Archive for the ‘Foreclosures’ Category

Great bargains in local foreclosures, if you can find them

Thursday, March 1st, 2012
Foreclosure

Philadelphia real estate bargain hunters, rejoice: you can save a bundle if you buy a bank-owned property in this region. Assuming you find one you like, that is.

According to the foreclosure site RealtyTrac, bank owned homes in the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Camden real estate market sell at an average of 52.5 percent below current market values as of the fourth quarter of 2011. That’s good enough to rank Philly second among all U.S. metros in the size of the discount a foreclosure buyer can expect. Only Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, Wis., where foreclosures sold at an average 57.9% discount, offered bigger housing bargains.

Those bargains, however, will be a little harder to find than in real estate foreclosure hot spots like California, Nevada and Florida. In the last quarter of 2011, foreclosed properties accounted for 7 percent of all real estate sales in the Philadelphia metropolitan region, according to RealtyTrac. That share of the Philadelphia real estate market is up about 8 percent from the preceding quarter, but it’s also half as large as foreclosures’ share of all sales nationwide.

For the year as a whole, sales of foreclosed properties accounted for just over 6 percent of all greater Philadelphia real estate sales transactions, a drop in market share of 10 percent from the previous year. Nationwide, foreclosures accounted for about one in every four home sales in 2011, RealtyTrac CEO Brandon Moore told The Philadelphia Inquirer.

According to the Inquirer, changes in bank policies designed to get foreclosed homes into the hands of buyers faster explain most of the rise in sales activity in the last quarter.

But even though the foreclosure bargains are quite good indeed, the fact that there are so few of them relative to the market as a whole indicates that the greater Philadelphia real estate market remains in better shape than most across the country.

–By Sandy Smith

Should we give the banks a haircut to jump-start the housing market?

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012
Foreclosure

Perhaps there's an alternative to this as a way to revive the housing market.

While the market for real estate in Philadelphia and nationwide has shown signs of slow but steady recovery since the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008, the housing market recovery is nowhere near as robust as it needs to be to power a general economic recovery.

One reason why: Homeowners remain over their heads in debt, and until that debt is cleared, many who might otherwise enter the market will remain on the sidelines. How to clear that debt has suddenly become a topic of conversation. Foreclosure, a relatively slow process, is right now the only method being used to reduce the debt overhang. Recently, though, a growing number of observers are calling for a faster method, but one that will be more painful for the lenders: Forgiveness.

That’s right – the banks should simply write off the debt as uncollectible, take the losses, forgive the debt and move on.

At a campaign stop in Florida recently, Republican presidential candidate  Mitt Romney actually broached the subject with struggling homeowners there:

 ”We’re just so overleveraged, so much debt in our society, and some of the institutions that hold it aren’t willing to write it off and say they made a mistake, they loaned too much, we’re overextended, write those down and start over. They keep on trying to harangue and pretend what they have on their books is still what it’s worth.”

Similar calls for debt write-downs have been made by MSNBC commentator Dylan Ratigan. Forbes contributor E.J. Kain even went so far as to invoke a practice dating back to Biblical times – the declaration of a jubilee year in which all debts were forgiven and debtors released from their obligations – in calling for a general debt write-down in order to spark recovery.

The downside of a large-scale write-down of debt is that it will send some banks down the drain. That fear has so far kept bankers from even considering such a step. But one reason the recovery in the housing market – and the economy in general – has been relatively anemic is because the excess debt has not been dealt with expeditiously. Instead, as Romney noted, we have tried to prop up tottering banks by acting as if the debts were still worth something. If, instead, we took the losses and forgave the debt, we might see broader, faster and stronger recovery across the board – and nowhere more than in real estate. Of course, there will be short-term pain, just as there was when the Federal Reserve sent interest rates soaring in the early 1980s to wring the inflation out of the economy. But the gain afterwards will make that pain just a memory in short order.

–By Sandy Smith

10 Rittenhouse lands in the lap of its lenders

Monday, January 16th, 2012

One door closes, another door opens. The 10 Rittenhouse Square luxury condominium tower on Rittenhouse Square is now mostly in the hands of the lenders who financed it.

Foreclosure proceedings came to an end on Jan. 10 when senior lender Istar Financial purchased the building’s 129 unsold condos at sheriff’s sale. Developer ArcWheeler agreed in May 2011 not to contest the foreclosure after spending several months trying to forestall it after Istar first moved to foreclose in the fall of 2010. Carl Dranoff, the Philadelphia developer who had been named receiver of the building at Istar’s request, had no success selling units in the building – he told The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Al Heavens that only one individual had attempted to buy a unit since the filing, and that person was rejected because the purchase was part of a bulk sale.

In addition to its financial woes – the developers owed more than $208 million to its lenders; Istar, based in New York, was owed $175 million and mezzanine lender Delaware Valley Real Estate Investment Trust was owed about $33 million – the building had also been tied up in litigation over the past few years. The sheriff’s sale brings these woes to an end, but it brings with it a challenge for the lenders: Move units that no one else has yet been able to move, despite their being located in a signature building at the most fashionable address in the city. Are the sluggish sales a byproduct of the slow Philadelphia real estate market, or were they the product of problems with the original developer and marketing team? The lenders are about to find out for themselves.

–By Sandy Smith

Some hopeful signs in latest existing-home sales data

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

While the market for real estate in Philadelphia lags the national trend for now, nationwide figures from the National Association of Realtors suggest the housing market is ever so slowly yet definitely turning a corner.

While the main attention-grabber in the NAR’s Monday report on existing-home sales for October was an unexpected 1.4% rise in sales from September’s figure, other data in the release show continued improvement in the overall state of the housing market. Annualized sales of existing homes nationwide in October were 13.5% above the pace at this time last year. In addition, the inventory of homes on the market continues to fall gradually. The 3.33 million existing homes for sale in October represent a 2.2% drop from the previous month. At the current sales pace, it would take 8 months to sell all the inventory, down from 8.3 months in September. The real estate industry trade group says that both figures have been trending downward gradually since July of 2008.

And while the national housing market remains a buyer’s market, with the national median price of existing homes 4.7% below last year’s level, sales of distressed properties – foreclosures and short sales – also continue to fall as a share of the total. October’s 28% share was down 2 percentage points from the previous month and 6 from the previous year.  Some of that fall may be due to delays in getting foreclosed properties to market, according to NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun: “In some areas we’re hearing about shortages of foreclosure inventory in the lower price ranges with multiple bidding on the more desirable properties,” Yun said. “Realtors® in such areas are calling for a faster process of getting foreclosure inventory into the market because they have ready buyers.”

Yun also noted that relaxation of today’s tighter credit standards would improve both the overall pace of existing-home sales and the absorption of distressed properties. “In addition, extending credit to responsible investors would help to absorb inventory at an even faster pace, which would go a long way toward restoring market balance,” he said.

Sales trends in the Philadelphia real estate market are more in line with those in the Northeast, where NAR data for October show a 5.1% falloff in existing-home sales from last month and a 1.4% rise from one year ago. TREND MLS data for October show sales in Center City Philadelphia and areas immediately adjacent running 35% below last month’s figure and 12% below the same month one year ago.

–Sandy Smith

Big Money Gets Into Landlord Game

Friday, August 12th, 2011

By: Robbie Whelan

For: The Wall Street Journal

VALLEJO, Calif.—Agustin Gutierrez, a construction worker from this town in the hills northeast of San Francisco Bay, lost his job in 2009, then, 10 months later, he lost ownership of his home.

Now, the husband and father of four rents the same five-bedroom ranch from McKinley Capital Partners, an investment company that’s at the forefront of a new breed of big-money landlords.

McKinley, which has acquired more than 300 foreclosed singlefamily homes in the Bay Area over the past two years, recently teamed up with Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, a New York hedge fund, with plans to buy at least 500 more foreclosed homes in the next year. Those homes, too, will be rented to people like the Gutierrez family.

Buying foreclosed homes as investment properties has long been dominated by mom-and-pop investors. But now hedge funds, private-equity firms, pension funds and university endowments are dipping into that market. The attraction is double-digit returns at a time when most bonds and other income investments yield very little.

The most popular strategy is for a big investor to team up with a local company that scouts out houses and finds the renters. The hope is to flip the homes in the future when prices recover.

“It’s kind of the Wall Street meets Main Street phenomenon,” says John Burns, an Irvine, Calif.-based real-estate consultant who has discussed investing in single-family rentals with hedge funds. “The Main Street guys need the capital, and Wall Street needs the expertise.”

At the end of May, 3.5 million loans were at least 90 days delinquent or in foreclosure, according to investment bank Barclays Capital. At the same time, the country’s home ownership rate has fallen, to 65.9% in the second quarter of 2011 from its peak of 69.2% in 2004, according to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau last month. That drop has produced millions of new renters and helped push the vacancy rate for rental housing down by about two percentage points, to 9.2%.

“The single-family rental market is actually quite large,” said Dennis McGill, director of research at Zelman & Associates, a research firm that follows the housing market. “The average American says, ‘If I’ve got two kids and a dog, I can’t live in a one-bedroom apartment.’”

Zelman recently issued a report saying that in Arizona, Florida and Nevada, states hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis, the number of families renting a single-family home increased 48% from 2005 to 2010.

Large institutional investors could eventually help stabilize the market by soaking up the huge overhang of foreclosures, which could allow housing to begin healing. However, the number of single-family homes being bought by institutional investors is still small compared to the millions of distressed properties. The biggest players in the market are deploying hundreds of millions of dollars, not the billions necessary to make a major dent.

The federal government has a large role as well. The Obama administration is currently considering ways of selling foreclosed homes to investors who agree to rent them out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration own more than half of all unsold foreclosed homes.

Being a landlord can be a costly hassle for large investors. Unlike apartment complexes, which concentrate hundreds of rental units in one place, investors must buy hundreds of singlefamily houses that are miles apart, each with separate maintenance problems. Tenants can be troublesome.

“You could have a bad tenant who doesn’t want to pay their rent, or maintain the pool,” says Guy Johnson, an investor who buys foreclosed properties in Nevada, Arizona and California and rents some of them out. “A hedge fund manager doesn’t want to have to be their own plumber or electrician.”

Buying foreclosed properties isn’t easy either. Investors sometimes have to pay thousands of dollars in “cash for keys” payments to the previous homeowners in order to entice them to leave the property, and foreclosed homeowners often damage their homes before they are evicted.

Private-equity giant Carlyle Group LLC tried its luck with the singlefamily home market two years ago but abandoned the strategy late last year after concluding that the returns weren’t large enough. Carlyle’s strategy was different. The company formed partnerships with local asset managers in California that bought and flipped homes, rather than renting them.

For now, more investors are plunging into the single-family rental market. McKinley, the Oakland, Calif., company that owns Mr. Gutierrez’s house, has already begun to use Och-Ziff money to purchase houses. Its model is to buy homes at an average price of about $100,000 apiece, put between $10,000 and $25,000 in renovations into them, and set the rental rate of the house so that it produces a return of 8% to 12% annually. This often works out to a rent of roughly $1,200 per month.

McKinley and Och-Ziff could see additional returns from selling the houses at a higher price after a few years, once the market has improved. “Two years ago no one thought you could scale this business or that it could be institutionalized,” said Gregor Watson, a principal with McKinley. “Now, you can get very good yields. It’s a very good long-term strategy.” He declined to comment on the Och-Ziff investment. Och-Ziff also declined to comment.

Other large investors have formed rental-housing partnerships.

G8 Capital, a private-equity fund based in Ladera Ranch, Calif., has bought 3,000 homes across the country since 2008, mostly to flip them. It decided last year to begin pursuing a hold-and-rent strategy. It has since bought 250 foreclosed homes as rentals. Carrington Property Services LLC, a Santa Ana, Calif.-based property investment company that manages about 4,500 homes nationally, is in talks with investors to raise funds for a real-estate investment trust, to be called Residential National Trust, which would acquire foreclosed homes for rental. The company plans to buy as many as 5,000 more rental homes in markets including Chicago, Miami, Phoenix and Las Vegas.

Waypoint Real Estate Group, an Oakland, Calif.-based company, has bought 700 homes in the past two years as rental properties. Doug Brien, a former place kicker for the New York Jets who is now managing director of Waypoint, says that his company has approached pension funds, university endowments and large private investment groups about investing in his fund. In July, he says he closed on a financing deal from an Ivy League university endowment, but declined to name the university.

“At some point, there will be a shortage of housing,” Mr. Brien said. “Everyone is realizing that single-family buy-and-hold is the way to go.”

In November, hedge fund manager William Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management LP released a report arguing that single-family rental properties are an “under-owned asset class” that would make “an intelligent investment for institutional investors.” Pershing Square predicted that investing in single-family homes and holding them as rentals for 10 years could produce double-digit investment returns, even if U.S. home prices only improved marginally.

All the activity is fueling a renewed debate over whether investors are good or bad for the housing market. In the early days of the housing bust, some community groups discouraged banks from selling foreclosed homes to investors for fear they wouldn’t take proper care of the properties. Some communities riddled with foreclosed homes became slums.

Alan Mallach, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington, argues that instead of running from investors, local governments should provide subsidies to investors who buy, rent out and are good landlords for foreclosed properties. “If a neighborhood has a high rate of home ownership, that’s obviously better,” he said. “But in some markets, there was so much inventory coming on the market that the sheer number of properties was destabilizing those markets.”

Mr. Gutierrez, the Vallejo construction worker, now pays $1,800 a month in rent, compared to the $2,500 per month he was paying to cover the cost of his mortgage when he owned the house. He says it bothers him that he no longer owns his home, but is happy to pay less and says his new landlords are good property managers.

He bought the house in 2003 for $340,000 using a $322,700 loan. He refinanced the home five times, driving up the total amount of debt on the house to $400,000. He lost the house to foreclosure in 2009. McKinley paid about $155,000 for the house that year.

“It’s confusing, because sometimes I think it’s my house, but I have to remind myself that it’s not,” said Mr. Gutierrez, who says he doesn’t plan to try to repurchase the house. “It’s sad, but it’s what happened to a lot of people.”

Nick Timiraos contributed to this article.

It’s Not Personal: De-Personalizing Your Philly Real Estate Listing

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

 

One of the most difficult things that I face as a home stager is trying to find tactful ways to tell people that their personal stuff…has got to go. It’s difficult to explain to clients Philadelphia Real Estatethat I really take no issue with their giant human-size painting of a golden elephant in a bright purple frame. Decorating is about diversity. It’s about showing off what is important to you. But we’re not decorating. We’re un-decorating, and there is a big difference.

Home staging, again, is about creating a neutral scene that is inviting and relaxing for your Philadelphia Real Estate Buyers. Staging is a lot like Shakespeare. The sets are almost blank, and the words and thoughts of the actors are what fill the space and make a great show. You see, because we don’t know if your Philadelphia MLS shoppers have Othello, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, or Romeo and Juliet going on in their lives, we can’t really decorate our home to suit their tastes. But what we can do is decorate our home to suit all of Shakespeare. Meaning, we choose neutral colours, simple, non-descript art, and muted decorations. Quite simply, we are depersonalizing your home today.

So what is de-personalizing? Well, I find the keys that we need to look for are: art, photos, achievements and functional furniture placement. Let’s dive into that, starting with art. As I mentioned above, you may  have very good taste in art; your art may be worth thousands of dollars, but when it comes to staging, the pictures on the wall are only there to make sense with the scene, not to make their own statement. When it comes to staging, it’s not about what you have to say, it’s about what the people who want to buy Philadelphia Real Estate have to say, so make sure that your art isn’t speaking loudly. Stick to landscapes and simple black and whites, preferably with no people in them.

Next is photos. I know we all have pictures up of our kids, grandkids, and even some special memories from ourPhiladelphia Real Estate wedding, but unfortunately, those all have no place in a staged home. Again, here we have a harsh pull-back for buyers who are trying to imagine themselves living in your home. Seeing a picture of Junior when he lost his first tooth, spoils that scene a bit, doesn’t it? I should make mention that now that digital wedding photography is getting so edgy-looking, I almost always get clients who want to know if they can keep their wedding photos up since they’re so beautiful and artsy. The answer is an unfortunate “no.” If there is a picture of a bride and groom, that picture has to come down.

Achievements are things like Junior’s little league trophy, and your law degree from Yale. These things all certainly need to come down. Not only are they very personal, but those who are looking for Philadelphia homes for sale can take one look at that Yale law degree and decide that they’re going to write you a lower offer since you’ve already got money to spare.

Functional furniture placement has to do with the functional way that you’ve arranged your furniture. You’ve probably put couches all around the TV, or put a ton of furniture in a space to accommodate for lots of seating when you have people over. Unfortunately, you’re going to need to take a discerning look at what you have in your home before you list your Philadelphia  property, and decide what can go. You don’t necessarily have to have a couch and a love seat in a family room. You can easily get away with a loveseat and a chair, as long as you can design the whole lot to looking deceptively filling. Remember, the less we have in space the bigger it looks. Function has no place in staging. It doesn’t matter if it’s comfortable or not, all that matters is how it looks and how it sells.

Philadelphia Real EstateRemember, de-personalizing can feel difficult as you purge your home of all things complicated. But remember, simplicity sells!

Until Next Time…

Rachel Vanderveen is a Calgary Realtor specializing in Calgary home staging, Homes for Sale in Calgary, Chaparral Real Estate, Douglasdale Estates Real Estate , Mahogany Real Estate, McKenzie Lake Real Estate, and Auburn Homes for Sale.  But more importantly, she is a mother to four adorable children, a lover of Auburn Bay Realty, and an avid writer of Calgary Real Estate  blogs. For more information on Calgary mls.ca, or searching mlslistings.ca, visit her website here.

Homeowner Forecloses on Bank of America

Monday, June 6th, 2011

Have you heard the one about a homeowner foreclosing on a bank?

Philadelphia Real EstateWell, it has happened in Florida and involves a North Carolina based bank.

Instead of Bank of America foreclosing on some Florida homeowner, the homeowners had sheriff’s deputies foreclose on the bank.

It started five months ago when Bank of America filed foreclosure papers on the home of a couple, who didn’t owe a dime on their home.

The couple said they paid cash for the house.

The case went to court and the homeowners were able to prove they didn’t owe Bank of America anything on the house. In fact, it was proven that the couple never even had a mortgage bill to pay.

A Collier County Judge agreed and after the hearing, Bank of America was ordered, by the court to pay the legal fees of the homeowners’, Maurenn Nyergers and her husband.

The Judge said the bank wrongfully tried to foreclose on the Nyergers’ house.

So, how did it end with bank being foreclosed on? After more than 5 months of the judge’s ruling, the bank still hadn’t paid the legal fees, and the homeowner’s attorney did exactly what the bank tried to do to the homeowners. He seized the bank’s assets.

“They’ve ignored our calls, ignored our letters, legally this is the next step to get my clients compensated, ” attorney Todd Allen told CBS.

Sheriff’s deputies, movers, and the Nyergers’ attorney went to the bank and foreclosed on it. The attorney gavePhiladellphia Real Estate instructions to to remove desks, computers, copiers, filing cabinets and any cash in the teller’s drawers.

After about an hour of being locked out of the bank, the bank manager handed the attorney a check for the legal fees.

“As a foreclosure defense attorney this is sweet justice” says Allen.

Allen says this is something that he sees often in court, banks making errors because they didn’t investigate the foreclosure and it becomes a lengthy and expensive battle for the homeowner.

CBS News

Coldwell Banker Preferred Acquires Coldwell Banker Realty Corp.

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

 

Exciting news for Coldwell Banker Preferred AND for Philadelphia Real Estate! It has been announced Coldwell Banker Preferredthat the sales professionals of the Coldwell Banker Realty Corp. Rittenhouse Square office are bringing their talents to Coldwell Banker Preferred!

Realty Corp. brings more than 130 active listings to Coldwell Banker Preferred- which will increase the market share of the all ready successful company. This will reinforce the companies’ presence in the Philadelphia Real Estate Market exponentially. (Regina Coia, President of Coldwell Banker Preferred).

“The professionals at Realty Corp. strive to provide personalized boutique-style, yet, technology driven, service to their clientele (cbrca.com).” Each agent is extremely motivated and experienced to offer the best service possible for Philadelphia real estate consumers. Over sixty competent agents will join the Coldwell Banker Preferred family. This merger will boost the overall competency of the company and take Coldwell Banker Preferred to another level of success.

This union means great things for Philadelphia and for those looking to buy or sell real estate in the area. More competent real estate agents will be made available to provide the highest degree of satisfaction to the Philadelphia real estate consumers.

This is yet another one of NRT’s acquistions within the Philadelphia Real Estate Market. NRT LLCPhiladelphia Real Estate is the nation’s largest residential real estate brokerage company. This merger will only lead to more success for the company and allow for more Philadelphia Real Estate consumers to be served using NRT’s state-of-the-art tools, technology and training.

At Coldwell Banker Preferred, it is vital to preserve the genuine personal concern to successfully serve the Philadelphia Real Estate consumers- and everyone is confident that this standard will continue with the recent growth.

Noah Ostroff & Associates welcomes the professionals of Coldwell Banker Realty Corp. to the ColdwellPhiladelphia Real Estate Banker Preferred family – and we look forward to better serving those looking to buy or sell real estate in Philadelphia!

We have YOUR best interest in mind!

Real Estate – It’s Time To Buy Again

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

 

Is it true? Is it a good time to buy a home in Philadelphia?

Philadelphia Real EstateFrom his wide-rimmed cowboy hat to his roper boots, Mike Castleman fits moviedom’s image of the lanky Texas rancher. On a recent March evening, Castleman is feeding cattle biscuits to his two pet longhorn steers, Big Buddy and Little Buddy, on his 460-acre Bar Ten Creek Ranch in Dripping Springs, a hamlet outside Austin in the Texas Hill Country. The spread is a medley of meandering streams, craggy cliffs, and centuries-old oaks. But even in this pastoral setting, his mind keeps returning to a subject he knows as well as any expert around: the housing market. “I’m a dirt-road economist who sees what’s happening on the ground, and in 35 years I’ve never seen a shortage of new construction like the one I’m seeing today,” declares Castleman, 70, now offering a biscuit to his miniature donkey Thumper. “The talking heads who are down on real estate will hate to hear this, but America needs to build a lot more houses. And in most markets the price of new homes is fixin’ to rise, not fall.”

Castleman is in a unique position to know. As the founder and CEO of a company called Metrostudy, he’s spent more than three decades tracking real-time data on the country’s inventory of new homes. Each quarter he dispatches 500 inspectors to literally drive through 45,000 subdivisions from Baltimore to Sacramento. The inspectors examine 5 million finished lots, one at a time, and record whether they contain a house that’s under construction, one that’s finished and for sale, or a home that’s sold. Metrostudy covers 19 states, or around 65% of the U.S. housing market, including all the ones hardest hit by the crash: Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada. The company’s client list includes virtually every major homebuilder and bank — from Pulte (PHM) and KB Home (KBH) to Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC).

The key figures that Metrostudy collects, and that those clients prize, are the number of homes that are vacant and for sale in each city, and the number of months it takes to sell all of them. Together those figures measure inventory — the key metric in determining whether a market has a surplus or a shortage of new housing.

Philadelphia Real Estate

Today Castleman is witnessing an extraordinary reversal of the new-home glut that helped sink prices just a few years ago. In the 41 cities Metrostudy covers, a total of 78,000 houses are now either vacant and for sale, or under construction. That’s less than one-fourth of the 343,000 units in those two categories at the peak of the frenzy in mid-2006, and well below the level of a decade ago. “If we had anything like normal levels of buying, those houses would sell in 2½ months,” says Castleman. “We’d see an incredible shortage. And that’s where we’re heading.”

If all the noise you’re hearing about housing has you totally confused, join the crowd. One day you’ll read that owning a home has never been more affordable. The next day you’ll see news that housing starts have plunged to nearly their lowest level in half a century, as headlines announced in March. After four years of falling prices and surging foreclosures, it’s hard to know what to think. Even Robert Shiller and Karl Case can’t agree. The two economists, who together created the widely followed S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price indices, are right now offering sharply contrasting views of housing’s future. Shiller recently warned that the chances were high for a further double-digit drop in U.S. home prices. But in an interview with Fortune, Case took a far brighter view: “The lack of new home building is a huge help that a lot of people are ignoring,” says Case. “People think I’m crazy to be optimistic, but housing is looking like the little engine that could.”

To see where real estate is truly headed, it’s critical to keep your eye firmly on the fundamentals that, over time, always determine the course of prices and construction. During the last decade’s historic run-up in prices, Fortune repeatedly warned that things were moving too fast. In a cover story titled “Is the Housing Boom Over?,” this writer’s analysis found that the basic forces that govern the market — the cost of owning vs. renting and the level of new construction — were in bubble territory. Eventually reality set in, and prices plummeted. Our current view focuses on those same fundamentals — only now they’re pointing in the opposite direction.

So let’s state it simply and forcibly: Housing is back. Philadelphia Real Estate

Two basic factors are laying the foundation for dramatic recovery in residential real estate. The first is the historic drop in new construction that so amazes Castleman. The second is a steep decline in prices, on the order of 30% nationwide since 2006, and as much as 55% in the hardest-hit markets. The story of this downturn has been an astonishing flight from the traditional American approach of buying new houses to an embrace of renting. But the new affordability will gradually lure Americans back to buying homes. And the return of the homeowner will start raising prices in many markets this year.

Of course, home prices are low and home construction is weak for a reason: incredibly low demand. For our scenario to play out, America will need a decent economy, with job creation and consumer confidence continuing to claw their way back to normal.

One big fear is that today’s tight credit standards will chill the market. But we’re really returning to the standards that prevailed before the craze, and those requirements didn’t stop prices and homebuilding from rising in a good economy. “The credit standards are now at about historical levels, excluding the bubble period,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “We saw prices rising with fundamentals in those periods, and it will happen again.”

To see why, let’s examine the remarkable shift in home affordability. A new study by Deutsche Bank measures affordability in two ways: first, the share of income Americans are paying to own a home. And second, the cost of owning vs. renting. On the first metric, the analysis finds that homeowners now pay just 9.8% of their income in after-tax mortgage, tax, and insurance payments. That’s down from 17.2% at the bubble’s peak in 2007, and by far the lowest number in the Deutsche Bank database, going back to 1999. The second measure, the cost of owning compared with renting, should also inspire potential buyers. In 28 out of 54 major markets, it’s now cheaper to pay a mortgage and other major costs than to rent the same house. What’s most compelling is that in all of the distressed markets, owning now wins by a wide margin — a stunning reversal from four years ago. It now costs 34% less than renting in Atlanta. In Miami the average rent is now $1,031 a month, vs. the $856 it costs to carry a ranch house or stucco cottage as an owner. (For more, see The top 10 cities for home buyers)

Not all markets will bounce back equally, of course. Housing resembles the weather: The exact conditions are different in every city. But in general the big U.S. markets fall into two different climate zones right now. We’ll call them the “nondistressed markets” and the “foreclosure markets.” A more detailed look shows why the forecast for both is favorable.

Nondistressed markets: Ready for launch

No cities went untouched by the collapse in prices over the past few years. But markets such as Northern Virginia, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, San Diego, the San Francisco suburbs, and virtually all of Texas held up reasonably well. In those areas prices spiked far less than in bubble cities — the foreclosure markets we’ll get to shortly — chiefly because they didn’t get nearly as many speculators who thought they could flip the homes or rent them to snowbirds.

The nondistressed markets will be able to get prices rising and construction growing far faster than the harder-hit areas for a simple reason: Although some of these markets are still suffering from foreclosures, they don’t need to work through the big overhang haunting a Las Vegas or a Phoenix. The number of new homes for sale or in the pipeline is extraordinarily low in nondistressed markets. San Diego is typical. It has just 921 freestanding homes for sale or under construction, compared with 4,425 in late 2005. The challenge for these cities is to generate enough demand to reduce inventories of existing, or resale, homes. In the entire country the resale supply stands at 3.5 million houses and condos. That’s a fairly high number, since it would take more than eight months to sell those properties; seven months or below is the threshold for a strong market.

But in the nondistressed cities, the existing home inventory is lower, closer to seven months on average. So a modest increase in demand will translate into strong gains in both prices and new construction. That should happen quickly, because most of those markets — including Silicon Valley, Northern Virginia, and Texas — are now showing good job growth.

Zandi of Moody’s Analytics expects that prices will rise three to four points faster than inflation for the next few years in virtually all of the nondistressed markets. His view is that prices will increase in line with rents, which are now growing briskly because apartments are in short supply. Those higher rents will encourage buyers to cross the street from an apartment to a home of their own.

In Northern Virginia, Chris Bratz, an engineer, and his wife, Amy DiElsi, a publicist, Philadelphia Real Estateare planning to leave their rental apartment and become homeowners for the first time. The main reason? Buying has simply become a far better deal than renting. “The market got completely inflated, then it crashed, so prices are coming back to where they should be,” says Chris. As the couple have watched prices fall, they have also watched the rent on their apartment spiral upward, reaching $2,700 a month. They calculate that they should be able to purchase a townhouse for between $400,000 and $500,000 and pay less per month for a mortgage.

The nondistressed markets will also lead the way in construction. Zandi predicts that for the nation as a whole, single-family housing “starts” — measured when a builder pours a foundation for a new home — will rise from 470,000 in 2010 to as much as 700,000 this year. A large portion of that activity will happen in nondistressed markets where a tightening supply of resale houses will start making new homes look like a good deal. “Our main competition is from resales,” says Jeff Mezger, CEO of KB Home. “The prices of those homes have stayed so low, because of low demand, that it’s hampered the ability of builders to sell new houses.”

But many would-be buyers simply prefer a brand-new house. Eventually they’ll move from renters to buyers, and the trend will accelerate now that prices are no longer dropping. In Minneapolis, Yuan Qu and her husband, Xiang Chen, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, just moved from a two-bedroom rental to a new light-blue four-bedroom ranch with a chocolate-colored roof on a spacious corner lot. They paid $400,000, a bargain price compared with a few years ago. The couple, both in their early thirties, moved to Minnesota from China six years ago. “We wanted to buy a house, and we’ve been waiting and waiting and waiting,” says Qu. “The prices went down for so long, we finally thought they couldn’t keep falling.” For Qu the only choice was new construction. “We’re not very handy people,” she admits.

Foreclosure markets: The outlook is brightening

The true disaster areas for housing since the bubble burst have been Sunbelt cities such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Miami — places that boasted great job and population growth in the mid-2000s, only to suffer a housing crash that swamped them with empty homes and condos and crushed their economies. But people always want to live in those sunny locales, and their job Philadelphia Real Estatemarkets are starting to recover, albeit slowly. In foreclosure markets the inventory problem is far greater because it includes not just traditional resale homes but millions of distressed properties. Fortunately those houses are now such a screaming deal that investors, including lots of mom-and-pop buyers, are purchasing them at a rapid pace. To be sure, some foreclosure markets won’t rebound for years because they’re both vastly overbuilt and far from big job centers; a prime example is California’s Inland Empire, a real estate disaster zone 80 miles east of Los Angeles.

But the outlook is brightening for Phoenix, Las Vegas, Miami, and parts of Northern California. A big positive is the tiny supply of new homes entering the market. Phoenix, for example, has a total of just 8,100 new homes that are either for sale or under construction, down from 53,000 in mid-2006. The big test in these cities is absorbing the steady stream of distressed properties. The foreclosures put downward pressure on the market far out of proportion to their numbers because of markdown pricing. “We had levels of inventory even higher than this in 1990 and 1991,” says MIT economist William Wheaton. “But they were traditional listings, not foreclosures, so they didn’t create the big discounts you get with foreclosures.”

Wheaton reckons that we’ll see a flow of around 1 million foreclosures a year, at a fairly even pace, from now through 2013. That figure is frequently cited as evidence that the market is doomed for years in most foreclosure markets. Not so. The reason is that the vast bulk of those units, probably over 600,000, according to Gleb Nechayev, an economist with real estate firm CB Richard Ellis (CBG), are being converted to rentals either by investors or their current owners. Those properties are finding plenty of renters, since the rental market is still extremely strong across the country. Remember, the millions who lost their homes to foreclosure still need somewhere to live.

A typical investor is Alex Barbalat, a Russian immigrant who’s purchased seven homes east of San Francisco in the towns of Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg. His average purchase price is around $100,000 for homes that once sold for between $300,000 and $500,000. But he has no trouble finding renters, since his tenants can commute to jobs in San Francisco on the BART transit system. Barbalat is pocketing rental yields on the prices he paid of around 12%, and he’s in no hurry to sell. “I’m holding them until prices drastically rise,” he says.

Investment funds are also entering the game. Dotan Y. Melech looks for bargains in Las Vegas for UnitedAMS, a firm he co-founded that manages apartments and other real estate investments. The firm has raised more than $20 million from outside investors to purchase distressed properties. So far, Melech has bought around 300 houses and plans to purchase another 200 this year. He has no trouble renting the houses he buys, since, he estimates, occupancy rates in Las Vegas are touching 95%. The “cap rate,” or return on investment after all expenses, is between 8% and 10% — twice the rate on 10-year Treasuries. Melech rents to people who lost their homes but are reliable renters. “A lot of people can’t be buyers because their credit got hurt,” he says.

Even with investors jumping in, buying activity in foreclosure markets hasn’t yet increased enough to bring inventories down. It will soon. Zandi thinks prices will fall a couple of percentage points lower in the distressed markets in the short run. “But that will be overshooting,” he says. “It’s like an elastic band. If prices do drop this year, they will need to bounce back because they’ll be far too low compared with rents and replacement cost.” Renters will come off the sidelines to purchase homes in the years ahead, precisely the opposite trend of the past few years.

Consider the example of Michael Dynda, a retired Air Force avionics technician who now works for a government contractor in Las Vegas. Dynda, 49, is a first-time buyer who put off purchasing for years, in part because prices were falling so rapidly in Las Vegas, with no bottom in sight. But last year the combination of bargain prices and low mortgage rates became too good to resist. He ended up purchasing a 2,300-square-foot stucco home for $240,000, or about half what it would have fetched in 2007. Dynda got a 4.38% home loan, and pays the same amount on his mortgage as on the rent on the house he left to become a homeowner. “The timing was about as good as it could get,” says Dynda.

Back on the ranch, Mike Castleman is lounging in his creek-front mansion, built from “a hundred tons of fine central Texas limestone.” As he shows off his collection of custom-made guitars, including one crafted to resemble the skin of a rattlesnake, the homespun housing guru once again returns to his favorite topic.

Castleman claims that this recovery will look like all the others: It will bring a severe shortage of housing. He invokes the livestock business to explain. “It takes three years between the time a bull mates with a cow and when you get a calf ready for market,” he says. “That’s how it is in housing too. We’ll get a big surge in demand and the drywall companies will take a long time to ramp up, and it will take years to get new lots approved. Buyers will show up looking for a house in a subdivision, and allPhiladelphia Real Estate the houses will be sold. The builders will tell them it will take six months to deliver a house.” But those folks, says Castleman, will be set on buying a place. “And they’ll want it so bad they’ll bid the prices up!” In other words: Beat the crowd.

It’s a Great Time to Buy a House
Mike Castleman, the Texan with the best realtime view of housing in the U.S., tells editor-atlarge Shawn Tully that the naysayers are about to get a big surprise: rising prices for new homes.

By: Shawn Tully

From: Fortune

Life After Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Monday, March 28th, 2011

 

How might home buying change if the federal government shuts down the housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Philadelphia Real EstateThe 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan, the steady favorite of American borrowers since the 1950s, could become a luxury product, housing experts on both sides of the political aisle say.

Interest rates would rise for most borrowers, but urban and rural residents could see sharper increases than the coveted customers in the suburbs.

Lenders could charge fees for popular features now taken for granted, like the ability to “lock in” an interest rate weeks or months before taking out a loan.

Life without Fannie and Freddie is the rare goal shared by the Obama administration and House Republicans, although it will not happen soon. Congress must agree on a plan, which could take years, and then the market must be weaned slowly from dependence on the companies and the financial backing they provide.

The reasons by now are well understood. Fannie and Freddie, created to increase the availability of mortgage loans, misused the government’s support to enrich shareholders and executives by backing millions of shoddy loans. Taxpayers so far have spent more than $135 billion on the cleanup.

The much more divisive question is whether the government should preserve the benefits that the companies provide to middle-class borrowers, including lower interest rates, lenient terms and the ability to get a mortgage even when banks are not making other kinds of loans.

Douglas J. Elliott, a financial policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Congress was being forced for the first time in decades to grapple with the cost of subsidizing middle-class mortgages. The collapse of Fannie and Freddie took with it the pretense that the government could do so at no risk to taxpayers, he said.

“The politicians would like something that provides a deep and wide subsidy for housing that doesn’t show up on the budget as costing anything. That’s what we had” with Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Elliott said. “But going forward there is going to be more honest accounting.” Philadelphia Real Estate

Some Republicans and Democrats say the price is too high. They want the government to pull back, letting the market dictate price, terms and availability.

“A purely private mortgage finance market is a very serious and very achievable goal,” Representative Scott Garrett, the New Jersey Republican who oversees the subcommittee that oversees Fannie and Freddie, said at a hearing this week. “No one serious in this debate believes our housing market will return to the 1930s.”

Still, powerful interests in both parties want the government instead to construct a system that would preserve many of the same benefits, with changes intended to minimize the risk of future bailouts. They say the recent crisis showed that the market could not stand on its own.

“The kind of backstop that we have now, if it didn’t exist, we would have had a much more severe recession and a much sharper fall in home values,” said Michael D. Berman, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, which represents the lending industry.

Hanging in the balance are the basic features of a mortgage loan: the interest rate and repayment period.

Fannie and Freddie allow people to borrow at lower rates because investors are so eager to pump money into the two companies that they accept relatively modest returns. The key to that success is the guarantee that investors will be repaid even if borrowers default — a promise ultimately backed by taxpayers.

A long line of studies has found that the benefit to borrowers is relatively modest, less than one percentage point. But that was before the flood. Fannie, Freddie and other federal programs now support roughly 90 percent of new mortgage loans because lenders cannot raise money for mortgages that do not carry government guarantees.

One prominent investor, William H. Gross, the co-head of Pimco, the major bond investment firm, has estimated that he would demand a premium of three percentage points to buy such loans — a cost that would be passed on to the borrower.

Proponents of a private market want the government gradually to withdraw its support, allowing investors to regain confidence. They argue that interest rates would eventually settle into roughly the same patterns that held before the financial crisis.

Some supporters of government backing also like the idea, believing that it will demonstrate the need for a backstop.

“I myself am eager to see whether there needs to be a guarantee,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a crucial Democratic voice on housing issues.

Fannie and Freddie also make ownership more affordable by allowing borrowers to repay loans with fixed-interest rates over an unusually long period. A person who borrows $100,000 at 6 percent interest will pay $600 each month for 30 years, compared to $716 each month for 20 years.

The 30-year loan first became broadly available by an act of Congress in 1954 and, from then until now, the vast majority of such loans have been issued only with government support. Most investors are simply not willing to make such a long-term bet. They prefer loans with adjustable rates.

Alex J. Pollock, a former chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, said such loans would remain available in the absence of a federal guarantee, but they might be harder to find. And lenders might demand a larger down payment. Or a better credit score.

That would be a very good thing, said Mr. Pollock, now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Longer terms make ownership affordable only by increasing the total cost of the loan, because the borrower pays interest for a longer period. Moreover, Mr. Pollock noted that over the last several years, borrowers with adjustable-rate loans paid less as interest rates fell, while those with fixed rates kept paying the same amount for devalued homes.

“One of the reasons that American housing finance is in such bad shape right now is the 30-year mortgage,” he said, noting that such loans are not available in most countries. “For many people, it’s not at all clear that that’s the best product.”

Philly LivingFannie and Freddie also allow a wide swath of the American public to borrow money at the same interest rates and on the same terms. Borrowers who did not meet their standards were forced to pay higher interest rates to subprime lenders, but the companies essentially persuaded investors to treat a vast number American families as if they were interchangeable.

They took messy bunches of loans, with risks as variable as snowflakes, and created securities of uniform quality, easy to buy and sell. The result was one of the most popular investment products ever created.

And in its absence, experts on housing finance say that fewer borrowers would qualify for the best interest rates.

Susan M. Wachter, a real estate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said a new government guarantee was needed to preserve a homogenous market.

“There needs to be a systematic way of preventing” fragmentation, said Professor Wachter. “That’s what we need a bulwark against. Because if there isn’t, it will occur.”

The government seems least likely to maintain a final set of benefits — leniencies in loan terms that taxpayers effectively have subsidized for borrowers.

Fannie and Freddie slashed the requirements for down payments in recent years, saying that they were helping people with minimal savings become homeowners. Nine percent of the borrowers whose loans were guaranteed by the companies from 2001 to 2008 made a down payment of less than 10 percent. But borrowers who invest less default more often. The Obama administration has said that it wants the companies to demand a minimum down payment of 10 percent.

A quirkier example is the ability to “lock in” an interest rate. Fannie and Freddie permitted lenders to make such promises at no risk because the companies had already obtained commitments from investors. In the companies’ absence, borrowers seeking rate locks may need to pay for them.

By: Binyamin Appelbaum

From: The New York Times

Page 1 of 212