NEW LISTING – 239 Lone Star 78204 – $155,000

Curtis Bowers King William Lavaca Southtown Lone Star San Antonio Listings For Sale Front Porch Realty, LLC

239 Lone Star 78204

 

Recently renovated historic home in the hip Lone Star Neighborhood. 3 bedrooms & 2 bathrooms. Renovations include refinished floors, new interior paint, electrical upgrades, updated bathrooms, HVAC, updated kitchen with stainless steel appliances, washer & dryer, attic conversion, and a security system. Open floor plan flows into the sleek kitchen with breakfast bar. French doors open to a deck and a large back yard. Perfect for entertaining. Move-in ready and waiting for you.

Click on the photo for more pictures and information about the house.

 

Q. Why is underwriting so difficult? A. “Defensive Lending”

This article introduces the idea of “defensive lending” as a main reason that underwriting is so difficult. “”Defensive lending is the mortgage equivalent of defensive medicine,” where doctors run more tests than needed to reduce litigation risk. “Rather that more medical tests, mortgage lenders are adding underwriting requirements and program restrictions to avoid overstepping a sometimes ambiguous line” that will trigger penalties from Fannie, Freddie, or FHA.”

Two U.S. agencies try to get lenders to ease tough mortgage rules

The Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Federal Housing Administration say many lenders’ underwriting restrictions go beyond what the agencies themselves require.

July 08, 2012|By Kenneth R. Harney

WASHINGTON — Two federal agencies with far-reaching influence over the mortgage market are working on a problem that could affect the ability of many consumers to obtain a home loan: How to encourage private lenders to ease up on their underwriting restrictions that go beyond what the agencies themselves require for mortgage approvals.

Both the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees giant investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration, which runs the low-down-payment FHA program, are considering steps they might take to persuade lenders to open the mortgage spigots a little wider.

Together, Fannie, Freddie and the FHA account for 90%-plus of all home loan funding. The focus of their little-publicized reform projects: the “overlay” rules many lenders have adopted that call for extra fees, larger down payments and higher credit scores than Fannie, Freddie or the FHA require.

NEW LISTING – 531 Devine St. 78210 – $149,900

Curtis Bowers King William Lavaca Southtown San Antonio Listings For Sale

531 Devine St. 78210

 

Wonderful two bedroom and two bathroom home in Historic Lavaca. This home was renovated in 2007 to include foundation repairs, metal roof, and double pane windows throughout. An architecturally designed complementary addition was built to add modern amenities such as a master bath, dressing area with walk-in closet, laundry area, and a screen porch. Large lot includes a storage building. Great location in the neighborhood with easy access to Hwy 281.

Click on the photo for more pictures and information about the house.

LISTING – 119 Daniel St 78204 $110,000

119 Daniel 78204

Superb So-Flo project opportunity. Mid-renovation estate sale. 1248 sqft addition has been thoughtfully added to the original 1008 sqft cottage. Master bedroom & bath downstairs with additional two bedrooms and one bath upstairs. New metal roof, milled & cedar shake siding. Hand built wood windows downstairs compliment remaining originals. Double-pane wood windows upstairs. Large open floorplan. Take advantage of FHA 203k homeowner financing to finish-out to your specific desires. Investors welcome.  http://119daniel.checkoutmore.com/

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.”

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.”