PDA

View Full Version : Housing Market



Gerry Clinchy
03-19-2011, 08:21 PM
Can't find the old thread, so started a new one
http://rismedia.com/2011-03-19/banks-spruce-up-foreclosures-to-boost-sales/



Last month within the city of Chicago, 207 of the 472 single-family detached homes that sold were foreclosed properties. An additional 62 were short sales, transactions in which the homeowner sells the home, with the lender’s permission, for less than the amount owed on the mortgage. Combined, distressed properties in February accounted for 57% of all single-family detached sales and 46% of all condos, according to the Chicago Association of REALTORS®.

Fannie Mae repossessed more than 262,000 single-family homes nationally last year, and as of Dec. 31, its inventory of single-family REOs was almost 163,000.

Under its “first look” program that began in September 2009, Fannie Mae will only consider offers from owner-occupants or buyers like nonprofits during the first 15 days a home is on the market. Fannie sold nearly 29,000 homes to consumers under that program during its first year.

Franco
03-19-2011, 10:13 PM
Obama needs to do the tax payers a favor and shoot Fannie and Freddie thus putting them out of thier misery.

How much tax payer dollars wasted here, including projected interest?

Barney Frank should serve time for his gross incompetence in over-seeing these two Federally back institutions.

And, this is just another example of where the Fed has further damaged the dollar. We don't need a Federal Reserve!

Gerry Clinchy
03-21-2011, 02:10 PM
http://rismedia.com/2011-03-19/housing-starts-and-permits-stall-in-february-2011/



RISMEDIA, March 19, 2011—Nationwide housing starts and issuance of permits for new housing construction both posted disappointing declines in February 2011 as concerns about a growing number of factors caused builders to pull back on production of new homes, according to newly released figures from the U.S. Commerce Department. Total housing starts declined 22.5% from January to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 479,000 units, the second-slowest pace on record. Equally disconcerting, total permit issuance for new homes fell 8.2% to a record low pace of 517,000 units in February.

“The decline in new construction and permits in February is the culmination of a great deal of nervousness that both builders and consumers are feeling right now,” said Bob Nielsen, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and a home builder from Reno, Nev. “In an already-fragile market where credit for building and buying homes remains extremely tight, additional concerns about energy costs, interest rates and other factors are contributing to an atmosphere in which many have adopted a very cautious stance.” Nielsen noted that, as part of NAHB’s annual legislative conference, hundreds of home builders are personally taking the message to Congress that the flow of credit for housing must quickly be restored.

“While our latest member surveys showed a slight uptick in expectations for the future, there are just too many uncertainties out there for most builders and buyers to comfortably move forward with a new-home project at this time,” acknowledged NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “We need to see several months of consistent improvement in economic factors, plus concrete signs that the flow of credit to housing is improving, in order for the industry to return to a steady recovery and facilitate job growth.”

The declines in February housing starts were broad-based, reaching to every sector and region of the country. While single-family starts declined 11.8% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 375,000 units, multifamily starts—which tend to display greater volatility on a month-to-month basis—declined 46.1% to a rate of 104,000 units. Regional declines amounted to 37.5% in the Northeast, 48.6% in the Midwest, 6.3% in the South and 28% in the West.

Declines in permit issuance were also widespread in February. The single-family sector posted a 9.3% drop to 382,000 units while the multifamily sector posted a 4.9% drop to 135,000 units, and regional declines amounted to 27.8% in the Northeast, 5.4% in the Midwest, 1.4% in the South and 13.6% in the West.

For more information, visit www.nahb.org (http://www.nahb.org/).


Yup, you can't sell a house to a person who has no job. While the housing industry can provide a lot of jobs, that industry has to be "fueled" by jobs in other parts of the economy first.

LokiMeister
03-21-2011, 04:33 PM
The housing market will not get better until people start feeling better about their jobs situation, ie. people start going back to work. It's simple, a bank will not lend money to someone without a job.

Gerry Clinchy
03-30-2011, 07:30 PM
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/business/30foreclose.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

They have made a royal mess ... spent a bunch of $ & accomplished very little.

One line in this article says it best:


None of those hopes came to pass.

Gerry Clinchy
04-11-2012, 01:23 PM
FHA has just put in some new changes.

1) The "funding fee" or up-front mortgage insurance has increased from 1% to 1.75%
This "funding fee" is rolled into the mortgage amount, so buyers will be paying for it for the life of the mortgage; also take that much longer to reach 20% equity when the monthly PMI can be removed.

2) The monthly PMI has gone from 1.15% to 1.25% (during the bubble it was .55%) This is like paying an additional 1.25% on your mortgage rate until you reach 20% equity when the PMI can (and should be) removed.


While it may not be appropriate for the govt to be involved in the mortgage market to begin with, this action by FHA should impact any housing recovery in a negative way.

It will especially impact the market below $250K. Those buying higher-priced homes are not as likely to be using FHA loans.

Whatever you feel about FHA, these actions will slow the housing recovery, IMO.

One of the reasons for the use of FHA more since 2006, is that banks have made conventional mortgage criteria more stringent. Actually, even low risk buyers were being asked to put up as much as 30% down for new mortgages.

Here in PA, with a 1% transfer tax, the closing costs can typically range 5% to 6% in addition to the down payment (no matter how large the down payment). So, with 20% down, your full cash needed at settlement could be about 25%.

Possibly the real problem, however, is the FHA (and even some conventional loans) which allow the seller to pay those closing costs. So, if the borrower has a low down payment, and not enough to pay that extra 5 to 6%, the seller can pay all or part of them. This means that the new homeowner is going into a home cash poor from the get-go. That could mean they haven't got the ability to properly maintain the home; especially if something major goes wrong.

FHA presently allows a 6% "seller assist" with closing costs. There has been talk of moving that down to 3%, so that new owners have more skin in the game. They should have done these things when the market was boiling over. It would have tempered the bubble, at least in the lower price ranges (under $250K).

Making these changes now will mean that all those short sales and foreclosed homes will be harder for the banks to sell. Will that mean another bail-out of banks?

Jason Glavich
04-11-2012, 01:37 PM
FHA has just put in some new changes.

1) The "funding fee" or up-front mortgage insurance has increased from 1% to 1.75%
This "funding fee" is rolled into the mortgage amount, so buyers will be paying for it for the life of the mortgage; also take that much longer to reach 20% equity when the monthly PMI can be removed.

2) The monthly PMI has gone from 1.15% to 1.25% (during the bubble it was .55%) This is like paying an additional 1.25% on your mortgage rate until you reach 20% equity when the PMI can (and should be) removed.


While it may not be appropriate for the govt to be involved in the mortgage market to begin with, this action by FHA should impact any housing recovery in a negative way.

It will especially impact the market below $250K. Those buying higher-priced homes are not as likely to be using FHA loans.

Whatever you feel about FHA, these actions will slow the housing recovery, IMO.

One of the reasons for the use of FHA more since 2006, is that banks have made conventional mortgage criteria more stringent. Actually, even low risk buyers were being asked to put up as much as 30% down for new mortgages.

Here in PA, with a 1% transfer tax, the closing costs can typically range 5% to 6% in addition to the down payment (no matter how large the down payment). So, with 20% down, your full cash needed at settlement could be about 25%.

Possibly the real problem, however, is the FHA (and even some conventional loans) which allow the seller to pay those closing costs. So, if the borrower has a low down payment, and not enough to pay that extra 5 to 6%, the seller can pay all or part of them. This means that the new homeowner is going into a home cash poor from the get-go. That could mean they haven't got the ability to properly maintain the home; especially if something major goes wrong.

FHA presently allows a 6% "seller assist" with closing costs. There has been talk of moving that down to 3%, so that new owners have more skin in the game. They should have done these things when the market was boiling over. It would have tempered the bubble, at least in the lower price ranges (under $250K).

Making these changes now will mean that all those short sales and foreclosed homes will be harder for the banks to sell. Will that mean another bail-out of banks?

I just went through this for an FHA loan. I just want to focus on 1 part of this. The closing costs. I was refinancing, and I could wrap my closing up in my loan, hence the same problem you talked about, someone could refinance and get some money but still be cash poor to maintain the house. I paid mine but to me seller paying or rolling them in is the same thing.