|
|
|
|
| > home | |
|
|
Clipped by Sam Stamper
|
Thursday, 20 May 2010
|
|
Why is the Housing Recovery taking so long? Highflying property prices drove the most-recent economic boom, and a collapse in real-estate values hammered it back down. Now, as the economy struggles to regain strength, real estate is expected to continue to act as a brake, rather than an accelerator.Despite clear signs of revival in the larger economy, including upturns in manufacturing and consumer spending, the nation's market for homes and office buildings remains mired in foreclosures and oversupply. That imbalance will be worked out over time, but in the meantime, it is slowing the recovery in myriad ways.Here's how it breaks down: Less construction means fewer jobs. Construction is a big employer and one of the better-paid sectors for men who lack a college degree. The sector has shed 2.1 million jobs from its peak in March 2007 to April 2010. The 5.6 million construction jobs that are left comprise 4% of U.S. jobs, down from 6% when employment peaked in December 2007.With the glut of houses, offices and malls already pressuring the real-estate market, many of these jobs will not come back for a while, putting added pressure on unemployment even as growth resumes.Indeed, construction spending is running 13% below its year-ago level and about 25% below the boom-year peak.Home owners who once felt rich are feeling poorer. Throughout the boom, consumers used their home equity to borrow and spend as they watched housing prices soar. The ratio of dollars taken out of homes to total personal income—a gauge of how much consumers are pulling out of their homes relative to how much they make in wages and other income—fell the last three quarters of 2009. During the boom years, that ratio got as high as 9% nationwide, according to Moody's Analytics.While real-estate prices have stabilized, they are unlikely to regain prerecession values for years. That has left many consumers with a pile of debt but not much home equity to be used for investment or spending, a big reason why economists believe recent gains in consumer spending aren't sustainable."The housing market, since it was the epicenter of the crisis, is also central to the feeble recovery," says Ethan Harris, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.Small businesses aren't borrowing as much. While bigger companies can access the now-recovered market for bonds and other debt, many smaller companies—which are key job generators—use the value of their own property to secure bank loans. As the value of those holdings has fallen, so too has their ability to get loans, crimping investment and hiring at a time when the recovery is gaining steam.Some 49% of small businesses own at least part of the commercial buildings in which they are located, and the majority of them have mortgages, according to the National Federation of Independent Business. But as real-estate values have fallen, so has this source of equity, limiting how much a bank can lend them.U.S. nonfinancial companies had $6.3 trillion in real-estate assets at the end of 2009, down 33% from 2007, according to the Federal Reserve. That drop is a big reason why corporations' total net worth fell to $12.9 trillion from $15.9 trillion over the same period.With the value of collateral so depressed "the ability for many small employers to borrow will be constrained precisely as sales begin to strengthen and new investments are warranted," wrote the National Federation of Independent Business in a recent report on small-business credit conditions.Lower real-estate values translate into lower property taxes, crimping government spending. State and local governments employ 20 million police officers, teachers and other employees, roughly 15% of the work force and more than in all of manufacturing. But much of the money to provide services and pay employees comes from property taxes, which depend on property values. Even as the economy and job market recover, Local governments are cutting employees as they grapple with the worst budget deficits in a generation.Property taxes continued to grow through the recession and recovery, in part because local governments calculate the levy based on property assessments that are often years old. Property taxes grew 5.7% to $170 billion in the last three months of 2009 versus the same period in 2008. That won't last as tax assessments catch up with reality.In California, one of the first states into recession, Santa Barbara County saw its 2009 property taxes decline for the first time since 1978.Property taxes "have only just begun to slump, meaning that cities and other localities will be contending with increasing budget pressure for the next several years," writes the Brookings Institution, a left-leaning Washington think-tank, in a recent report on local government.Real estate itself is but a small share of the U.S. economy, but its tentacles are far-reaching. |
|
|
Can the Housing Market Return? |
|
|
|
|
Clipped by Sam Stamper
|
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
|
|
Will we ever see the year over year appreciation that we saw from 1998-2006? Can Housing stabilize enough to start heading back in the right direction? Most people will say that housing has a long road to go before we ever get back to any significant appreciation. Until foreclosures slow down, inventory dreis up and the job market comes back we will have problems in the housing sector. For the most accurate, up-to-date view of where America's housing market stands today, the best source is Mike Castleman. This tall, lean Texan rancher who fits the Hollywood image of a retired bronco buster is the founder of Metrostudy, a firm that dispatches researchers to inspect 4.5 million building lots every ninety days in the busiest cities for homebuilding, from Washington, D.C., to Chicago to Phoenix to Sacramento.Metrostudy keeps a constant watch over two-thirds of the housing construction in America for its clients, chiefly America's top homebuilders. So to learn if his latest numbers point to the robust recovery we've long awaited, and that strong recent numbers in March -- new home sales rose 18.7% over March of 2009 -- might foretell, I called Castleman at his 460 acre cattle ranch in Dripping Springs, Texas, where the deer and wild turkey roam.Castleman had just finished compiling the numbers from his latest inspections the evening before. His on-the-ground research shows two major forces shaping the housing market: one favorable, the other sobering. The combination points to a market bumping along at a steady but plodding pace.On the positive side, Castleman says that the burden that wrecked the market, the excess inventory of both finished homes and houses under construction, has finally evaporated in places from Indianapolis to the California's Inland Empire. The negative is that the gains didn't come from what the market needs most: a resurgence in sales showing that Americans are getting optimistic and hence more willing to buy homes again."This is no comeback""Sales simply stopped dropping after they hit an extremely low level," says Castleman. "This is no comeback. There is no reason for celebration. No matter what you hear about 'job creation', the economy remains stagnant." The improvement, he adds, comes from a drop in housing production that's even deeper than the staggering drop in sales.Still, Castleman's analysis shows that housing is finally turning one crucial corner: For the first time in four dismal years, demand for new homes is outstripping supply. So builders are increasing their production, with strong confidence the houses will sell. Amazingly, homebuilding has been so weak, for so long, that a few markets are even suffering from shortages. As a result, says Castleman, prices will actually rise in some places, including Washington, D.C., and Indianapolis. And prices should be stable in most others, such as Houston, Naples, Florida, Charlotte and Denver. That's no sterling comeback, but it is progress.Let's follow Castleman's explanation of how housing sank so fast, and the forces that are restoring balance: The biggest threat to the market is excess inventory, measured as total finished houses for sale, plus those under construction. In a decent market, Castleman says it should take builders around six to seven months to sell their stock of completed homes and the ones they just started building. "It usually takes homebuilders four months to complete a house," says Castleman. "They can usually carry it for two months without a problem. But four months or more of paying big interest and insurance costs puts them under tremendous strain, and forces them to slash prices." That's what happened in the crisis.How the excess housing inventory piled upStarting in 2004, builders began erecting far more houses each quarter than they were eventually able to sell. In the areas Metrostudy covers, housing starts rose to around 800,000 a year -- 300,000-plus more than the market could absorb. "They over-built because of the investors who flooded into California, Phoenix and Las Vegas, signing contracts on ten houses at a time," says Castleman. "We'd preach to clients not to sell to investors, but they couldn't help themselves."By early 2007, the builders had an incredible 10 months of inventory either for sale or in the pipeline, when tens of thousands of investors and other buyers simply walked from their contracts as rates rose and jobs disappeared. "The price war we predicted happened," says Castleman. "It cost the homebuilders $40 billion in market cap, and cost smaller builders their businesses."To stop the bleeding, builders sharply curtailed their production. "In two quarters, they cut their output by 40%, from 200,000 houses per quarter to 120,000," marvels Castleman. "We've never seen anything like it." The problem was that the builders had poured so many foundations during the boom that home construction already in the pipeline kept flooding the already oversaturated market. The stock of unsold homes remained huge until the start of 2008. But the market was working: The number of sales, though extremely weak, remained far higher than the even feebler number of housing starts. So that excess inventory steadily eroded during 2009.One turnaround leads to anotherThat brought a dramatic change in the first quarter of 2010. "All of a sudden," says Castleman, "demand stabilized at around 60,000 units a quarter, and stayed there." To be sure, that's an extremely low number. Castleman estimates that in a normal economy, around twice that many units should be selling. But housing starts, by the end of 2009, had dropped to an astounding 30,000 a quarter, an extraordinary one-fourth of what the market normally requires. "Now builders are seeing, for the first time in years, that they don't have enough houses either finished or under construction to meet demand," says Castleman. Result: In Metrostudy's markets, housing starts spiked by 44% in the first quarter of 2010, versus the same period last year. |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Clipped by Sam Stamper
|
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
|
|
As reported by CNN - Money.com Home prices have started to increase in some areas. Home prices in February posted their first year over year increase since December 2006. Moving slightly forward prices inched up .06% as compared to prices in February of 2009. Nine of 20 cities showed slight increase in value. This could be contributed to a variety of factors including Government Tax Credits and Low Interest Rates. Consumers rushed to take advanatge of historic low rates and some tax incentives that are coming to an end. Overall rates ahve been fairly stable fluctuating only about .25% to .50 % during the last 6 months. With the lowest rates in December 2009. The jury is still out to see if these numbes will stick and home values have finally bottomed. The age old addage is Real Estate still holds true. Location - Location -Location. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- February home prices posted their first year-over-year increase since December 2006, according to a report out today.Home prices inched up 0.6% compared to February 2009 according to the S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city index, with nine of the 20 cities showing gains.
The homebuyer tax credit, available until the end of April, is the likely cause for these encouraging numbers," said David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at S&P. But home prices actually fell by 0.9% compared with January. The dip was small enough to put prices in positive territory compared with 12 months earlier, when home prices were falling very steeply.Indeed, 18 cities saw month-over-month price declines in February and six cities, including New York, Las Vegas and Seattle, posted new lows for this downturn. "These data point to a risk that home prices could decline further before experiencing any sustained gains," said Blitzer. "It is too early to say that the housing market is recovering."As of February, prices are about where they were in the Fall of 2003. Prices for the 20-city index are down 32.6% from their peak in July 2006, wiping out all of the gains from the housing boom.California risingThe best performing market in February was San Francisco, which posted a double-digit gain over the past 12 months of 11.9%. San Diego home prices jumped 7.6% and Los Angeles gained 5.3%."California had very steep declines during the downfall and now people are rushing to catch the market on its way up," said Lawrence Yun, the chief economist for the National Association of Realtors. The biggest loser continued to be Las Vegas, where prices dropped 14.6% over the past 12 months.S&P's Blitzer warned that housing markets still have some deep problems that could derail any recovery. Chief among them is the foreclosure crisis. "As [foreclosures] are put up for sale, we may see some further dampening in home prices,"But David Crowe, the chief economist for the National Association of Home Builders, expects home prices to remain stable for some time."We're in for a period of wandering around zero [price gains]," he said, "with some months up and some down but with the general trend slightly upward."Home builders have regained some of their confidence lately with new home sales and permits both posting big gains. "Starter home builders in the central part of the country are most confident," said Crowe. "They're least optimistic in the bubble states like California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida, and the auto industry areas."An upturn in the confidence level of both buyers and sellers was ushered in by federal stimulus programs, according to Yun, especially the homebuyer's tax credit and the Federal Reserve's move to purchase mortgage-backed securities. That made it easier to obtain financing. "The stimulus program stopped the bleeding," he said. "What we now have to see is whether consumers view price stabilization as permanent." |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 27 April 2010 )
|
|
|
How Bad Does Foreclosure Hurt My Credit Score? |
|
|
|
|
Clipped by Sam Stamper
|
Thursday, 22 April 2010
|
|
The question of the day seems to be How Bad does Foreclosure hurt my credit? Every day more and more people are falling behind in their Mortgage Payments and the Modifcation Programs offered by the Government have been a dismall failure. Homeowenrs don't know where to turn anymore for trustworthy honest advice. Some people seem to think that with all of the foreclosures going on in the last couple of years that banks will be more lenient about seeing this on your credit report in the future. Chances are that you would probably be better off to do a Short Sale to prevent a Foreclosure ending up on your credit report. Banks are not going to be anxious to loan to someone again if your house went into foreclosure previously. No matter how many other people this happened to. If you're delinquent on your mortgage, your credit score will suffer. Everyone knows that. The question is, by how much? Until recently, those answers were hard to come by. Credit bureaus were uncommunicative about expressing, in points, just how much impact different foreclosure types of mortgage delinquencies have on scores.
Recently, Fair Isaac, which developed FICO scores, pulled back the curtain a bit, revealing some estimates of point-score declines following mortgage delinquency problems. Here are the average hit your credit will take: 30 days late: 40 - 110 points 90 days late: 70 - 135 points Foreclosure, short sale or deed-in-lieu: 85 - 160 Bankruptcy: 130 - 240 To come to these figures, Fair Isaac created two hypothetical consumers, one who starts out with a fair-to-middling score of 680 and the other with a very good one of 780. (FICA scores range from 300 to 850.) The hypothetical person with the 780 FICA has 10 credit accounts versus six for the 580, plus a longer credit history, lower utilization of total credit limit and no missed payments on any account. The other consumer has two slightly damaged accounts. Neither have any accounts in collection or adverse public records. See the chart above to see how each scenario affected each borrower. Notice that for both borrowers a single one-time black mark results in steep drops, but it is when they fall further behind that things get really harsh, according to Craig Watts, a spokesman for Fair Isaac. "The lending industry tends to regard an account differently when it has become 90 or more days late," he said, "The likelihood that consumers will resume paying their overdue obligations drops off significantly after the delinquencies have reached 90 days." One reason credit companies were so closed-mouthed is that they often can't definitively state how much each delinquencies will affect scores because there are too many variables. Some borrowers will fall much more steeply than others for the same payment problem, according to Maxine Sweet, vice president for public education at Experian, one of the nation's main credit bureaus. "If you picture someone who has just one mortgage and one other credit account versus a mature credit user like me with 15 accounts, if they miss one payment that would impact their scores a lot more," she said. "For me, one missed payment would just be a blip." The point loss also depends on the borrower's starting point: People with very high credit scores have more to lose than low-score borrowers; the impact of a single blemish on an 800 score is more than on a 500. 0:00 /2:23Homeowners overtaxed Of course, it just gets worse when you face foreclosure. Mortgage borrowers can lose their homes three basic ways: a foreclosure; a short sale, where the home is sold for less than than is owed and the bank (generally) forgives the difference; or a deed-in-lieu, in which the borrower gives back the property and the bank again forgives any unpaid balance. Sweet said credit bureaus generally slash scores equally for those three resolutions to someone losing their home. The important factor, she said, is that "it's reported that you paid less on a settled account." Some borrowers may think that because they never missed a payment, they can "walk away" from their homes with relatively little impact on scores. Not true. "When a deed-in-lieu or short sale is reported as a partial payment, it's treated as a serious delinquency," Watts said, "just like a foreclosure." Even if borrowers made payments faithfully for years before short selling or doing a deed-in-lieu, their credit score will still take a hit. The total decline will run about 85 points for the 680 score borrower to as much as 160 for the 780 score. Mortgage debt, combined with other financial problems, can send borrowers into bankruptcy, the worst thing that can happen to your credit score. The effects are long-lasting, according to Sweet. In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which involves partial repayment over several years, the stain will take seven years to remove. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which involves liquidation, takes 10 years to get over. It's gonna cost you Absorbing a big credit-score hit can make many transactions more costly. It's not just paying more for credit card debt and auto loans, insurance can cost more as well. The average savings for someone with a good versus mediocre credit score is about $115 a year for auto insurance and $60 for home, according to Loretta Sorters, of the Insurance Information Institute. A low credit score can even make it harder to rent a home because landlords often use credit scores to weed out prospective renters. Despite the problems a poor credit score can cause, Experian's Sweet recommends that people who are in financial dead ends, like totally unaffordable mortgages, it's better to recognize that and cut your losses quickly; don't prolong the problem. "You need to do what you need to do to get your finances back in order," she said. "Don't worry about your credit score." Mortgage, Loan, Loans, Home Loans, Lowest Rate, Mortgage Refinance, California Mortgage, California Home loans California Short Sales Refinance Loans Mortgage Rates Mortgage Calculator Loans Purchase Refinance Real Estate Mortgage Newport Beach California Orange County California Irvine California Laguna Beach California Mission Viejo California Lowest rates Fixed Rates Interest Rates Stated Income Cash out Good credit home loans Bad Credit loans FHA loans VA loans Fixed Rate Home Loans Fixed Rate Funding Lowest Rate Home Loans No Closing Cost 0 Closing Cost No Down Payment |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 24 May 2010 )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Mortgages: Why It May Be Time to Refinance Your Loan |
|
|
|
|
Clipped by Sam Stamper
|
Saturday, 10 April 2010
|
|
With the Federal Reserve out of the mortgage market and the economy gaining strength, some economists are warning that mortgage rates, still near historic lows, will soon start rising. That presents a tough choice for borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages or home-equity lines of credit: Should they trade their low-rate loans for more-expensive fixed-rate loans? Or should they stick with a cheap rate and gamble that it won't adjust sharply higher?The answer depends on how long borrowers plan to live in their current home and how much interest rates are going to rise. Those who plan to move in a few years probably don't need to lock in a fixed rate unless they think rates are bound to jump. Mortgage rates already have ticked up a bit since the Fed ended its purchases of mortgage-backed securities a week ago. Average 30-year fixed mortgage rates stood at 5.20% on Thursday, down from 5.32% on Monday but still up from 5.18% a week earlier, according to HSH Associates. The Mortgage Bankers Association calls for rates to rise to 5.8% by year end, a level unseen since November 2008. Adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs, have been hovering around 4% or even lower. Many offer fixed rates for an initial three-, five-, or seven-year period before resetting annually. ARMs are tied to short-term interest rates, and rise when the Fed increases the federal-funds rate. The financial markets are betting on the Fed to start raising rates by the end of this year. The question is how high those rates will go. No one knows.If the Fed boosts rates by two percentage points, it would bring adjustable-rate mortgages into rough parity with today's fixed-rate mortgages. But waiting for the Fed to raise rates all the way to there could be risky, because fixed-rate loans could rise, too. The question boils down to taking guaranteed pain now or risking even more pain later. The decision turns on how long borrowers plan to live in their houses. "If your ownership period is less than three years, you're on pretty good grounds to gamble and avoid the closing costs of a refinance," says Lou Barnes, a mortgage banker in Boulder, Colo. Closing costs average 2% to 3% of the loan amount. Borrowers who plan to live in their homes for the long haul may be better off refinancing into a fixed rate. Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, says he is worried that many ARM borrowers have their "heads in the sand" and won't refinance to fixed rates, which are still near historical lows, because their current variable rates are even lower. If rates spike, it could come as a nasty surprise. Borrowers with home-equity lines of credit, or HELOCs, also have a decision to make. HELOCs have been a great deal in recent years, with rates often below 4%. The rates on many of those loans reset every month. But the rates on fixed loans are higher, ranging from 5.5% to 8.5% right now. If borrowers think the adjustable rate will jump higher than that fixed rate and will stay higher, then they should lock in. But it is a gamble. "You're going to pay more to convert," says Bob Walters, chief economist at Quicken Loans. "The question is, what do you think is going to happen to short-term rates?"Swapping a HELOC for a fixed rate has other drawbacks. It can require higher monthly payments because most loans will begin amortizing, or requiring principal and interest payments, typically on a 10- or 15-year term, while a typical HELOC will allow borrowers to make the interest payments only for a certain period of time. And homeowners with unused credit lines may have to forfeit the chance to tap any remaining credit. Pete Ogilvie, a mortgage broker in Santa Cruz, Calif., is leaning toward switching the $60,000 balance on his $180,000 HELOC to a fixed rate. He remembers when rates on that loan rose quickly from 4% to 7% a few years ago and says "that could be happening again now." Still, because of the high fixed rate that his lender is likely to charge, he says it is a decision he would make "very reluctantly." |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 7 - 12 of 213 |
|
|
|