Conforming Loan Limit Adjustment

Published
by
kevin
on November 11, 2008
in Banks and Lending
. 0 Comments

Before this year, one conforming loan limit applied to the entire country. The amount was $417,000 for a single family unit (since 2006). When Congress allowed for the increase in February of this year, it was done so based on 125% of an areas median home price. The floor was set to $417,000 and the ceiling to $729,750. This temporary increase was to sunset at the end of 2008.

In July the law became permanent, but the formula was changed. It became 115% of an area’s median home price with a floor set by the government and the ceiling equal to 150% of the floor. Last Friday, the Housing Finance Agency said the floor would remain $417 for 2009 which would then put the ceiling at $625,500.

The conforming limit for Monterey County has been set to $483,000 for 2009. In contrast, the Oakland / San Francisco Market have a limit of $625,500 as does Los Angeles, Santa Cruz and Watsonville. What will this do to the already struggling market in Monterey County? For those looking to take advantage of a traditional conforming loan, a down-payment of 35% on a $750,000 purchase would be needed, significantly impacting the pool of buyers positioned to purchase.

Part of the benefit of MCAR membership is the opportunity to take advantage of market professionals who truly understand the dynamics associated with their field of expertise. This week, I was fortunate enough to be able to discuss this issue in great depth with one of our members, Linda Guy. Given the constant fluctuation of the market throughout the country, it seemed to make sense to establish a national conforming limit, high enough to meet the needs of the higher priced communities and counties in the nation, while providing a more accurate model for monitoring success annually. This in turn would eliminate the need for limits established regionally or by area, a formula that is certainly prone to dysfunction as we’ve seen illustrated above.

Buyers would need to qualify under typical lending qualifications and property would appraise locally, establishing an accurate market value.

There are rumblings in Congress that an extension of the $729,750 conforming rate is being contemplated for 2009. Whether or not this comes to fruition by years end is anyone’s guess. A legislative adjustment that would establish a singular national conforming loan limit is needed.

Your input is desired and appreciated as we pursue a dialogue with those in Congress. Please let us know your thoughts by utilizing the MCAR Blog.

Kevin

“Landlords & Tenants: Communication Is the Key”

Published
by
stevegorman
on November 10, 2008
in Landlord, Property Management and Tenant
. 2 Comments

Landlords and tenants should strive to create a mutually beneficial relationship.  Like any other business relationship, the landlord and the tenant need each other.  Why not work to make it the best association possible?

Most landlord-tenant disputes are a result of inadequate communication.  It is primarily the landlord’s responsibility to communicate clearly.  Why?  Because the landlord typically provides the document that controls the relationship: the lease or rental agreement.

A well-written, clear and concise lease is absolutely vital.  If you are not a professional property manager, you need to do more than download a generic lease off the internet.  “Standard” leases available in stationery stores are typically no better.  They often are missing key elements that are legally required in California leases, like the Megan’s Law database disclosure pertaining to sexual offenders and the lead-based paint disclosure.

If this is the first you’ve heard of those two requirements, you should consider joining a professional association, such as the California Apartment Association.  They provide excellent leases and many other forms and products to help guide you through the maze of regulations that govern landlord-tenant relationships.

When a tenant moves in, provide them with a property condition checklist to document the condition of the home, for the protection of both parties.  Also, the tenant and landlord should each take several pictures of the home before the move-in date so there is a clear record of its condition, to avoid misunderstandings when the tenant vacates.

Steve Gorman, Property Manager
Gorman Real Estate
710 Lighthouse Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA  93950
steve@gormanre.com
www.gormanre.com

Voters Inspired

Published
by
kevin
on November 5, 2008
in Lending and Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

I am sure many of you have heard of the campaign to “Get Out The Vote” or GOTV - it is a reference to each political party’s attempts to energize their voting base through various activities. Republican or Democrat, no doubt there was a GOTV effort in your city or town.

GOTV efforts produced results not seen in a very long time. There are many different reasons why educated and even passionate people fail to make it to the polls for each election. Some say low voter turnout represents a lack of trust in government. However, this year, this Presidential Election, it can be said unequivocally that voters were inspired and ready to see this Nation move in a new direction.

In the past few years we’ve seen a special election to unseat a Governor, a contentious Presidential race, major bond campaigns and raucous political infighting. At some point, voters reached maximum exposure and decided it was time to do something about it. Casting votes in droves, Republicans and Democrats alike took advantage of the very right which makes this country so special, they voted.

It turns out that the economy was the driving factor of importance in this year’s election. Given the current economic situation in the country and here locally, it’s no wonder why this issue played such a large role in how citizens cast their vote. As the excitement and drama associated with this historic Presidential Campaign begins to subside, the reality associated with the task at hand for our new President-Elect and Congress will become ever clearer. The new voting demographic will be watching closely as this country, under new leadership, begins pursuing policies for the future.

The tide on voter apathy has changed course. Regardless of party affiliation, every American should feel a sense of great pride for the turnout enjoyed on November 4th.

Kevin

Money in the Bank

Published
by
JoeSmith
on October 25, 2008
in Banks
. 1 Comment

I have been hearing more and more conversations lately of people struggling with a perception that finding and obtaining financing for real estate purchases is nearly impossible these days. Before giving up hope, I urge you to take the time to research the financing options available to you, despite what others may be saying on their lack of availability.

Financing is available for those who qualify. Qualifying may not be as hard as you have heard either. It is true that guidelines have reverted back to a more conservative level, however if your debt to income ratio fits, than there is plenty of money available to you.

As an example, we just had a successful closing for a bank owned property (REO) in Seaside. The bank arranged financing for this $360,000 purchase using an FHA loan with 3% down. The buyer received a rate of 6.5% and a credit of a half point towards closing costs. The seller also contributed $5000 to the buyer’s closing costs and the guidelines had no reserve requirement.

Presently, conforming and FHA loan limits allow for financing up to $729,750 on a single family residence purchase. Market changes are bringing us back to a place where houses are more affordable, and now is the time to look into your purchasing options.

Financing opportunities do exist and are available for those looking to purchase a home. Consult a REALTOR® today for information on the area you are interested in and to get a referral to a trusted lending source.

Joe Smith

Bratty and Bluhm Real Estate
574 Lighthouse Ave.
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 372-7700 PHN
(831) 375-7790 FAX

Housing Facts and Figures for Monterey County

Published
by
sandy
on October 13, 2008
in City of Monterey and Uncategorized
. 1 Comment

Housing facts and figures for Monterey County

Monterey County home sales for the third quarter of 2008 increased by 42% over the second quarter of 2008. The majority of sales, 70%, occurred in Salinas, South and North County. The remaining 30% of sales occurred on the Peninsula, with the majority in Seaside and Marina. Of the 941 home sales of single family residences (as reported by MLSListings) foreclosures accounted for 76% of the total sales.

Real estate is experiencing a very non-traditional market atmosphere. The majority of property is bank owned with asset managers hired to facilitate the sale. They in turn hire real estate agents to list those properties. The listing agents are asked to perform a multitude of tasks that wouldn’t be required on a traditional listing. Banks also take longer in the negotiation process with the buyers. Consequently, if a buyer is looking at a bank owned property (also known as an REO) selecting a REALTOR® to counsel on the dynamics of the transaction and assisting in navigating through the process will make all the difference in securing a successful closing.

The sale price of any real estate is established by what a willing buyer and willing seller agree upon, thus setting the market price for all other properties in a particular area. It is extremely difficult for the ‘traditional’ seller to compete with bank held properties that are priced for quick liquidation. Unless a seller has an urgency to sell, pricing property above the current comparative market price may not be in their best interest. Again, sellers should consult with a real estate professional to ascertain current market conditions.

Attempting to predict where the housing market is headed has become an almost daily guessing game. With average sales prices in the Salinas area between $200,000-$300,000, and Seaside/Marina around $300,000- $400,000, one would wonder if we are at the bottom. Owning a piece of Monterey County real estate is now more attainable than we could have imagined. For many this is a time of opportunity, be it for investment or as a first time home buyer.

Sandy Haney

MCAR CEO

Was Anyone Listening???

Published
by
sandy
on September 29, 2008
in Government, Lending and sub prime mortgage
. 2 Comments

By Sandy Haney

CEO, MCAR

Below is a letter written by one of our REALTOR® members and former MCAR Director, Eugene Ferris.  Eugene wrote of his concerns regarding the loose lending practices in January, 2005 and sent it to three of our local newspapers. His prediction was six months prior to when the market started its downturn.  Like many of our members, Eugene saw the train wreck about to happen and tried to send out the warning.  MCAR did the same.  We saw and heard horror stories regarding lender fraud, over inflated fees, loans being made to buyers who certainly would not be able to keep their homes.  We shared that information with regulatory agencies, law enforcement offices and anyone else we hoped would be able to correct the direction in which we were headed.  Unfortunately, due process is much longer than the loan process!

Letter from Eugene, January 2005

As I read the reference to Salinas in last week’s Wall Street journal article on housing affordability, it struck me that blind trust in the short term real estate value and some mortgage lenders’ practices are going to hurt a lot of people throughout our country.

In 1849 the word went out that gold, and therefore fortune, was readily available for those brave souls who reached California. Some, very few, indeed prospered from their time spent stooping on a river bank in the Sierras. But most who toiled in summer heat and winter frost went broke and scores stayed broke for many years. The people made rich by the gold rush were those selling the dream of the fortune, mineral rights dealers, and supply brokers of simple shovels, pans and goods. It’s now important to look at the period with vision clarified by time, and then apply those lessons to our local housing train chugging down the tracks in the fog.

Owning a home changes everything; options for the future immediately expand, the vision of retirement becomes considerably clearer, education options for your children broaden and provide generational improvements, not to mention the huge benefit it has for growth in a participating society that has a vested interest, and our revenue basis. But it is so important that buying a house is in fact, building equity and a future. Paying interest only on a home loan is gambling three ways against the odds: A) That your home value goes up; B) That your personal income goes up; and C) That the prevailing interest rates stay low. A and B may go your way, but the obvious news is that sooner or later interest rates are going to rise. As referenced in the WSJ, 60% of home buyers in Salinas during 2004 have interest-only loans.

The secondary market that buys mortgages and dictates the terms of lending policies may well reel in financial pain if the move in interest rates is up and quick. But the real sufferers of such a move will be the thousands of new home owners left financially marooned, and a real estate market left wounded for years. The secondary market must create home ownership options that provide stability and affordability, such as longer term loans with no prepayment penalties. The government authorities should compliment such home ownership opportunities by sensible planning for generations to own their own homes, easing zoning and arduous building processes.

Like man of the mineral rights dealers and supply brokers of the 49ers, the mortgage lenders of today know that what they sell to dreamers for home ownership probably won’t deliver. Worse still, their tools are going to cause big trouble to some home owners if A, B or C don’t happen. Some mortgage lenders may have a lot to answer for in the coming years. Are they doing anything illegal? No. Do they have an obligation to look out for the interests of their clients? Yes, and I know some that do that every day, every client. But others have a churn and burn production mentality that will crush the dream of many and hurt all of us in the long run.

Eugene Ferris

Records…What Records?

Published
by
lorelingner
on September 19, 2008
in Banks, Government, Permits and Records and Salinas
. 2 Comments

The County, Cities and Water Management have failed to accurately keep track of permits.  I have spoken with several escrow officers to see if they would be agreeable to record documents and permits for properties in order to have a permanent, accurate record.   As Realtors, we so often encounter problems where a governmental agency states there was no permit for whatever.  Water Mgmt. has incorrect records (I just went thru this on a CV property).  If the plans and permits had been recorded, it could have saved the Seller money, saved the Realtors many hours and a lot of gas driving from one governmental agency to another.

As Realtors, looking out for our Buyers’ and Sellers’ interests, I think we would do them a great service to immediately implement a procedure where all plans and permits are recorded through the title companies,   Just like CC&R’s, deed restrictions, easements, the plans and permits would be preserved, long after specific properties have changed hands once, twice or more times.

Too often, we run into issues where cities dig in their heels and state there was no permit for whatever.  An example, I sold one house in Monterey three times over the years.  The first two sales had City Inspection Reports and passed without an issue.  The third time, the City said there was a porch enclosure without permit.  The neighbor who lived next door for over 30 years stated the house had been the same during the entire time she lived there.  When I approached the City with the two prior City Reports and the neighbor’s written statement, their response was “we are not responsible for our errors”. (Only the governmental agencies can get away with a statement like this.)  The net result was that the Seller had to pay thousands of dollars to hire a structural engineer, architect, contractors and pay for a permit to bring the porch up to current code requirements.

Another example - the City Inspector said the second bath was without permits, it had to be taken out.  No one had the plans on the house that was over 50 years old (the City has no documentation and the owner/builder was deceased).  Luckily, the agent representing the Buyer had gone thru this before and was smart enough to check with the Assessor’s office.  As it turned, out the Assessor had been taxing the house with two baths.  Once we got the document from the Assessor, the City had to back off.  What astounds me is that cities can make a statement without documentation - they no longer had the building permit or plans yet, were able to state there is no record of a 2nd bath.

How many Sellers have been blackmailed into paying for something, at point of sale, that was legally permitted but no one had the old records?

Water Management was a major recent issue.  The home I sold was going to the third owner.  Water Management had come to the house at the time of sale from owner one to owner two.  At the time of the sale to my Buyer, Water Mgmt. declared that we had seven wash basins, their records only showed five.  The current owner stated that the house was exactly as the way it was when the purchased it (did not add two wash basins).  We had two sets of plans that showed seven wash basins.  Without the “permit stamp”, Water Mgmt. did not want to accept the plans as a “legal record”.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and Water Resources and bought permits for the two “additional sinks” in order to get the transaction closed.  Water Mgmt. also showed one showerhead in the Master bath - it had dual showerheads.  We got a letter from a contractor stating that the plumbing fixtures in the Master shower were discontinued in the 80’s.  That did not matter, Water Mgmt. took the position it was added and needed a permit.  Phil Smith went to Water Mgmt. and paid for the second showerhead, which resulted in a deed restriction. I went to the Mty County Building Dept. because the County Building Report showed that the plans had been microfilmed.  Unfortunately, the County got rid of the microfilm.  I went to the Assessor’s office, they only had the number of baths, no fixture count.

(Mty County Building said they will only keep the plans for about three months after the permit is finalled and will not microfilm.)

My Buyer and I requested a meeting with Water Mgmt.  We went in armed with the plans, the contractor’s letter and photos of all the baths.  Showed them the photos which helped our case that the prior inspector may have missed two sinks if they ran through quickly.  We were able to convince them that (a) it appeared that the sinks and showerhead were all original and (b) they made an error on their prior inspection.  The Seller did get some of his money back from the additional permit fees and we were able to get the deed restriction released.

I believe Water Mgmt. went on the basis of the original permit application which showed 5 sinks when, in fact, 7 sinks were built into the house.  Probably what happened, they used that for their basis and just kept going with the original application document, not paying attention to what was built.

Had we had recorded plans and permits, we could have saved many hours on everyone’s part, gas and unnecessary permit fees and a lot of aggravation.  It demonstrated to me how careless the government agencies are and Sellers are forced to pay for something that was already permitted.  The only way to avoid these issues is for owners to record their documents with the title companies so there is a permanent record.  It could all be so simple.

Sincerely,

Lore Lingner
Realtor, Previews Property Specialist
Coldwell Banker Del Monte Realty
www.LoreLingner.com
Lore@LoreLingner.com

A Money Line

Published
by
galencall
on September 11, 2008
in Banks, Government and Lending
. 5 Comments

  I read with great interest, an article in the New York Times yesterday, reviewing the government’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A little over a year after the credit crisis formally began, I was struck again by the enormity of the problem facing our country. Historically, from an economic stand point I find that what is happening to be absolutely incredible, exciting in the overall scale of size, and compelling to stay alert to change. I was equally struck how it reminded me of being back in college and overwhelmed with multiple courses trying to keep them sorted by information, meeting deadlines or due dates on exams, labs or presentations it is no small coincidence that we have a college student living at home. Focusing on course and curriculum for a college student is similar to a working adults task in the mortgage business today of sorting through the barrage of current day information and subsequent timelines so as to adequately and efficiently deliver needed education to community and clients. The governments Treasury Department takeover, on top of the newly released Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (July 2008) and the critical provisions in HR 321combined, can only keep one on their toes or suggest not getting out of bed in the morning less there be more information to digest. The purpose of the legislation is to stimulate activity in three areas: One, to stimulate additional buying activity, particularly at the entry level or first-time home buyer market. Two, is to provide relief to current homeowners experiencing difficulty or who are in foreclosure. Third, is to enact legislation and standards that are aimed at the lending business; Federal licensing requirements are coming that are aimed at taking the villains off the street.

 The implications, the timelines, the mere “change is in the wind concept” is exhausting, daunting to sort through and at minimum confusing to those who might not be watching and teaching it day in and day out.  There are so many varied changes happening at light speed; loan limits, tax implications, down payment options, reverse mortgages can say goodbye to Fannie Mae’s home keeper program, HUD counseling cost issues, 1st time home buyer tax credit, mortgage insurance, changes effective October 1, November 1 and January 1, 2009 and more.

To teach, to educate and instill hope in the future is one of the hallmarks of today’s mortgage originator. Substance will outperform style.  For example, did you know that today 2 out of every 3 FHA loans includes seller funded DPA (down payment assistance)? Fannie Mae has already removed this option from the table moving forward after October 1, but there is a ground swell lobbying to keep it and this effort may well prove to be successful. Stay tuned as the changes are constant. Mortgagee letters are the benchmarks for underwriting decisions and as the letters are published the facts can hit the streets. It will be a fall season packed full of change!

Galen Call, CMPS®
Mortgage Planner
Treehouse Mortgage Group
451 Washington Street
Monterey, CA. 93940
direct: 831.645.1164
fax: 831.643.1161

 

Taxation vs. the Economy

Published
by
kevin
on August 29, 2008
in Government and Salinas
. 0 Comments

This week, both proponents and opponents anxiously awaited the results of Measure W, Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital’s $400 million bond effort. Much to the hospital’s dismay, the effort failed. The real news story here however, is not that the measure failed, it is that its’ failure was not unique. That same night, three hours east of Salinas in a small town named Oakdale, Oak Valley Hospital awaited the voters’ decision on their bond effort and received the same results.

District Hospitals all over the state are rushing to meet state seismic requirements by 2013 and in their quest to raise taxes in order to meet a legislative mandate, they are bumping up against what I like to call the Bond Ceiling. Looking across the state it appears as though somewhere in the last two years voters have lost their tolerance for self-taxation and managed to erect a ceiling that nary a public agency has yet to break through. Tough economic times are upon us all, our houses are worth less, our cars and groceries cost more and our jobs are not keeping up with the cost of living. The excesses of the late 90’s and early 2000’s have caught up with the energy industry, the banking industry, Wall Street and now the average American. Unlike its’ big corporate brothers, the average American, with less than $1000 in savings, is unable to pull out of the rut very quickly. Alas, the only thing the average person can control is the measure to which he or she will tax themselves.

So here is my question: is the post Prop 13 California, coupled with an economic downturn, a place where no bond can be passed for the foreseeable future? If so, what are special districts and municipalities to do? While I don’t think there is one right answer to this question, a possible answer might be: nothing. Well, maybe not nothing, but very little…let me explain.

Financial experts will tell you if you don’t have money, don’t spend money. As such, in lean economic times certain projects should be put off until a person has more disposable income. For example, in lean times when the kitchen sink breaks, you pay to fix the sink. When your house was worth 30% more and your sink broke, you may consider taking the opportunity to remodel the kitchen. The average person can appreciate the distinction between a necessary repair and a job that can wait.

It appears that local governments have entered into very lean times, along with the rest of the country. The voters are saying they won’t tolerate big projects and big spending by government because they themselves aren’t spending. Yes, this means deferring some projects that would be really nice to have done, like the building of better roads and new schools. But if government is of the people and for the people, shouldn’t it be like the people? Eventually, the economy will progress and people will begin to shout for better streets and bigger schools, and as such, maybe they will then be willing to pay for it.

Welcome to the NEW MCAR Blog & Forum!

Published
by
kevin
on August 18, 2008
in Uncategorized
. 0 Comments

Welcome to the new MCAR Blog & Forum! The goal of this new informational site will be to engage the real estate industry and public on the ongoing challenges and successes of this dynamic industry. We encourage you to take the time to register and comment on the various articles and editorials that will be posted throughout the week.

This site will remain a work in progress as we solicit your input and feedback as to it’s usability and functionality. A “Members Only” section is soon to follow, providing a vehicle for feedback on advocacy efforts, membership and real estate issues. As an MCAR member, you will have the opportunity to engage your collegues and MCAR staff on current market dynamics, challenges and successes in an enviornment exclusive only to MCAR members.

We look forward to hearing from you, enjoy!

Kevin

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats