Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
on 30 May 2013

Picky, picky, picky! Are today's first-time home buyers passing up great deals because they insist on flawless "move-in ready" houses requiring little or no changes - even at the starter-home price levels at which shoppers traditionally have been willing to factor fix-ups and renovations into their offers?

Or are they simply reflecting market realities? They see record inventories of houses sitting unsold, and they may not have the money, time or inclination to do fix-ups after making the purchase.

Large numbers of real estate agents consider this a significant and perplexing issue, one that's having a negative effect on the housing recovery. New research suggests that they may be on to something. A survey by Coldwell Banker Real Estate of 300 first-time buyers found that a startling 87 percent said that "finding a move-in ready home is important" to them.

A posting about fussy buyers on the 203,000-member "Active Rain" online real estate network in late February drew strong support from agents nationwide. Holly Kirby Weatherwax, an agent based in Reston, who wrote the original blog post, said in an interview that some shoppers are so picky that they walk out of well-priced houses solely because of relatively minor imperfections such as:

"They're missing out on some excellent, older lived-in houses - it's a shame," she said, "simply because they can't overlook" flaws that would not have bothered shoppers during the previous two decades.

Zillow, a giant Seattle-based online real estate research and data company, suggests that any shift by consumers toward greater attention to home details may be an inevitable byproduct of today's higher down-payment minimums and more stringent loan qualification requirements.

According to Zillow researchers, the median down payment in 11 major metropolitan areas has jumped to 20 percent, compared with "close to zero" in some of the same areas just five years ago. In other words, first-time buyers today have to put a huge effort into coming up with their down payment, and they want to make sure that equity investment goes into the house that will need the fewest and least-costly upgrades. Also, Zillow spokeswoman Katie Curnutte said, shoppers in 2011 "are really in the driver's seat. Nationally, buyers who purchased homes [last] December paid 4 percent less than the asking price. That points to a lot of room for negotiating and opportunities for buyers to be choosy."

Some agents suggest that buyers today tend to be hipper and more sophisticated about home design, furnishings, floor materials, countertops and appliances because they are exposed to far more information on cable TV than earlier generations. Michael Jacobs, a Coldwell Banker agent in Pasadena, Calif., says cable channels such as HGTV "certainly have opened the eyes of more buyers" to design and presentation details. He said he's held open houses where young buyers walk in and say immediately, "Oh, this house has been staged" - an observation virtually unheard of years ago.

But constant exposure to cable design shows may also be fostering a lack of realism on the part of some shoppers, according to agents. Cindy Westfall of Prudential NW Properties in Lake Oswego, Ore., said the shows have "given some buyers the impression that all homes should have granite counters, stainless steel appliances, etc. There are a few [shoppers who] want all the bells and whistles of that $500,000 house for $200,000, and no amount of talking to them on the realities can change their minds."

In an interview, Westfall said she recently had a buyer who was interested only in older houses under $200,000 - starter-home price territory - but who wouldn't tolerate even the sort of minor imperfections and nicks that older houses typically display.

"The fact is," Westfall said, "you just can't have it all. You can't have the big yard, the top-line updates and all that in a starter home. You've got to compromise somewhere or else you'll never buy anything."


View the original article here

Fundamental changes are probably ahead for the American mortgage system as the federal government pushes to unwind its unprecedented involvement in the housing market.

These changes could significantly raise the down payments demanded by lenders, curtail the availability of long-term mortgages with fixed interest rates, and increase the cost of borrowing in general.

The government's effort to scale back its role in housing could show up in small ways soon. In April, the Federal Housing Administration plans to raise the annual premium it charges borrowers by a quarter of a percentage point. In October, the maximum size of loans that the federal government backs is scheduled to drop to $625,500 from $729,750. The most dramatic proposal - eliminating mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - could take five to seven years.

The thinking is that the government cannot sustain its role in the housing finance system. Federally backed loans make up an outsize share of home purchases - about 90 percent - through Fannie, Freddie and the FHA. Taxpayers have kicked in more than $130 billion to cover Fannie and Freddie losses during the housing crisis, and they could be on the hook for more if the FHA depletes its cash reserves, which are already lower than the level required by law.

All three institutions guarantee that payments will be made to mortgage investors, even when loans go bad. Those guarantees helped keep the housing market from coming to a standstill during the darkest days of the economic crisis.

"But the government is taking on a lot of credit risk," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "So if loans go bad, it's on the taxpayer. Everyone would find it preferable if the private sector were to take more of the risk."

Loan limits

To that end, the federal government is eager to tackle the "jumbo" loan limits.

In the District and most of its neighboring counties, a temporary federal policy allows the government to back mortgages up to $729,750. Such loans typically carry a lower interest rate than those without government backing, in part because the federal guarantee makes them a safer bet for investors.

"Investors are willing to accept a lower return if their investment is less risky," said Keith Gumbinger, a vice president at HSH Associates.

The Obama administration has supported allowing the maximum loan limit to drop to $625,500 starting Oct. 1 , and Congress is expected to back that move. (Loan limits may be lowered even further for FHA-insured loans, federal officials said, though no details are available.)

Once the cap is lowered, loans larger than $625,500 will fall into the "jumbo" category. Jumbos are perceived to be more risky and therefore often face tougher requirements, such as 30 percent down payments and stellar credit scores.

Standards might ease if the private sector reenters that market, said Eric Gates, president of Apex Home Loans in Rockville. But if the $625,500 cap were in place today, it could lock many potential buyers out, he said.


View the original article here

on 29 May 2013

Fundamental changes are probably ahead for the American mortgage system as the federal government pushes to unwind its unprecedented involvement in the housing market.

These changes could significantly raise the down payments demanded by lenders, curtail the availability of long-term mortgages with fixed interest rates, and increase the cost of borrowing in general.

The government's effort to scale back its role in housing could show up in small ways soon. In April, the Federal Housing Administration plans to raise the annual premium it charges borrowers by a quarter of a percentage point. In October, the maximum size of loans that the federal government backs is scheduled to drop to $625,500 from $729,750. The most dramatic proposal - eliminating mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - could take five to seven years.

The thinking is that the government cannot sustain its role in the housing finance system. Federally backed loans make up an outsize share of home purchases - about 90 percent - through Fannie, Freddie and the FHA. Taxpayers have kicked in more than $130 billion to cover Fannie and Freddie losses during the housing crisis, and they could be on the hook for more if the FHA depletes its cash reserves, which are already lower than the level required by law.

All three institutions guarantee that payments will be made to mortgage investors, even when loans go bad. Those guarantees helped keep the housing market from coming to a standstill during the darkest days of the economic crisis.

"But the government is taking on a lot of credit risk," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "So if loans go bad, it's on the taxpayer. Everyone would find it preferable if the private sector were to take more of the risk."

Loan limits

To that end, the federal government is eager to tackle the "jumbo" loan limits.

In the District and most of its neighboring counties, a temporary federal policy allows the government to back mortgages up to $729,750. Such loans typically carry a lower interest rate than those without government backing, in part because the federal guarantee makes them a safer bet for investors.

"Investors are willing to accept a lower return if their investment is less risky," said Keith Gumbinger, a vice president at HSH Associates.

The Obama administration has supported allowing the maximum loan limit to drop to $625,500 starting Oct. 1 , and Congress is expected to back that move. (Loan limits may be lowered even further for FHA-insured loans, federal officials said, though no details are available.)

Once the cap is lowered, loans larger than $625,500 will fall into the "jumbo" category. Jumbos are perceived to be more risky and therefore often face tougher requirements, such as 30 percent down payments and stellar credit scores.

Standards might ease if the private sector reenters that market, said Eric Gates, president of Apex Home Loans in Rockville. But if the $625,500 cap were in place today, it could lock many potential buyers out, he said.


View the original article here

Popular post

Labels

About (28) Actress (3) Addicts (1) Adjust (8) adsense (2) adult (1) Suzuki (1) Swift (2) swimwear (5) Switzerland (1) Tablets (1) TMobile (1) Trailer (18) Train (1) Twitter (3) Tyler (2) UNITED (10) united bank limited (1) vehicle (2) Western (2) Windows (11) Working (1) worlds (1) young (6) YouTube (7) youtube music (2) youtube.com (1) YouTubes (1)