything improper about the ratings given to mortgage securities by Standard & Poor’s prior to the real estate meltdown.  As you’ll remember, the strong S & P ratings helped drive investor confidence in what turned out to be securities with terribly inflated values. 

The investigation actually started several months ago, prior to the U.S. credit rating getting whacked by S & P earlier this month.  But the credit downgrade added fuel to the fire as many questioned the calculations S & P used to determine our debt.  So if they miscalculated our national debt, could Standard & Poor’s have possibly made an error or two when rating mortgage securities in 2004 – 2006?  Or were their calculations driven by business motives rather than independent analysis?

The Justice Department investigation involves instances where it appears that some of the company’s analysts wanted to award lower ratings to some of the mortgage bonds, but were over-ruled by their business managers.  If the government finds enough evidence to suggest wrong-doing they will likely file a civil case again Standard & Poor’s.  It is not clear at this time if the investigation also involves the other two major rating agencies, Moody’s and Fitch.  Investigations have also been initiated by the SEC.

Now, I’m no Economics wiz, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if the S & P ratings of all of those subprime mortgage securities had been accurate and really were as risk-free and strong as they indicated, we wouldn’t be in this pickle now, would we?  By awarding troubled mortgage loans their highest ratings S & P reaped huge profits and contributed to the devastation of the real estate market and our economy.  How can a company be so irresponsible and yet still retain so much authority and power?  It would somehow be refreshing, (albeit unlikely), that Standard & Poor’s actually have to face some negative consequences for their apparent greed.

 

August 11, 2011

The 1% Rule and Buying Investment Property

Posted by martikilby under Buying Investment Property | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

With the number of homeowners declining, the demand for rentals increasing, prices and interest rates low, and the stock market in disarray, this is a good time to consider purchasing an investment rental property.  But before you buy, make sure you understand that what appears to be a great price isn’t necessarily what you should pay.

Most real estate investors in today’s market are looking for two things:  Building long-term equity, and cash flow.  Unless you simply need a write-off, a property should pretty much pay for itself through the rental income produced.  The potential rent is therefore an important factor in determining what you should pay for a property.

Before writing an offer on a single family home, a condo, or a multi-unit building, do your research.  If the property is currently rented, income information should be available from the owner or listing agent.  However, even in that case it is important to research the local rents to make sure the current rents match the market.   A good place to start your research is online, looking up similar properties for rent in the immediate geographic area.  Another method that works well in a condo complex is to simply walk around and ask people that you meet how much rent tenants pay for comparable units.  You’d be surprised how eager most people are to give you the information you need.

Once you know what you can expect to collect in monthly rent, determine how much cash you will put down and the amount of the mortgage you will have on the property.  The property should rent for no less than 1% of the amount of the mortgage.  Thus, if you purchase a property for $200,000, put 20% down and have a mortgage of $160,000, the monthly rent you collect should equal at least $1600 a month.

There are other considerations of course, such as taxes and HOA fees, etc., but this simple 1% calculation will serve as a good starting point to determine whether or not the property you are considering is worth the asking price.

Please don’t hesitate to call for more information about buying an investment property in Southern California.  There are some great deals that I’d love to share!

 

August 8, 2011

San Diego Short Sales: The Real Numbers?

Posted by martikilby under Exp[erienced Short Sale Realtor, Real Estate Sales Statistics, Short Sale | Tags: , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

In the world of real estate, being an effective representative for your client means staying on top of sales numbers and making sure that you have a clear picture of the market place.  So I spent some time today researching short sale numbers in San Diego County and found two interesting statistics: 

  1. There has been little change in the number of short sales that have closed escrow this year as compared to the same period last year.

                                      Detached Homes                Attached Homes

            2011                2172                                        1508

            2010                2074                                        1578

  1. The number of short sale listings that did NOT sell in the same period is much higher than I believe most people would expect. 

                                     Detached Homes                 Attached Homes

            2011                2371                                        1462

            2010                1769                                        1227

This means that roughly half of all short sale listings this year did not become successful sales transactions.  So what happened to these homes and their owners?  We can hope that some of them received permanent loan modifications or in some manner managed to reinstate their loans and keep their homes.  But it is likely that the majority became foreclosure statistics.

And why does the short sale listing failure rate seem to have increased this year over last?  Is it just because there were more attempted?  Are the bank requirements becoming more stringent?  Are there more inexperienced agents trying to handle the negotiations?

The answer is probably, “All of the above.”  But whatever the reason, don’t let your short sale become one of the failed statistics.  Make sure that you work with an experienced short sale Realtor who will pre-qualify you and your home and knowledgably guide your negotiations to a successful conclusion.

 

 

August 3, 2011

Principal Reductions Finally on the Table?

Posted by martikilby under Bank of America, foreclosure, loan modification | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

If I’ve sounded a bit like a broken record over the last 10 months, it’s because I strongly believe that principal reductions are an import key to ending the housing crisis.  People who are struggling to make payments on an upside down mortgage are more likely to avoid default if they are paying on a mortgage based on 2011 home values.  Fewer defaults mean more stable values and ultimately an end to the real estate crash.  And apparently some of the banks now agree.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bank of America is finally bringing principal reduction modifications to the bargaining table.  For months now, B of A and the nation’s other four largest servicers have been in discussion with state and federal officials in an attempt to settle charges of inappropriate activities in connection with foreclosure proceedings.  Investigations last September revealed that several servicers used illegal affidavits and faulty paperwork in their foreclosure practices, and the banks are now hoping to settle and avoid any further liability.

The state attorneys general have pushed for principal reduction as part of the settlement, but until recently the banks have refused.  The private negotiations have been going on for months, and the June 15th target for resolution has come and gone.  As a means of kicking the discussion into high gear, B of A has now offered principal reductions as a bargaining chip, and the other banks are expected to follow.

Of course, Bank of America is not offering principal reductions because they actually care about keeping people in their homes, but rather because they hope to make the problems caused by sloppy and illegal foreclosure practices go away.  But in any case, the end result could be the answer to the prayers of many homeowners facing default.

To follow this story subscribe below, drop me an email, or leave a comment.

 

August 2, 2011

Diary of a B of A Cooperative Short Sale – Part 1

Posted by martikilby under 2nd mortgage, Bank of America, Loan Servicing, mortgage, Short Sale Negotiation | Tags: , , , |
[2] Comments 

Of all the articles I’ve written, posts about Bank of America and their Cooperative Short Sale Program seem to draw the most attention.  Is that because people have been disappointed in the results?  Or are they nervous about potential problems?  Well, I thought it would be interesting to share the progress of a new B of A Cooperative Short Sale that I’ve just listed to see just how good, (or bad) the process really is now that the program has been around for a while.

This sale is a bit different than most short sales I’ve done, as the owner had already begun the Cooperative program when I was hired.  Thus a lot of the initial paper work was already in the system, and the bank had ordered an appraisal.  The turn-around time on the appraisal was fairly quick, and I was pleased to see that the suggested list price approved by the bank was reasonable according to all of my research, so at least we are not dealing with an unrealistic starting price.

We did lose a couple of days as I tried to connect with the B of A representative, who will be my primary contact, but we finally spoke and she seems pleasant and knowledgeable.

So just when I thought this might be smooth sailing, the homeowner received a notice that the 2nd mortgage had been sold to a new investor, and the servicing also transferred away from Bank of America.   So how do you sell a 2nd mortgage that is upside down?  There is absolutely no equity in the home to provide collateral backing for the 2nd TD, so it seems odd that it was sold at this stage of the game.

This of course throws a bit of a wrench into the works as I will now have to negotiate a totally separate approval with the new note holder, through the new servicing company…..once they even figure out that they have the account.  Sigh.  We will have to see how this affects the B of A approval process…really not sure what to expect at this point, but I’ll keep you posted.

 

July 17, 2011

Good News for Short Sale Homeowners

Posted by martikilby under 2nd mortgage, California SB 458, Short sale deficiency, Short Sale Negotiation | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

If you’re a California homeowner contemplating or in the process a short sale, here is some great news!  On Friday July 15, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 458 which prohibits a deficiency after a short sale for any 1-4 unit residential properties, regardless of whether or not the lender is the senior or junior lien holder.  This means that neither the 1st or 2nd mortgage holder can demand that the homeowner pay for any deficiency, nor can they file a deficiency judgment.  The law became effective on the 15th and applies to all escrows closing from that day forward. 

This is a huge relief for homeowners facing a short sale.  Up to this point, it was often the practice for a lien holder to file a deficiency judgment or request payment of thousands of dollars, prior to allowing the short sale escrow to close.  This was particularly true for 2nd lien holders who seldom recoup any money from the actual sales proceeds.

The new law however, does not prohibit lenders from negotiating for payment towards the deficiency from other interested parties such as relatives, buyers, and agents.  It also allows a homeowner to voluntarily make a contribution in the hopes of gaining a short sale approval.

As 2nd lien holders will no longer be allowed to demand compensation from the homeowner, my bet is that we will see an increase in the number of requests for payment by 3rd parties…especially the buyer and the agents.  So while this law is great news for homeowners in terms of avoiding recourse, it may present new challenges in negotiating approvals that are fair to all parties. 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions about this new law or subscribe to stay on top of the latest short sale news.

 

July 15, 2011

Buying a Home with Less Than Perfect Credit

Posted by martikilby under Buying a Home, Credit Scores, Loan qualification | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

As I’ve recently noted, getting a home loan these days can be extremely difficult unless you have a 20% down payment, a credit score in the mid 700’s and sufficient income so that your housing costs are no more than 28% of your gross income.  In fact, according to the Financial Institutions Examination Council, roughly 25% of all conventional home loan applications submitted in 2010 were rejected. 

These stringent qualification requirements are for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but luckily they aren’t the only game in town.  Today, more and more borrowers are taking advantage of the less demanding criteria for FHA loans. The Federal Housing Administration has been in existence since 1934 and has become the largest government insurer of home loans in the world today.

Although every lender might have slightly different requirements, here are the basics needed to qualify for an FHA insured loan:

  • Technically, 580 is the minimum acceptable score, but in practice lending institutions require a minimum of a 620 mid score.  The mid score is the middle score when credit is pulled from all three major reporting agencies; Experian, Equifax, and Transunion.
  • Housing expenses, (mortgage, taxes and insurance) must not equal more than 31% of your gross income, and all payments, (including cars and credit cards) must not exceed 43%.
  • The down payment must be at least 3.5%.  If the down payment is less than 10%, most lenders require a credit score of 640.
  • There is also an Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium paid at closing and usually financed into the loan.  This premium is 1.75% of the base loan amount.  There is also an annual premium paid on a monthly basis.  This amount will be based on the loan-to-value ratio.

An FHA loan is an excellent choice for first-time buyers, or anyone with less than perfect credit or a small down payment.  If you’re thinking of buying in San Diego,Orange orRiverside County, please give me a call.  The time to get qualified is before you start looking for a home.  There is nothing worse than finding the perfect home, only to discover you can’t get a loan!

 

July 11, 2011

Bank of America Facing Lawsuit

Posted by martikilby under Bank of America, HAMP, loan modification | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

For those of us in the industry, it hardly comes as any surprise that Bank of America has failed to help thousands of Americans receive a permanent loan modification through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).  And it now looks like they might have some explaining to do:  A judge has denied the bank’s request to dismiss a case involving tens of thousands of homeowners who claim they were refused help through the HAMP program.

As you remember, HAMP uses federal funds to help struggling homeowners.   Under the program, Bank of America is required to provide foreclosure alternatives and permanent loan modifications to eligible homeowners.

However, according to Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman, the firm representing the homeowners. Bank of America has refused to permanently modify the loans of thousands of borrowers, even after successfully completing a Trial Period Plan (TPP).  “The vast majority tell us the same thing: Bank of America claims to have lost their paperwork, failed to return phone calls, made false claims about the status of their loan and even taken actions toward foreclosure without informing homeowners of their options,”  said Berman.

In the lawsuit, Berman seeks to prove that Bank of America “intentionally postpones homeowners’ requests to modify mortgages, depriving borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from foreclosure.”

“The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits provided by taxpayer dollars financing TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest rates associated with stressed home loans,” Berman added.

The case will be limited to homeowners who entered a TPP, but were denied a permanent modification.  Judge Rya Zobel also ruled that homeowners in nine state, including California could pursue claims in their states where consumer protection laws are stronger. 

So if you’re a homeowner in the middle of trying to get a HAMPmodification form B of A, the outlook is not encouraging.  The federal government has cut-off HAMPfunds to Bank of America until they make improvements in how they administer the program, which could mean more foreclosures and short sales on the horizon for Bank of America borrowers.

 

July 1, 2011

Attention Renters, Landlords and Homeowners

Posted by martikilby under Buying a Home, California Law, Carbon Monoxide Detector, Home Ownership, Selling your home | Tags: , , |
Leave a Comment 

A new law goes into effect today requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all single family homes in California.  However, there seems to be some confusion about the exact requirements and how the new law applies to rental homes and apartments, so here’s what you need to know.

A carbon monoxide detector is required in all single family homes that have fossil-fuel burning appliances such as a gas heater, water heater, or stove, fireplaces, and/or an attached garage.  If you are the owner of a qualifying home that you rent to others or plan to sell, you must have a detector installed immediately.  If you rent a single family home, please contact your landlord or property management company to make sure that your home is protected.  All multi-family rental units have until January 1, 2013 to have the detectors installed.  Installation of the detectors is now required prior to close of escrow on all single family home sales transactions.

According to the Chimney Safety Institute of America, carbon monoxide poisoning kills approximately 200 people every year.  It is called the silent killer as the gas is colorless, tasteless, odorless and otherwise undetectable.  Most carbon monoxide accidents are caused by faulty LP and natural gas heating systems. 

The detectors cost $10 – $50 each and must be a model approved by the State Fire Marshal.  Like smoke detectors, they should be mounted high on the wall or ceiling and there should be one on every story of your home.  Some homes with alarm systems may have the detector connected to their existing system, so please check with your security company provider.

Symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include:

  • Shortness of breath
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting
  • Dizziness
  • Unconsciousness

If you or a family member has these symptoms, or the alarm on the detector goes off, get everyone outdoors, and then call for help. 

Please don’t leave yourself and your family unprotected.  Make sure your detector is installed today!

 

June 22, 2011

Home Prices Going Down, Down, Down

Posted by martikilby under Buying a Home, Home Ownership, Real Estate Values, Strategic Default | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

Anyone who knows me would probably say that I’m a fairly optimistic person, but lately it seems as though the real estate market is developing into a vicious cycle with no way to correct itself.   In a report released on Monday, the researchers at Capital Economics said that we could expect nationwide home prices to fall an additional 3% this year, bringing the year’s total decline to about 5%.  So, despite the fact that some markets inSan DiegoCountyhave seen modest gains in home prices over last year, overall, the picture is less than rosy.

So what are the driving forces behind this downward spiral?  Well, the obvious answer is that there are many complicated factors at play, but the cycle we’re seeing is really pretty simple:   Housing prices are falling due to low demand and too much inventory. Normally after a recession, home sales start to pick-up, but that’s not what we’re seeing.  Instead, demand is being strangled by increasingly stringent lending requirements which restrict buying power.  So instead of more buyers coming into the market to take advantage of the low interest rates, we’re seeing fewer that are able to qualify because of high credit score and/or high down payment requirements.   Even existing homeowners looking to sell and buy up or down are caught in a stalemate as most have limited or no equity to leverage against a new property. 

The cycle picks up momentum every time prices drop.  Lower prices, mean less equity for existing homeowners and for those with a mortgage, an increasing number of borrowers are choosing strategic default.  These voluntary defaults are adding to the foreclosure inventory already on the market and the estimated 5 million foreclosed homes lurking in the shadows.  And so the cycle continues; more foreclosures create a bloated inventory.  With an insufficient number of buyers able to buy, sales drop and prices fall, which breeds more foreclosures, and on, and on.

As I’ve noted before, I’m no economist and certainly don’t have all the answers, but there are clearly two actions that could put the brakes on falling prices and encourage increased sales:

  1. Congress should oppose the Quality Residential Mortgage (QRM) requirements being proposed.   The QRM would require an unnecessarily high down payment of 20% and impose a very stringent debt-to-income ratio for conventional loans.  The result would be that more borrowers would seek FHA loans, which in turn would likely raise qualification standards and insurance requirements.  The bottom line result will be fewer qualified buyers and fewer sales.
  2. Banks need to address the issue of negative equity by offering programs that provide principal reductions.  When a borrower feels that he/she is paying on lost equity that they will never recoup they are more likely to choose to default, adding to the inventory glut.

Do you have any ideas about breaking the cycle of falling prices?  I’d love to hear from you!

 

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »