In Defense of Home Ownership

New York Times writer Ron Lieber wrote this good story on the positive side of home ownership in today’s market. With interest rates at an all time low responsible buyers are getting great deals in this market.

It’s hard to read the headlines and not conclude that becoming a homeowner is a terrible idea.

This week, the National Association of Realtors announced that existing-home sales in July had fallen an astounding 25.5 percent from the previous year. Sure, there was a federal tax credit in place last summer. But with single-family home sales at their lowest level since 1995 and unemployment still stubbornly high, home prices may fall further.

In the meantime, millions of homeowners are still far underwater, and government programs to help them have fallen well short of their goals. More foreclosures are coming, casting a deeper shadow over home prices. So it’s hardly surprising that the conventional wisdom says that home values will never again rise faster than inflation.

But as with stocks and the weather, it is dangerous to assume any certainty in the housing market. And by wallowing too much in the misery of others, people looking for a new place to live run the risk of thinking every home purchase will end in regret, at least financially.

Many still could, if they put little money down in hard-hit areas where prices could fall further. But most probably won’t.

A mortgage is still a form of long-term forced savings, after all. This is more important than ever, since fewer people have access to generous pensions than they did during the last big housing slump. A 401(k) or similar plan is no bargain, either, with its erratic returns and employer matches that come and go as the economic winds shift. Social Security is also likely to be less generous, and Medicare will probably cost more.

But owning a home isn’t just about what shows up on a net worth statement — something that bears repeating after all the “investing” that people thought they were doing when buying homes over the last 10 or 15 years. Many of these more qualitative factors, from living free of a landlord’s whim to having access to a good school district or retirement community, haven’t changed and probably never will.

It is possible, as a homeowner, to make very little money but still buy plenty of happiness. So before you swear off real estate, reconsider a few of the basics.

WORST CASES Some buyers may rue the day in 2010 they bought their homes. They may end up like those who bought in 2006 and have lost their jobs. Now those people face the difficulty of moving to pursue employment elsewhere because they owe much more than their homes are worth.

Marke Hallowell and Allison Firmat, who are getting married next month, are well aware of the history. Yet they plan to put 5 percent or less down, using a fixed-rate mortgage backed by the Federal Housing Administration, once they find a condominium in southern Orange County, Calif. (They’ve already been outbid a few times.)

Ms. Firmat is not working, and Mr. Hallowell is a Web developer. Does he worry about mobility problems or making the payments in the event of a job loss, given that he’s the sole breadwinner? “We’re getting such a good deal on interest rates that we could rent our place out,” he said.

Mr. Hallowell and Ms. Firmat say they believe their approach is conservative, at least compared to what they might have done five years ago.

“Nothing is going to change the rate we will have,” Mr. Hallowell said. “Condos like the ones we’re looking at now were unobtainable in the past, unless we went into something with a total balloon payment. There were times I was tempted, but never seriously.”

Indeed, many people who are buying at the moment are locking in mortgage rates of about 4.5 percent. A year ago, they might have paid 5.25 percent on a $300,000 loan for a monthly payment of about $1,657. Today, you could lock in a lower monthly payment of around $1,520 on a mortgage that size, or you might not need to borrow that much, given that prices have fallen in many areas.

FORCED SAVINGS You may make nothing at all beyond inflation over time on a home, but the part of your mortgage payment that goes toward principal is a form of forced savings.

Sure, you might do better by renting and investing the difference between the rent and the total costs of ownership. But at least three things need to go right.

First, you need to actually save the money. Americans have trouble with that sort of plan. Then, you need an after-tax return that’s better than whatever a home would deliver. That’s a task that might not have gone so well over the last 10 or 12 years, and it involves its own future risk, given how little safer investments are returning now. Finally, you must not raid the savings along the way.

DIFFICULT LANDLORDS A bank can kick you out only if you don’t pay your mortgage. But landlords can drive you away in any number of ways.

Laura Mapp and her husband, Carl Berg, rented from a relative, but it didn’t go particularly well. They found another landlord they liked, but came back from a holiday trip one year to a note saying he wanted to move in himself. They had a month to scram. (The note came with a bottle of wine, at least.)

In yet another rental, they let their landlord know they were looking to buy and inquired about a month-to-month lease. No problem, their landlord said, as long as they used his boyfriend as their real estate agent.

Earlier this year, the couple gave up on landlords and bought a house in the Highland Park neighborhood in Seattle.

THE NICE PART OF TOWN No matter how pretty the neighborhood, prices may still fall further in places like greater Detroit, Cleveland and Las Vegas; outlying areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Phoenix; and much of Florida. If you’re looking elsewhere, consult The Times’s rent-versus-buy calculator, halfway down the page at nytimes.com/yourmoney

But if you want to live in the Fox Hill Farm development in Glen Mills, Pa., you’ll have to buy, said Bob Kuhn, who lives there. The same thing is true of other communities for older people, where there may be no rentals at all.

And there may not be many family-size rentals — or at least any financial edge to be gained by renting — in suburbs or urban neighborhoods with excellent public schools.

After many years of building their down-payment fund and a couple of years of watching the listings in the Eagle Rock and Mount Washington areas of Los Angeles, Garret and Alison Williams realized that prices simply were not falling much there.

By the time they were ready to pounce this year, they had a big enough down payment and interest rates had fallen so far that renting didn’t make much financial sense, even if they could have found a rental big enough for them and their two small children.

“Had we rented, we would be paying more than we’re paying for a mortgage,” said Ms. Williams, who had lived in the same two-bedroom rental for 12 years before she and her family moved into their new house in Eagle Rock earlier this month. “I don’t see how we could really regret having made the move when it’s so much better for us on so many levels.”

My website is up

I’ve completed the remodel of my “Front Porch.” Please take a look around and let me know what you think. Visit frequently as I try to keep the page fresh and relevant. Become a Fan on Facebook and Follow me on Twitter. Thank you.

Price Per Square Foot is Misleading for Real Estate Values

This is a great article by Realtor Bill Gassett from Massachusetts. I completely agree with his statements. This is even more true in historic districts and older neighborhoods where no two houses are ever the same. Even if two somewhat similar homes were both recently renovated they can be valued very differently based on the materials used in the renovations, how well the renovation was performed, and how much of the original historic characteristics remain.

Over the years working as a Realtor I have seen numerous home buyers as well as other Realtors try to use dollars per square foot as a good measuring stick for market values. Sorry folks but that is a very poor way to analyze value.

There are a number of reasons why this is the case but lets just start with individual homes themselves. If you look carefully at housing characteristics you can basically brake down a home into one of four categories.

Economy~ Economy would be characterized as building a home in the most cost efficient manner. The materials used in constructing a home in this category more often than not will be cheaper than other categories of homes. The goal is to deliver a home that would be affordable to those buyers on a lower income. If you looked in a catalog of materials such as cabinets, flooring, lighting and plumbing fixtures you would see the lowest grade used in this category.

Standard – A home built under this category would be a step up from an economy home. A large percentage of homes would come under this category. You would expect to see the quality of the home jump from an economically built home. With a standard built home you may see some construction items that could also be found in both economy and custom categories.

Custom – In a custom built home you are bound to see things that you will not find in either an economy or standard home. The quality of the materials used to construct the home as well as the amenities inside are going to be different. As an example you may see a higher level of finish woodworking, cabinetry, flooring selections and hot buttons like granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances. Custom homes are more unique and may have other architectural characteristics that make them more expensive to build such as intricate roof lines and higher end materials used on the facade such as stone or brick.

Luxury – A luxury home is the creme de la creme. These are the homes that are built with the highest grade construction materials. There is no expense spared on anything and the amenities seen inside the home are sometimes enough to make your mouth drop! It is not unusual to see such things as home theaters that rival going to the movies, indoor swimming pools, wine rooms and other such amenities.

Of course it is possible for a home to fall somewhere between each of these categories but the four categories are enough to show you why using price per square foot to determine a homes value is a very poor measuring stick.

Lets look at a quick example of two homes that are both 3000 square feet. They are both a year old.

House “A” has the following amenities:

Granite counters and stainless appliances
A custom tile shower
Hardwood floors throughout the 1st floor
Raised paneling and crown moldings
A brick walk way

House “B” has the following amenities:

Formica counters and white appliances
A standard shower
Carpets through out the 1st floor
Plastered door openings with no molding
A dropped flagstone walkway
How about a quick guess of which home is going to be worth more on a dollars per square foot basis?

This example clearly shows that you can not take the average price per-square-foot and multiply it times the square footage of the home you are thinking about buying. There are far too many variables involved with the characteristics of a home to make a generalization like that. It just doesn’t work that way. The pricing per-square-foot simply gives you average or median ranges; it shows you trends in the market. It does not compute value!

The comparison above only touches on one reason why cost per square foot is a poor indicator. There are others including the fact that prices per-square-foot can vary based on the homes location, improvements, condition, age and updates, including lot sizes, and whether it’s a one-story, two story or split-level home, among other things.

I think it is easy to see that if home “A” was also located in the best part of town and home “B” was not, the disparity of the selling price is going to be even greater which would change the price per square foot between the two homes.

One of the best reasons for even looking at the price per square foot of a home is to see what the trends are in an area. You can look at the average price per square foot over a given time period and see whether overall market are values going up or down.

In Massachusetts one of the other factors that can really skew the averages on the price per square foot of a home is how the square footage is actually calculated. In the Greater Boston MLS there is a big disparity on what agents include in the gross living area of a home. You will see that some homes include finished basement space and others do not. This can cause quite a fluctuation in how these figures appear when doing an analysis on square footage value.

As you may realize, finished space below grade is far less valuable than above grade living area. When these figures are mixed together it makes a straight line comparison much more difficult.

I have run into plenty of buyers agents over the years that try to present a case of why their clients offer is a fair one. When they start talking about price per square foot I usually end up giving them a lesson in proper market evaluations:)

_________________________________________________________________

About the author: The above Real Estate information on price per square foot is misleading for Real Estate values was provided by Bill Gassett, a Nationally recognized leader in his field.

Renting Downtown

***This post was originally published in August 2010 and has become one of the most read posts of my blog. Due to its popularity I’ve moved it to the landing page on my site. Please click here for the list that I keep up-to-date as a lot more inventory has been developed over the past couple of years. Places to Rent in Downtown and Southtown ***

 

Four years ago I moved from the northern suburbs to Milmo Lofts off S. Flores and Durango. I found it very difficult to track down an apartment as there wasn’t a formal list of places or a website that had everything listed. Also at that time I was just getting my real estate license so I didn’t have access to the MLS or really even know any good downtown real estate experts.
Fast forward four year and A LOT has changed!!! I’m now a downtown real estate specialist, friends with all the other downtown agents, and the demand for downtown living as spawned several new downtown apartment complexes.

Jennifer Hiller at the Express-News wrote this great article.

A few years ago, people who wanted to rent an apartment downtown took whatever they could find because the options were so limited.
Now, however, there’s a bigger variety of housing downtown and renters are more likely to be able to choose between small studio spaces, rental homes or large lofts — without the expense and hassle of making a big down payment on a mortgage.

“You don’t have to buy downtown. You can rent,” said Lisa Schmidt, a downtown resident and real estate agent.

While San Antonio’s downtown still is in the early stages of residential demand compared to other major cities, living downtown is drawing in more and more people who are lured by what the lifestyle has to offer.

Many of the new downtown renters are military people who have been transferred to San Antonio as part of the growth at Fort Sam Houston under the Base Realignment and Closure process, said Debra Maltz, a broker and real estate agent with Centro Properties.

“The BRAC folks have made a difference. A lot of them don’t want to buy because they know they’re here for a finite period,” Maltz said. “They’re used to living in other cities downtown. I think that’s had an effect on downtown. They like the whole concept of living in a closer-knit community, which downtown offers.”

Young singles long have been attracted to downtown rentals, but Maltz said that now empty nesters are selling larger homes and trying out urban living.

They’ll often rent for a year to decide if they like the lifestyle.

Some of the newest large rental properties include the Vistana, a 247-unit Art Deco-inspired apartment building that opened in 2009 on

North Santa Rosa and the 66-unit St. Benedict’s on South Alamo Street, a King William-area project originally planned as condos but converted to a successful rental development.

The San Antonio Housing Authority recently opened HemisView Village Apartments across from HemisFair Park.

Although a handful of the 245 units are set aside for public housing or those who qualify for affordable-housing tax credits, 184 units are being rented at market rate to the general public.

The project includes balconies, a pool, a parking garage, a fitness and amenity center, and many units with big storefront-style windows and views of the Tower of the Americas.

“We’re really proud of the look and the feel,” said Lourdes Castro Ramirez, president and CEO of SAHA.

Market-rate rent ranges from $741 for the smallest units to $1,314 for a three bedroom. And the public housing units are scattered throughout the two buildings, with the idea of creating a true mixed-income community. “It’s definitely the future of public housing,” Ramirez said. “From a financial perspective, it’s the only way you can make project work. From a social policy perspective, you have more role models and an environment where people can socialize across economic groups.”

Although it’s not in downtown proper, new rental units soon will be available at the Pearl Brewery’s new Culinary Institute of America building, just north of downtown off of Broadway. The 25,000-square-foot structure will house several restaurants and be neighbor to apartments, the Twig bookstore, a third location for Bike World and a 1,000-seat amphitheater.

But on the upper floors there are also eight apartment units, including two penthouses. Maltz said recently that five units were pre-leased. “There is a huge demand to live at the Pearl Brewery,” she said.

Architect Jim Poteet, a longtime resident of King William who is known for his modern renovations of historic properties, said that for a long time it seemed that home and condo owners were the only ones living downtown. “I think the rise of rental is the thing that’s now bringing people downtown to test the waters. As a format it can be apartments, lofts, faux lofts or condos,” Poteet said.

And more rentals make sense as part of larger economic trends, he said. “I think the economy has shown people that homeownership, that urge to buy a house or to have a house as the cornerstone of your financial portfolio, was overstated. It feeds into a rental trend,” Poteet said. “It’s all to the good for downtown. We need all kinds of housing. We need ownership. We need infill projects. We need rental.”

And if people want to rent a more traditional home, there’s the historic King William and Lavaca neighborhoods, which have some rental homes and smaller offerings, such as garage apartments. Maltz recently rented a new contemporary house that’s tucked into Lavaca.

“You see infill housing a lot in Houston and Dallas. I think it’s wonderful that we are starting to see it here,” Maltz said. “It’s so expressive and so urban.”

Some of the places where you can rent downtown:

12welve 2wenty1 Loft Apartments – 210.354.1212

235 E. Commerce Apartments

Majestic Towers/Brady Bldg Apartments, 222 E. Houston St. – 210.224.1144

Pearl Brewery, 306 E. Grayson St.

Vistana, 100 N. Santa Rosa Ave. – 210.226.5638

720-724 N. Saint Mary’s Apts.

Blue Star Residences and Lofts, 1410 S. Alamo St. – 210.225.6743

The Brackenridge at Midtown, – 210-822-2500 (Opening January 2014)

Cadillac Lofts, 317 Lexington Ave. – 210.223.5638

Calcasieu Building Apartments, 214 Broadway – 210.472.1262

Can Plant Residences at Pearl, 503 Ave. A

Casa Lavaca, 502 Eager St.

Cevallos Lofts – 866.295.0250

Dielmann Lofts, 710 S. Medina St. – 210.223.1178

Exchange Building, 152 E. Pecan St.

Granada Apartments, 301-11 S. St. Mary’s St. – 210.225.2645

HemisView Village, 401 Santos St. – 210.212.8808

Losoya Building, 221 Losoya

Marie C. McAguire Apartments, 211 N. Alamo St. – 210.477-6378

Maverick Apartments, 606 N. Presa St. – 210.886.9555

Metro House, 213 4th St. – 210.271.0051

Milmo Lofts, 319 S. Flores St. – 210.223.1178

Morris Apartments, 128 E. Main Plaza – 210.225.3188

Palacio del Sol, 400 N. Frio St – 210.224.0442

Refugio Place, 300 Labor St.

Reuter Building, 217-219 Alamo Plaza

Robert E. Lee Apartments, 111 W. Travis St. – 210.354.1611 email: robert_e_lee_apts AT prm DOTCOM

Soap Works Apartments, 500 N. Santa Rosa Ave. – 210.223.9500

The Madison, Madison at Beauregard streets – 210.544.5416

Tobin Lofts, N. Main at San Antonio College Campus – 888-696-3145 (You must be a student of any higher education institution in the US.)

Toltec Apartments, 131 Taylor St.

Town Center Apartments, 601 N. Santa Rosa Ave.

Villa Hermosa, 327 N. Flores St. – 210.477.6611

Whitherspoon Building, 601 N. Alamo St.

 

Source: Downtown Alliance

San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation FAQ Video

Ever wondered what San Antonio’s HDRC Process is like, what tax incentives can be realized by living in a historic district, or how the city can help with Owner Occupied Rehab Loans? Watch this 29 minute video featuring Shannon Wasielewski from San Antonio’s Office of Historic Preservation.

http://sanantonio.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=1027

Building San Antonio: Demographics change, but old values remain

This is a great article by David Matiella, an architect and resident of Mahncke Park. I really relate to the idea of “new homeowners come with an infusion of energy and optimism” and their blending with “sage older residents” of the neighborhood. This is certainly the case with my neighborhood Lavaca and many other great inner-loop neighborhoods experiencing revitalization. I have many neighbors like the one David writes of that “have seen this neighborhood grow, decline and come back.”

When I look around my neighborhood of Mahncke Park, I see many new neighbors moving in. This is always an exciting time, and it gets me wondering: Will these new people be nice? Will they be young or old? Will they have young children like us or — even better — do they have babysitter-age kids?
Historical information indicates the houses in my neighborhood were built between 1920 and 1950. Starting in 1891, George W. Brackenridge gave the city 25 acres of land connecting the water reservoir at the top of the hill near the San Antonio Botanical Garden to Brackenridge Park. He asked that the land be named for his close friend, City Park Commissioner Ludwig Mahncke, and the neighborhood that developed around the park still bears his name and statue.

Mahncke Park has character and a history. Some homes are in excellent shape, having been well- maintained by their owners, while others are in need of tender care.

For many reasons, older owners will sell their homes and move away, and new homeowners will move in. Most of the time, new homeowners come with an infusion of energy and optimism.

More and more, I observe houses being snatched up by buyers who restore or rehabilitate them. Some buyers purchase in order to turn a profit with these homes. Others buy in order to rehab a fixer-upper and create a liveable home for themselves. Their neighbors may lend a hand installing wood floors or painting, creating new relationships and further tightening the bond between neighbor and community.

There’s an older gentleman my family runs into on our neighborhood walks. Having witnessed the turnover of neighbors through the years, he is happy to gaze fondly at our small children and recite stories of his own childhood in the neighborhood.

“It sure is nice to have children playing on this street again,” he says with a twinkle in his eye. “I’ve been here 57 years and have seen this neighborhood grow, decline and come back.” I cannot mistake the nostalgic pride in his manner as he says this about his neighborhood, now my neighborhood — our neighborhood.

He is not just talking about the neighborhood houses, he is talking about the people who make up the neighborhood, and I realize that my mind-set about Mahncke Park has been broadened once again by one of our sage older residents.

The man’s words become a lesson when I look with pride at the fine older homes in Mahncke Park and realize that I can put too much emphasis on the materiality of our neighborhood. A collection of houses may make a neighborhood, but it is the people who live in these homes who are truly special and create a community.

David Matiella, Assoc. AIA, is a project manager at Marmon Mok Architecture.

Diverse coalition rises up against home resale fees

This is a great article by Washington Post Housing writer Ken Harney explaining “private transfer fees.” Various organizations, including the National Association of REALTORS, are pushing for a federal mandate that will outlaw private transfer fees.

WASHINGTON — Can you name a housing controversy that pulls Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, consumer advocates, labor unions representing transport workers and government employees, the title insurance industry, the National Council of La Raza, libertarian and property rights groups and the National Association of Realtors all together into a protest coalition demanding quick action from the Obama administration?

A more unlikely collection of real estate bedfellows is hard to imagine. Yet at the end of July, 11 groups with widely divergent agendas and memberships formed something called the Coalition to Stop Wall Street Home Resale Fees.

The target of their protest: Private transfer fees being attached as liens on homes and requiring successions of property owners to pay a fee every time the house or lot resells during the coming 99 years. Though proponents say the concept helps real estate developers raise capital for projects by bringing in Wall Street investors, critics contend the liens amount to a perpetual money machine that lowers equity values for unsuspecting consumers and complicates real estate sales.

Here’s how the plan works. Say you buy a $300,000 house in a subdivision where the developer is participating in a private transfer fee program and has recorded liens on every lot. What the developer may not have disclosed to you, however, is that when you later sell the property, you will be required to pay a fee of 1 percent of the price you receive. The money must be disbursed out of the closing proceeds and sent to a trustee representing investors. Those investors fronted cash to the developer in exchange for the right to receive streams of payments for decades as individual houses sell and resell.

To illustrate: If you buy a house this year for $300,000 and resell it for $325,000 a few years from now, you will owe $3,250 at closing. Even if the house drops in value, you will still owe the 1 percent fee. And if you refuse to pay it, the deal will not close because a lien has been recorded that runs with the title to the property and mandates that every seller pay.

Your purchaser might not like the fee requirement, either, and might demand a lower price as compensation. When your purchaser later goes to sell, the same rules will kick in. And so on, through successions of sales until 2109, when the covenant recorded in 2010 disappears. Along the way, assuming modest appreciation in real estate values, investors and their estates stand to reap huge amounts of cash.

In the words of Kurt Pfotenhauer, chief executive of the American Land Title Association, “it’s a pretty slick way to make money, but it’s bad public policy and bad for consumers.” Pfotenhauer’s group and the National Association of Realtors have spearheaded drives directed at state legislatures to ban or restrict private transfer fees. But now the focus has shifted to the federal level, where the 11- member coalition wants the Obama administration to prohibit transfer fees on all mortgages purchased or backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

The FHA has already indicated that the fees violate its rules, said the coalition in a July 29 letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which both operate under federal conservatorship, follow suit, the underlying mortgage-financing fuel supply powering transfer-fee programs effectively will be shut off. Along with the FHA, Fannie and Freddie now account for an estimated 95 percent of all mortgage financings.

The principal advocate for the private transfer fee concept, Freehold Capital Partners of New York, did not respond to repeated requests to comment for this column. In an e-mail sent to me earlier this year, Curtis Campbell, a spokesman for Freehold, said that “private transfer fees represent an adaptation in how to pay for development costs” incurred by builders “at a time when funding is not available” to them on “reasonable terms.”

On its website, Freehold claims that major real estate development firms controlling “hundreds of billions of dollars in real estate projects nationwide,” including some of the “largest, most well respected,” have participated in the program. However, the company has declined to identify any of them.

Members of the new anti-fee coalition said they have very specific reasons for joining. For example, Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of VoteVets.org, said military families generally move every three years, and have been disproportionately hard hit by the real estate bust. Because of their frequent moves, “these fees hurt the military more than anyone,” he said, and “take advantage of unsuspecting homeowners and buyers.”

Mortgage brokers move buyers into ‘rapid rescoring’ programs to improve their chances of qualifying for a home loan

Here’s a great article by Washington Post Housing writer Ken Harney on a new way mortgage lenders can quickly help boost your FICO score. Working with a professional, both REALTOR and mortgage lender, will greatly increase your success rate in buying your perfect “Front Porch.”

Call it the great real estate disconnect of 2010: Mortgage rates have been at half-century lows and home prices have stabilized, but applications for mortgages to buy houses have declined most weeks during the past three months, as measured by the Mortgage Bankers Association.

What’s going on here? Shouldn’t 30-year fixed-rate loans well below 5 percent be flying off the shelf? Economists say part of the reason is the expiration of the federal home purchase tax credits, which encouraged thousands of buyers to accelerate their transactions — starting with mortgage applications — into the early spring months to qualify for the April 30 contract deadline.

But other key factors are at work: More-stringent underwriting standards imposed by private lenders, declining consumer credit scores in the wake of the recession, and rule changes by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration have all combined to make qualifying for a new mortgage more challenging than it has been in years.

Take credit scores. While most lenders have raised the bar on minimally acceptable scores, Fair Isaac Inc., creator of the widely used FICO score, said there has been a deterioration in millions of Americans’ scores during the past two years. More than 25 percent of all consumers who have active credit files — roughly 43 million people — now have FICO scores of 599 and below. On Fair Isaac’s scale, which runs from 300 (highest risk) to 850 (lowest risk), a 599 score is considered unacceptable by most lenders.

In fact, since the housing boom went bust, lenders prefer to see minimum scores well into the 700s. Fannie Mae, for instance, gives its best combinations of rates and fees to applicants with 740 FICOs or higher.

How can buyers deal with the tougher rules on everything from minimum scores to debt-to-income ratios? Tops on the list: Be aware that there are work-arounds and creative solutions to some of the roadblocks. For example, say a buyer’s credit scores appear too low to qualify for a mortgage. They should ignore the online and junk-mail “credit repair” come-ons that promise miraculous FICO score improvements overnight. They are often rip-offs and may not even be legal in some instances.

However, an experienced mortgage broker or retail loan officer can get a buyer’s credit file into a “rapid rescoring” program that just might get them the legitimate lift they need to qualify. Rapid rescorings performed by independent credit reporting agencies — most of them members of the National Credit Reporting Association — use procedures approved by the three national credit bureaus to make direct changes to the information contained in credit files.

If there are documented errors in the file, or omissions that are dragging down a score, the rescorers connect a buyer, their creditors and the national bureaus — Equifax, Experian and TransUnion — to get the problems fixed. In some cases, rescorers can even spot steps a buyer can take, such as cutting their utilization percentage on a particular account, that will boost the score immediately.

Marty Flynn, president of Credit Communications Inc. in San Ramon, Calif., a credit reporting firm, said most rescorings take from three to five days and cost an average of $30 per “tradeline,” or credit account, per borrower. A typical rescoring may cost anywhere from $90 to $200. Though extensive rescorings can push FICOs up dramatically, Flynn said the average increase is more like 25 points to 32 points. If the buyer has been an irresponsible deadbeat, of course, rescoring the files won’t help much or at all.

Dale Di Gennaro, president of Custom Lending Group, a mortgage brokerage in Napa, Calif., said he uses rapid rescorings to help clients raise their scores enough “to get them into the loan program that’s best for them.” In one recent case, he said, homebuyers whose scores had been in the mid-600s boosted them into the 700s when rescorers helped eliminate a late payment dispute on their three bureau files.

Steve Stamets, a loan officer with Union Mortgage Group in Rockville, Md., said rapid rescoring can rack up transaction costs — and even pinch loan officers’ revenue — when an applicant’s scores are being depressed by issues in multiple accounts. One recent applicant had problems with three separate credit tradelines, throwing the entire mortgage application into jeopardy. Straightening them out cost $270.

“We got [the client] above the 620 FICO he needed” to be approved for the mortgages, said Stamets, “but believe me, it took some work.”

Fannie Mae issues guidance on appraisal quality standards

This is a great article by Washington Post Housing writer Ken Harney. I’m glad to hear that Fannie Mae has listened to buyers, sellers, REALTORS, and lenders and have made changes to the way appraisals will be conducted. These changes begin September 1st.

By Kenneth R. Harney
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Picture this: You’ve signed a contract to sell your house. Your buyers say they have nailed down the right mortgage. All is well. But then the appraisal comes in low — $25,000 to $50,000 under what was agreed upon in the contract.
The lender insists on cutting the mortgage amount to reflect the lower appraised value. You refuse to negotiate anywhere near the price indicated by the appraisal, and suddenly — poof! The whole deal is off. You, the buyers and the agents involved are all left sputtering over the appraisal that scuttled the transaction.
This scenario is not unusual in many markets across the country, say home builders, brokers and appraisers. Here’s one little-publicized reason why: Lenders unilaterally may be lowering the numbers on the appraisals submitted to them, in order to avoid accusations that the loans they sell to giant investors Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are based on inflated appraisals — even slightly inflated. Such value inflations can expose lenders to dreaded “buyback” demands, forcing them to repurchase loans at huge costs.
The vice chairman of the National Association of Realtors’ Appraisal Committee, Frank K. Gregoire of St. Petersburg, Fla., says it’s a widespread problem. Large numbers of legitimate home sales are “sabotaged by lenders and underwriters arbitrarily reducing the value estimate” provided by the appraiser.
Typically, Gregoire says, the lender orders a low-cost electronic valuation — based on publicly available statistical data, with no onsite inspections — to review the accuracy of what was submitted by the appraiser. If there’s a discrepancy between what the computer says and what the appraiser reports, the lender’s underwriters sometimes simply cut the number — even if this means knocking the real estate transaction off track. Or they demand an immediate explanation from the appraiser.
All this may be about to change. Effective Sept. 1, Fannie Mae is prohibiting lenders who sell it loans from changing appraisers’ numbers. In guidance issued June 30, Fannie said lenders must contact appraisers to “resolve” any disagreements about the valuation. If that’s not possible, they should order a second appraisal — not just chop the value.
Appraisers applauded the new rule. “This is huge,” said Gary Crabtree, president of Affiliated Appraisers of Bakersfield, Calif., and a member of the national government relations committee of the Appraisal Institute, an industry group. Pat Turner, an appraiser in Richmond, said Fannie’s new requirement “is great news for consumers” because loan underwriters hundreds of miles from the property “no longer will be able to change the appraiser’s valuation” simply because they pulled a lower number off a computer.
Turner said these electronic models “are often inaccurate” and provide no information on a property’s condition. He said an appraisal completed recently in Virginia was challenged by a review company based in California using a proprietary electronic-valuation system. The reviewer wanted to know why Turner hadn’t used a specific property in the area as a “comparable” in doing his appraisal on the house. Turner checked out the suggested “comp,” and it turned out to be a vacant lot, worth far less than the house — not a true comp “by any stretch of the imagination.”
Fannie’s new guidelines also attempt to clarify other issues that have arisen during the past year, including the widespread use of inexperienced appraisers who are unfamiliar with local market conditions. Real estate agents, builders and mortgage brokers have complained to Congress that rules adopted by Fannie and Freddie last year encouraged lenders to use “appraisal management” companies to value properties.
Those companies, in turn, often pay appraisers deeply discounted fees — half off traditional prevailing rates in some cases — and require them to complete their assignments far faster than normal turnaround times. Critics have said that low-budget appraisers working for management companies frequently travel long distances to do their valuations, have minimal access to local data, and make excessive use of foreclosures and short sales as comparables — thereby depressing the values of non-distressed sales in the area.
Fannie’s letter attempts to clarify its “appraiser selection” standards. Top on the list: Appraisers should be experienced, “have the requisite knowledge” about local market conditions and have access to all local data sources. Fannie also emphasized that the demonstrated experience of an appraiser should always trump fees or turnaround times — a clear swipe at management companies that bid out their work on the latter two criteria.
Asked whether Freddie Mac plans to issue similar rules on appraisal-quality standards, a spokesman said, “We’re definitely looking at it.”