So Cal Real Estate News

July 21 update: Yesterday the “The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008” was passed by the House by an overwhelming 272-152 vote.  It’ now goes back to the Senate where prompt approval is expected.  Meanwhile, the Bush administration has dropped their opposition to the bill’s $3.9 billion in grants for local governments to buy and rehab foreclosed properties, as a trade off for propping up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

Other provisions of the bill in it’s current form include:

• Permanent increases Fannie, Freddie, and FHA loan limits to $625,000 in the highest cost areas–a significant boost for high priced areas like much of Southern California.
• A tax credit of  up to $7,500 for first time buyers who close escrow between 4/9/08 and 7/1/09. (We think this will increase demand, and recommend first time buyers contact us now so we can set them up with a personalized “web portal” which allows them to search, save, and categorize properties on the SoCal Multiple Listing Service.  562.822.SOLD.)
• Provides $11 billion in tax free municipal bond authority for states to set up low interest loans to first time buyers.
• Tightens regulations to avoid future repeats of the recent mortgage meltdown.
• Makes FHA mortgages more available, especially for “work outs” of over encumbered (”upside down”) borrowers who qualify and whose lenders will participate by writing down the loan to 90% of the home’s current market value (details in the article below).
• A tax break for homeowners who don’t itemize:  A $500 - $1,000 write off for their property taxes in 2008.

Overall, we think this bill is a major step in the right direction, and it reinforces the projections we made yesterday for local home price bottoms occurring this winter or next. (See “Home price bottom near for Orange County?“)

Most of the information about the bill in the article below is still accurate, other than the fact that the bill has now passed the House in it’s revised form.

(July 14, 2008, 10:00 a.m.) I just received this info this morning from the National Association of Realtors’ Governmental Affairs Department. It’s the best I’ve seen yet of what the next steps are for the “Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008,” better known as the “Mortgage Relief,” “bailout,” or “housing” bill that the Senate approved last week. I’ll pass it on pretty much in it’s entirety:

The proposed $8000 homebuyer tax credit and the FHA and GSE reform and mortgage rescue legislation (H.R. 3221) has passed the Senate and now goes back to the House for what legislators hope will be a binding revision that can pass the House and Senate before the end of July. This “ping pong” effect arises because some Senate Republicans have lodged formal objections to the usual process of taking two differing versions of the bill to a House-Senate conference.

The House and Senate versions of the housing bill are now in very close alignment, with only a few issues to be resolved. Many of the issues revolve around the question of whether the bill will be “paid for.” The major focus of the pay-for problem is the provision in the Senate package that would authorize $4 billion for grants to local governments where communities have been particularly hard-hit by foreclosures. The grants would be made under the Community Block Development Grant program (CDBG). These CDBG provisions are not “paid for.” House Blue Dogs (fiscally conservative Democrats) insist that it be paid for. House Republicans, including President Bush, oppose the CDBG provision altogether. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill, in part because of the CDBG provision. Accordingly, the House has the choice of deleting the grant provisions or finding other, offsetting spending cuts.

Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) also hopes to maintain the 2008 high cost limits of $729,000, while the Senate has agreed to limits up to $625,500 for both the GSEs and FHA. While NAR continues to work for higher limits, it is important to note that even $625,500 is significantly higher than the $550,440 originally passed by the Senate Banking Committee.

Finally, additional tax revenues are needed to close a gap on the tax package. A non-real estate provision has been identified and will likely be added in this final House package, as well. The tax provisions themselves are not likely to be modified in the House.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank (D-MA), the architect of the housing and financial reforms, anticipates that the House can finish its work by July 18. If the bill does pass the House by then, the Senate should have adequate time to cast the final vote and send the package to the President for signature by the end of July.

Click here for a chart comparing House and Senate provisions in pdf form.
(Please note: the form is dated “April 2008,” and much has changed in both bill since then.)

Dave again.  As I indicated last week, this legislation is turning out better than I thought. (See “Better than I thought: Taxpayer protections in the “bailout” bill.”)

It’s not going to reverse the home price declines by itself, but it will help reduce the damage caused by the continuing flood of foreclosures.

It’s our opinion that we may be reaching a bottom sooner than originally expected. More about that in a post to come today or tomorrow. But it’s also been our position since November that there are still more surprises ahead. (See “How low will prices go?“)

I’ve been going back on forth on the bailout bill since it was introduced, but I just finished a phone call that’s got me jumping onto the pro-bailout bandwagon.

I just got off the phone with an efficient but polite collections representative folks at legendary sub-prime EMC Mortgage. We were discussing a “short sale,” which is anything but short. Basically, it’s the sale of an “upside down” (over encumbered) property where the lender takes a reduced or “short” payoff to enable the sale. The seller is a client of ours, and reflecting on her situation gave me a renewed desire to see at least the core parts of the bill passed.

This borrower is now upside down due to both market declines and negative amortization. A change in her family situation has created major challenges, and there’s no way she’ll be able to make her payment once massive scheduled payment reset kick in down the road.

When she first called me a few months back, I referred her to “Trouble making your mortgage payment? 7 ways to get back on track.” I suggested she review that post, then contact her lender to try to work out a waiver of the negative amortization and reduction of her interest rate. After about two months, EMC told her they weren’t interested.

It seemed like EMC was just too busy dealing with people whose loans had already reset. They didn’t want to deal with borrowers whose reset is still months away. They basically told her they’d talk to her then, but she felt that if they wouldn’t make a commitment to reduce the principal balance and interest rate now, she’d be better off biting the bullet sooner than later.

That’s when we started on the short sale. Despite another short sale listing across the street and a new REO listing a few houses away, we now have a buyer in escrow and are awaiting approval from EMC Mortgage’s loss mitigation department.

Were the Mortgage Relief Bill already in place, I’m pretty sure the owner would have been able to keep her home, we’d have one less listing in a saturated market, and EMC’s loss would be lessened, and the home owner’s equity increased. Pretty much a “win” all the way around.

Under the provisions of the Mortgage Relief Bill, as I understand them, if EMC accepted a write-down of the loan to 97% of current market value, FHA would insure a refinance with at least 3% equity if the borrower actually qualified, which I’m pretty sure would be the case in this situation.

Some people oppose the “bailout” bill because they feel like it rewards greedy lenders and imprudent borrowers. In this case, however, the lender would still have to write down at least $100,000. The homeowner, a hard-working, honest first-time buyer who trusted her lender too much, has lost her original equity and has certainly learned from her mistake.

However, the bigger issue isn’t helping undeserving borrowers & homeowners, but cutting back on the oncoming wave of foreclosures to help our economy by stabilizing home prices and keeping more banks solvent.

Some have suggested that private initiatives could do the same. They might to some extent, but they sure haven’t helped any of the upside down sellers I’ve worked with so far. The truth is, the bailout bill itself is significantly limited in how many homeowners it would help.

From where I sit, on the front lines of the market crash, it sure looks like it will take both private and government assistance to get us out of this hole, or at least keep us falling into one unseen since the Great Depression.

The increase in sales indicates prices have fallen to a reasonably affordable level. But the oncoming wave of foreclosures is apt to drive prices even lower, resulting in even more foreclosures and a spiral downward only compounded by energy, interest, inflation, and manufacturing woes.

We’re all in the same boat, & I’m not in favor of letting it sink just because someone else kicked a hole in the bottom. Sometimes even the “innocent” have to help bail out the boat! Private and government initiatives alike.

I’m not in favor of bailing out anyone who can’t qualify for the new loan. No more “liar loans,” please! If I understand this bailout bill correctly, the FHA would only loan to homeowners who could qualify.

In this specific case, what my seller was trying to negotiate with EMC was similar to what the bailout’s proposing. I’m sure she’d make it work if her principal balance was down to 3% below market instead of $100,000 over market and if she had a fixed FHA loan at say 6.25% instead of an adjustable about to adjust to 13%.

There’s plenty not to like about the govt. bail out, but the basic concept of the lender writing the loan down to a little below market value in return for FHA rewriting the loan if the buyer qualifies should reduce the foreclosure onslaught somewhat. I think the Senate tends to produce better law then the House, and they did some significant changes from Barney Frank’s original bill. They got more of it right than I expected.

We’ve seen a price correction around 25%, which is enough to bring buyers back even in such a negative environment. If it weren’t for all the additional REOs in the pipeline we’d probably be nearing a price bottom, based on current activity.

But the decline of an additional 25% that some people are predicting due to the REO problem would trigger a whole new round of foreclosures–a downward spiral of doom that could be worse than the Great Depression. That would cost FHA and taxpayers more than reducing the flood by guaranteeing some loans to stem the tide somewhat.

To me, it looks like a “pay me now, or pay me later” sort of thing, regardless of whose fault it is.  And there’s plenty of blame to go around, believe me! (see “How we got into this mess“)

Today the Wall Street Journal reported that Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) and his committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama have reached an “agreement in principal” that could lead to senate approval of their own version of Barny Frank’s $300 billion dollar mortgage relief bill.

You may recall our post ten days ago about Ben Bernanke’s seeming support of such a bill.

While we are supportive of some of the many things included in Frank’s bill, there are huge problems which we hope our Senators are wise enough to correct.

1. It makes no sense to bail out loans that never should have been made and that will ultimately fail regardless of temporary bailouts. There’s plenty of blame to go around for the subprime crisis (see “How we got into this mess“), some goes to borrowers who lied about their income, other to lenders willing to make no down home loans to borrowers with Fico scores so low I wouldn’t have accepted them as renters, let along borrowers. In either case, there’s no sense in putting off the inevitable for borrowers who never should have become homeowners.
2. It makes no sense to reward and encourage irresponsibility. It’s really up to the borrower to read and understand the loan documents, not to just “trust our agent,” who probably hasn’t read them either.
3. Let’s not punish tens of millions of responsible homeowners who are also taxpayers by forcing them to shoulder billions of potential losses to bail out less responsible homeowners.

In fairness, many subprime borrowers were duped by mortgage brokers who were often also real estate agents, eager to make a commissions for both the sale and the loan. I’ve heard tales of some agents employing full time “signers” to supply signatures on loan applications and documents. Many others simply trusted agents who spoke their language to correctly explain the various English documents. The documents are indeed overwhelming. I usually scan loan docs that I sign, but rarely do I read every word of every page.

The other day as Barb & I were out for an evening stroll we passed a home which had recently been foreclosed and then sold. The buyers paid about $200,000 less than the former owners had paid almost three years ago. They had moved in, and we noticed new kitchen cabinets stacked in the garage, no doubt waiting installation.

This was not a subprime loan gone bad, just a case of a buyer who bought at the peak and then decided to accept a job transfer as prices were declining. They picked a really friendly Realtor whose child was on the same soccer team as theirs (see”Top 10 ways NOT to pick a real estate agent“).  The agent allowed them to overprice the home, then chase the market down, then take it off the market and rent it until their considerable equity was gone.

Sad for the borrower, sad for the lender, good for the buyer.  Kind of a cleansing and a fresh start, ultimately for everyone.  Not the end of the world.  Nobody died.  The sun’s still coming up.  Lender and  borrower made their choices and lived with the consequences.  And the American taxpayer didn’t have to bail anyone out.

Worse things could happen.  Rep Frank’s bailout bill, unless modified by the Senate, might be one of them.