Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Feds Cut Downpayment Assistance Programs


For a decade, credit-challenged homebuyers have used a regulatory loophole that lets them get Federal Housing Administration mortgages without putting their own money down, while at the same time avoiding costly subprime loans. About 7,000 buyers per month were exploiting the loophole, and now the feds are squeezing it shut. The new policy means that prospective homebuyers with marginal credit will have to act quickly if they want to buy houses without putting any money down. Otherwise, they will have to save for down payments or wait for the FHA to roll out its own zero-down program. At issue is a controversial method of scraping together the down payment for a house. Many subprime lenders require down payments of at least 5 percent. That's a high hurdle for people who already have credit problems; luckily for those borrowers, loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration require smaller down payments -- as little as 3 percent. Lenders mandate down payments for several reasons, the main one being that borrowers are less likely to stop making monthly payments if their own money is at risk. To make sure that borrowers have something to lose, no lender allows sellers to make down payments on behalf of buyers. But for FHA-insured loans, there has been a way to get around that seller-funded prohibition. The housing boom and the loophole. The FHA allows homebuyers to accept gifts of down-payment money from nonprofit organizations. There's your loophole: Since the 1990s, the FHA has grudgingly allowed home sellers to "contribute" money to nonprofits, and for the nonprofits to then "donate" the money to homebuyers. In effect, sellers could fund buyers' down payments, which was a no-no, but the enterprise was technically legal because the money was shuttled through nonprofits. The nonprofits collected service fees from sellers. A lively down-payment assistance industry grew quickly behind the protection of this loophole in FHA regulations. In the 2000 fiscal year, 6 percent of FHA-insured purchase loans had down payments channeled through nonprofits; four years later, 33 percent did. When this funding method was most popular, in fiscal years 2003 through 2005, more than 10,000 people per month were taking advantage of it, boosting the housing boom. From 2000 through 2006, more than 650,000 buyers got their down payments through nonprofits. The federal housing department and Congress have commissioned at least three studies since 1999 that concluded these loans were riskier than FHA loans that didn't involve down-payment gifts. Sellers inflated home prices to recoup their contributions to the nonprofits, researchers found. The studies recommended that the nonprofit down-payment assistance loophole be closed. Mortgage lenders, home builders and down-payment assistance programs argued to keep the loophole open, on the grounds that boosting the homeownership rate was good for everyone. The feds didn't take action until now. Opposition to rule change this fall, the Department of Housing and Urban Development adopted a rule that prohibits the down payment money from coming, directly or indirectly, from the seller or "any other person or entity that financially benefits from the transaction." HUD administers the FHA. The rule takes effect Oct. 31. The down-payment industry has come to be dominated by two nonprofits: AmeriDream, based in Gaithersburg, Md., and Nehemiah Corp. of America, based in Sacramento, Calif. Both have asked federal courts to block HUD from enforcing the rule. The housing department won't comment, other than saying it will defend itself in court. "HUD completely disregarded any effort to fix the problems and improve the program," says Ann Ashburn, president of AmeriDream. Among the improvements she suggests: prohibiting sellers from inflating their sales prices to make up for their down-payment contributions and requiring property appraisers to include the down-payment gifts in their assessments. If the new regulation goes into effect on Halloween, it would immediately end down-payment assistance grants from AmeriDream and all its competitors except Nehemiah. Scott Syphax, president of Nehemiah, says his nonprofit won a six-month exemption as a result of litigation against HUD 10 years ago, so Nehemiah will be able to serve as a conduit for down payments until March 31 -- six months after HUD published the rule in the Federal Register. Effect on housing market? The heads of AmeriDream and Nehemiah say the new rule is short-sighted. "This particular rule couldn't have happened at a worse time for working families and for the economy itself," Syphax says. "Over 10,000 homeowners are created every single month utilizing this program. Those people immediately will no longer be served." HUD disputes that the new rule will harm the economy, explaining in a regulatory filing that it "will have a positive impact on the housing market and on the economy by reducing the number of mortgages that would otherwise default and go into foreclosure, driving down property values and negatively impacting a community's tax base and economic viability." Ashburn and Syphax say they are outraged that HUD would publish the new rule while the House and Senate are weighing FHA reform. House bill 1852 would bar HUD from implementing the rule and would allow FHA to insure zero-down mortgages. A Senate bill would allow HUD to implement the rule and would lower the down payment requirement to 1.5 percent instead of 3 percent. It seems clear that if FHA reform becomes law someday, the minimum down payment is likely to be lowered from the current 3 percent. A lowered threshold would please potential homebuyers who can't or won't save a few thousand dollars for a down payment. In the meantime, people who want FHA-insured mortgages will have to save up that 3 percent down payment, apply at Nehemiah before next March, or hope Nehemiah or AmeriDream win their court challenges.

by Holden Lewis, Bankrate.com

Friday, October 12, 2007

No woes in Texas real estate market


I received this good information from a colleague of mine and thought it would be beneficial to share with all the Texans that are worried about buying a home.


A Lot of people are nervous about what they are reading in the newspaper and hearing on TV, but how can you blame them?


The media is bombarding people with reports about the housing decline and the sub-prime mortgages.However, Chief Economist for the National Mortgage Bankers Association, Doug Duncan, decided last week to set the record straight.


In a private conversation, Doug said that people have nothing to worry about in Texas.Some of his defenses were...


1) The foreclosure problem in this country is really a story about 7 states.

2) The biggest foreclosure problem is in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. These are predominantly manufacturing states.

3) Since 2001, Michigan has lost 300,000 + jobs.

4) The other 4 states are Calf., Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. In each of these states there has been a significant overbuilding. 25% of the foreclosures in these states are on properties that are held by investors who were speculating.

5) California & Florida have been hit very hard

6) 35% of the homes in the USA do not have a mortgage

7) 98% of the mortgages in the USA are performing

8) Only 9% of all mortgages are sub-prime.

9) 75% of all sub-prime mortgages are performing

10) In the other 43 states, foreclosures have fallen in 2007 from 2006.


Right now, our local inventory levels are half the national average and well priced homes are selling fast.


You cannot expect this type of factual information to be distributed by the news media channels. We have to tell folks this story.


Written by Mark Rhoton.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Two Sides To Every Story - Buying New Construction


I am new to blogging and not sure where to start. I figure since I am very familiar with selling new construction homes I should (and would be better off) starting from there.


Most of what I am going to tell you is here say and opinions. It is easy to get facts because we now have the wonderful Internet, but sales consultants do not sell on facts....they sell on emotions. Your emotions. If I were to say I hadn't done that a time or two I would be lying. Why do you think we go to all those sales seminars? Now, on the other hand, there are a little more then a handful of sales consultants that are dying to give you more then just the emotional buying process but they aren't allowed to. They do that and they are out of a well paying job. It is an inner angel/devil struggle on a daily basis. I prefer to sell on honesty, or basically as honest as I can be without costing my employer to loose a sale. We all have done it before. We all have told somebody everything that we know will benefit them without mentioning the things that will be less then beneficial to them. Telling people what they want to hear and staying clear of what they don't want to hear makes a good sales person. But what if they need to hear it??


For instance, you go to one builder selling a new home you absolutely love. It is 1500 sq.ft. and it is priced at $150,000 with a$10,000 incentive. They tell you that they have rounded corners, high ceilings, 3 sides brick and better construction then their competitor, and they are the most remarkable builder in the South. You are sold...BUT, out of curiosity you take a drive down to their competitor. You walk into a similar floor plan and notice 1500 sq. ft. there is $128,000 without incentives. You also notice that there is steel tubs in the bathrooms, wood shelving in the closets, sheetrock on all walls in the garage interior and recessed lighting in the home. These are things you didn't see in the prior home. Then you meet their sales consultant and he says that they build their homes on site and they are not prefabricated which makes for less Sheetrock cracking and nail pops. Although he uses only 1 side brick standard, he builds everything to code just like his competitor (but you didn't know that anybody had a code to begin with), therefore they are constructed equally. Just about.

The eye candy in the first home is what you fell in love with. Unfortunately, the second builder doesn't offer that eye candy. What they do offer is a more detailed quality in construction. Items that will last longer. No fiberglass tubs, no wired shelving, no cheap lighting fixtures...etc.

You think just because something is more expensive then there is a reason for it (or at least that salesperson makes you think there is a reason for it). The reason is profit margins, unless you are going the custom home route. The less a builder sells the higher his profit margins have to be per home sale to stay in existence. The more a builder sells the more he can skim off the top.

My opinion is to find a builder that isn't overly expensive to begin with, who sells a lot of homes, doesn't play the ridiculous negotiating game (if it was worth the price they start out with then they wouldn't be giving crazy discounts), has a good reputation and builds a quality home to "code."