Category Archives: Library

Irvine Attorney Sues to Obtain Loan Modification

A local attorney is suing her lender for failing to give her a loan modification. Are loan modifications now an entitlement?

Irvine Home Address … 51 CEZANNE Irvine, CA 92603

Resale Home Price …… $1,849,000

Yeah owe me back like you owe your rent

Owe me back like its money I spent

Pay me back when you shake it again

Nas — You Owe Me

Are borrowers owed a loan modification? Is it a right or an entitlement? Once upon a time, loan modifications were a gift generously offered by a lender — a gift of a lower payment, a reduced interest rate or some other term modified in favor of borrowers as an enticement to keep paying their mortgage. Somewhere along the way, this unilateral change in terms in favor of buyers became something they are supposed to get, something they are entitled to. I am not sure why foolish borrowing should be rewarded this way, but fixing this problem after the fact is so important to the government that many programs exist to make these loan modifications happen, and now borrowers who have tried to use these programs are suing if the loan modification does occur to their satisfaction.

Irvine woman sues over loan mod ‘hoax’

September 17th, 2010 — Marilyn Kalfus

An Irvine homeowner is suing a large national mortgage servicing company, saying they perpetrated a “loan modification hoax” and committed fraud by promising but never granting her a permanent home loan modification.

So this woman is claiming the entire loan modification program was a hoax to induce her to apply for something she probably isn't qualified for. That seems like a stretch to me, but if she can squeeze a few bucks out of the bank, why not?

Jean C. Wilcox, who also is a real estate lawyer, is seeking class-action status on behalf of other homeowners whose mortgages have been serviced by EMC Corporation.

EMC is based in Texas with offices in Irvine. The company used to be owned by Bear Stearns and is now a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase, which is not named as a party in the suit. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Anthony Lanza and Brodie H. Smith of Lanza & Goolsby in Irvine and Thomas Mauriello of Mauriello Law Firm in San Clemente.

Wilcox claims in the suit:

“Through its orchestrated loan modification hoax, EMC has induced consumers, including plaintiff, to continue making excess or other unjustified payments in pursuit of illusory permanent loan modifications. EMC has thereby avoided the need to initiate, prosecute and conclude multiple foreclosures … and has avoided the need to liquidate excessive and under-valued real estate inventory … and has artificially bolstered its financial statements, including balance sheets and related SEC filings … by minimizing mandatory reporting of toxic loans, defaulted loans or distressed loans.”

We’re requesting a response from EMC.

Wilcox bought her home in 2004. Three years later, she says in the suit, she refinanced her WAMU purchase money loan with a subprime loan from Freemont Investment and loan, which has since been dissolved. A few months after the refi, she was notified that EMC was her new servicer, but she wasn’t told who holds the loan. She said to this day, she doesn’t know who it is.

I found her mortgage records in my database. She purchased her home for $992,000 using a $695,000 first mortgage and a $297,000 down payment. She opened a $40,000 HELOC shortly thereafter, and she refinanced with an $800,000 loan on 12/29/2006. Perhaps she needed that extra $100,000 to pay for upgrades? It is the $800,000 loan with $100,000 cash out that she is seeking to modify. I'm thinking that if she wouldn't have pulled out that $100,000, she might not need a loan modification. Do we want to reward her behavior?

Wilcox says in the suit that she underwent 4 temporary or trial modifications with EMC but never received the permanent modification that she was promised. The goal posts kept changing, she said, as she was shuttled from person to person at the company.

In the suit she relays the various steps she took to fulfill the requirements she was told she needed to meet to obtain temporary loan mods. She says at one point an EMC employee advised her to stop making payments on her debts because it would prevent her loan from being modified. As she missed her payments, she said, her FICO score plunged. She said she postponed selling her house, while its value decreased significantly, because she was relying on receiving the permanent loan mod.

“I poured every penny I had into this house,” Wilcox, a single mother of two, said in a brief interview. ”We just lavished everything we could on this house. This is our ultimate dream home.”

And all of us are supposed to pay for that stupidity by subsidizing her mortgage. Great!

The lawsuit, filed in Orange County Superior Court, alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and fraud.

A judge would have to approve the suit’s class-action status. The law firm of Lanza & Goolsby states on its Website, ”It is estimated that the class may include hundreds or thousands of California homeowners who were victims of EMC’s fraud — while struggling to keep their homes through this recession.”

Investigative Website Pro Publica has delved into the denial of loan modifications in an extensive series of reports. Reporter Paul Kiel wrote in February:

“The largest servicers have lagged in approving homeowners for modifications. Together, those servicers account for more than 60 percent of the 3.4 million mortgages eligible for the program, but very few homeowners have been approved for lasting modifications. About 425,000 Chase customers are eligible for loan mods, according to the Treasury Department. Only a little more than 7,000 have received permanent modifications.”

“There are a number of adverse consequences of a trial period’s dragging on, said the [National] consumer law center’s [Diane] Thompson. Because a homeowner is not making a full payment, the balance of the mortgage grows during the trial period. The servicer reports the shortfall to credit reporting agencies, so the homeowner’s credit score can drop. And most important, says Thompson, the homeowner isn’t saving money in case the modification fails and the home is foreclosed. ‘Keeping someone in a trial modification really does not do them a favor,’ she said.”

Earlier this year, borrowers in Washington state and Arizona filed lawsuits against Bank of America over loans that were not modified. Those homeowners also were seeking class-action status.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel good about this lawsuit. The behavior it rewards is troubling to me. All loan modifications are fraught with moral hazard, and if we allow lawsuits to compel them, we are inching ever closer to full principal forgiveness on the backs of the US taxpayer.

BTW, I want to commend Marilyn Kalfus on her great reporting. Lately I have noticed a series of excellent stories from her with hard-hitting truths about the activity in our housing market. Kudos, Marilyn, your good work is noticed and appreciated.

The illusion of wealth

People who live in Orange County are fantastic pretenders. The previous owner of today's featured property lived the good life courtesy of their house.

  • This property was purchased on 4/21/2004 for $1,460,500. The owners used a $1,00,000 first mortgage and a $465,500 down payment. So far so good.
  • On 6/30/2005 they refinanced with a $1,471,458 Option ARM and withdrew their entire down payment plus some extra spending money.
  • On 2/20/2007 they refinanced again with a $1,650,000 first mortgage and a $220,000 HELOC.
  • Total property debt was $1,870,000.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal was $870,000 including their sizable down payment.
  • Total squatting time was about 10 months.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 04/13/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 11/20/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

The property was purchased at auction for $1,485,500 on 7/16/2005. It looks as if the hard money lender put a $1,633,500 loan on the property staking claim to the first $148,000 plus interest. Whoever talked this hard money lender into the deal stands to make the rest — if there is any.

Irvine Home Address … 51 CEZANNE Irvine, CA 92603

Resale Home Price … $1,849,000

Home Purchase Price … $1,485,500

Home Purchase Date …. 8/16/2010

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $252,560

Percent Change ………. 17.0%

Annual Appreciation … 138.8%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$1,849,000 ………. Asking Price

$369,800 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.52% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$1,479,200 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$362,209 ………. Income Requirement

$7,512 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$1602 ………. Property Tax

$400 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$154 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$410 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$10,079 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$1503 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$1941 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$620 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$231 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$7,486 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$18,490 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$18,490 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$14,792 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$369,800 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$421,572 ………. Total Cash Costs

$114,700 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$536,272 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 51 CEZANNE Irvine, CA 92603

——————————————————————————

Beds: 4

Baths: 3 full 1 part baths

Home size: 3,600 sq ft

($514 / sq ft)

Lot Size: 9,327 sq ft

Year Built: 2004

Days on Market: 6

Listing Updated: 40435

MLS Number: S632282

Property Type: Single Family, Residential

Community: Turtle Ridge

Tract: Chau

——————————————————————————

TUSCAN BEAUTY!! Gate guarded in Turtle ridge..Very impressive and emotional neighborhood. Exceptional elevations and endless views. Extenxive stone exterior finishes. The emotion starts at the curb…Enter thru a private gate into the courtyard with cozy fireplace and dramatic water feature. Newly updated with new carpet, paint and lush landscaping. Extensive marble floors downstairs. Gourmet kitchen with granite counters and stainless appliances. Seperate wine room as well with a wrought iron door. Three bedrooms in the main house and a detached casitas with private bedroom/bath and an optional family room which also can be used for a gym or private office. Oversized master suite with walk in closets. dual sinks and large sitting area. Large view windows to give you a light and bright ambiance.Entetainers backyard is complete with extended family room area, built in bbq, fireplace and endless views of the mountains and city lights. MODEL PERFECT!!

Entetainers?

Environmentally Friendly Housing Is a Bust

Environmentally friendly housing features have been hawked as a value add for builders and sellers. Buyers simply do not agree. So far, the green movement in housing has been a bust.

Irvine Home Address … 20 JULIAN 1 Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price …… $639,000

"Break the bough and strip all of it.

Fell this forest, make a profit!"

"Are there more so brave and honest;

Who would die to save my forest?"

Skyclad — The Disenchanted Forest

Builders hate green building

I am going to let you in on a little secret: homebuilders hate the new trend toward Green Building. A homebuilder's motivations are pretty basic. They will provide anything a buyer is willing to pay for. If buyers want granite countertops, and if buyers are willing to pay the builder more than what it costs, then the builder will provide plenty of granite countertops.

Builders do not like to be forced to provide those items that buyers are not willing to pay for. Have you noticed that builders don't provide back yard landscaping? That is no accident. Study after study has shown that landscaping adds about $0.50 for every dollar spent. When a builder puts in back yard landscaping, they lose money, so they don't do it. The same is true of solar panels, low-flow toilets, and a number of other environmentally friendly items. Buyers give lip service to wanting these items, but they won't put enough dollars to green products to make it worthwhile for the builder to provide them.

Builders are being forced to put in Green Building features by local municipalities, but they resist this strongly because buyers won't pay for it. These environmentally friendly features become a cost to the builder with no increase in revenue. Like any wise business people, builders resist throwing away money.

The Green Building movement has a long way to go.

Big Green Home Bust

By Ernest Beck Sep 16th 2010

A well-appointed green home outfitted with energy-saving appliances and other eco-friendly features might save money on utility bills and ease your conscience, but it won't always help close a sale in a tough real estate market, a California homeowner has learned.

The warning sign for the green residential market: A house for sale in Costa Mesa that was the first in Orange County to receive a coveted LEED Platinum certification (green building's Good Housekeeping Seal) had its price slashed by half a million.

The seven-bedroom, 4,900-square foot Craftsman-style house is the ultimate green showcase, boasting everything from low-flow faucets to solar panels (see "Home Energy Saving Projects for Every Budget"). But even those hallmarks of sustainable design were no match, it seems, for the crappy economy and skittish buyers. According to the Orange County Register, the green home's list price recently dropped from $299,000 to $2,499,999.

The hefty drop underscores the continuing debate about the resale value of green homes. Many have believed that green would command a premium among buyers who aspire to a sustainable lifestyle, but now it appears that green might not be as big a selling point in a market that has gone off the rails.

The only people who ever believed green homes would command a premium are those vendors pushing green products and a few tree huggers. If there was real demand for these products, homebuilders would provide them in limitless quantities. There is no demand, so builders stay away.

So how green do prospective buyers want to go?

There's not much hard evidence to go by. Anecdotes suggest that sustainable homes can sometimes sell faster than conventional ones, especially if energy-efficiency is the main marketing theme, according to the National Association of Home Builders. On the other hand, some green condo buildings in urban markets like New York, that were expected to fly off the market in the boom, have had a rough ride.

Green or not, buyers are still constrained by the market's current tight financial conditions, the NAHB says, and even the prospect of lower monthly energy bills "has not gained the attention of the lending community."

Lenders don't really care how much a homeowner spends on utilities. Perhaps they should, but the DTI parameters don't include utility costs, and until they do, green products that tout energy savings will not get any financing dollars put toward them.

One problem is that most people are in the dark about what green building really means, and more importantly, if it's worth paying for. Green can also be confusing: Quick, what's the difference between LED and LEED? (Answer: LED is energy-efficient light emitting diodes, used in lighting and LEED is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, the much touted green certification program that includes a checklist of environmental standards).

Although the price gap between green and standard housing is reportedly closing, buyers aren't always interested in the technical aspects of how and why green will improve their lives, especially if they are agonizing over a big financial commitment. The Costa Mesa home, for example, which sits on a golf course, features dual-flush toilets, an internal gray water system, and drought-tolerant native plants in the garden (see "Landscaping With Low-Maintenance Lawns Saves Money").

Sounds great, but most buyers are more likely to wonder whether they can afford the mortgage.

The cold truth is that buyers don't care about green features. They care about costs, and green features add costs that are never recovered through use or added value.

$500K price cut on ultimate ‘green’ home

August 23rd, 2010 — Marilyn Kalfus

A Costa Mesa residence that became the first single family home in Orange County to snag the nation’s highest rating under the LEED green building program has had a nearly $500,000 price chop.

The 7-bedroom, modern Craftsman-style house at 1811 Gisler Ave. is now listed at $2,499,999, down from $2,999,000 in January.

The home, priced at $510 a square foot, sits on 0.32 of an acre at the 11th green of the Mesa Verde Golf Course.

As Register reporter Pat Brennan wrote in February, the developer began planning to build the 4,900-square foot house from scratch 2 years before it hit the market.

Wrote Brennan:

“It’s loaded with features — solar panels, a gray-water system, natural lighting, low-flow water fixtures, landscaping with drought-tolerant native plants …”

All these elements helped Steve Blanchard earn the platinum rating from LEED — “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”:

  • Solar power
  • Internal gray water system, recycling sink and shower water for toilet flushes and outside irrigation
  • Low-flow, dual-flush toilets and faucets
  • An interior built with materials free from volatile organic compounds, a common pollutant
  • LED lighting throughout
  • Energy Star appliances
  • Natural lighting throughout the house
  • Tankless water-heating system
  • High-efficiency heating and cooling units
  • Gas-burning fireplaces
  • Low-flow drip irrigation
  • Landscaping with Orange County native plants, which won’t require any irrigation once established.

Other features include folding walls of glass that lead to a private courtyard, a formal dining room, 3 fireplaces, including in the master bedroom suite, a gourmet kitchen and an outdoor Dacor kitchen.

Another Ponzi implosion

  • Today's featured property was purchased for $362,000 on 6/20/2002. The owner used a $289,500 first mortgage, a $72,150 second mortgage, and a $350 down payment.
  • On 1/23/2003, he refinanced with a $365,000 first mortgage.
  • On 4/3/2003 he obtained a $50,000 HELOC.
  • On 8/6/2003 he refinanced with a $369,500 first mortgage.
  • On 5/16/2006 he got a HELOC for $250,000.
  • On 12/22/2006 he was approved for a $315,200 HELOC.
  • Total property debt was $684,700.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal was $322,350.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 05/13/2009

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 02/10/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

Palladio Properties picked this up at auction for $536,500. They will net 8% to 12% for their investors.

Irvine Home Address … 20 JULIAN 1 Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price … $639,000

Home Purchase Price … $536,500

Home Purchase Date …. 6/1/2010

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $64,160

Percent Change ………. 12.0%

Annual Appreciation … 53.6%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$639,000 ………. Asking Price

$127,800 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.52% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$511,200 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$125,177 ………. Income Requirement

$2,596 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$554 ………. Property Tax

$217 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$53 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$128 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$3,548 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$434 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$671 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$214 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$80 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,738 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$6,390 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$6,390 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$5,112 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$127,800 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$145,692 ………. Total Cash Costs

$41,900 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$187,592 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 20 JULIAN 1 Irvine, CA 92602

——————————————————————————

Beds: 3

Baths: 2 full 1 part baths

Home size: 1,650 sq ft

($387 / sq ft)

Lot Size: n/a

Year Built: 2002

Days on Market: 21

Listing Updated: 40418

MLS Number: S630611

Property Type: Condominium, Residential

Community: Northpark

Tract: Tibu

——————————————————————————

Beautiful Detached Home in Northpark Square Community. New Paint & Carpet. Stainless Steel Appliances. Open Floor Plan. Living Room with Fireplace. 3 Bedrooms upstairs. Spacious Master Bathroom with walk-in Closet. Close to Community Park. Move-in Ready.

Shadow Inventory Signals Three Years of Falling Prices

Working through the inventory of distressed properties will likely take several years. Many forecasters are now warning of a three-year slide.

133 Danbrook kitchen

Irvine Home Address … 133 DANBROOK Irvine, CA 92603

Resale Home Price …… $300,000

Don’t tell me how life is

Cause I don’t really want to know

Don’t tell me how this game ends

Cause we’ll just see how it goes

Catch me when I fall

Or you’ll need me when I’m not here at all

Miss me when I’m gone again, yeah

I’m going down in flames

I’m falling into this again

3 Doors Down — Going Down in Flames

Is the US housing market going down in flames again. A precipitous drop in 2008 was temporarily halted by a massive government effort, but with the market props removed, it looks like house prices are going to resume their decline.

U.S. home prices face three-year drop as inventory surge looms

By John Gittelsohn and Kathleen M. Howley

(c) 2010 Bloomberg News

Wednesday, September 15, 2010; 12:24 AM

Shadow inventory — the supply of homes in default or foreclosure that may be offered for sale — is preventing prices from bottoming after a 28 percent plunge from 2006, according to analysts from Moody's Analytics Inc., Fannie Mae, Morgan Stanley and Barclays Plc. Those properties are in addition to houses that are vacant or that may soon be put on the market by owners.

"Whether it's the sidelined, shadow or current inventory, the issue is there's more supply than demand," said Oliver Chang, a U.S. housing strategist with Morgan Stanley in San Francisco. "Once you reach a bottom, it will take three or four years for prices to begin to rise 1 or 2 percent a year."

When many people read predictions like that, they dismiss it as just another opinion. There is a reason analysts believe this. Why do markets work that way? Why will it take three or four years to bottom and why will appreciation be so slow thereafter?

A good example to look at is the farmland price bubble of the 1970s — a bubble that took 20 years to reach its peak in nominal dollars. When a bubble bursts, sellers accumulate as everyone tries to bail out before prices fall further. The inevitable foreclosures plus those who purchased at higher price points form an overhead supply that must be liquidated before prices can go back up. The weight of this inventory if left unchecked will push prices well below the previous equilibrium as is now happening in Las Vegas. Over time this inventory is sold, and the weight of this inventory lessens, and prices can slowly begin to rise. It is only after all this inventory is purged can prices resume a level of appreciation equal to wage incomes.

Rising supply threatens to undermine government efforts to boost the housing market as homebuyers wait for better deals. Further price declines are necessary for a sustainable rebound as a stimulus-driven recovery falters, said Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist of Maria Fiorini Ramirez Inc., a New York economic forecasting firm.

Sales of new and existing homes fell to the lowest levels on record in July as a federal tax credit for buyers expired and U.S. unemployment remained near a 26-year high. The median price of a previously owned home in the month was $182,600, about the level it was in 2003, the National Association of Realtors said.

There were 4 million homes listed with brokers for sale as of July. It would take a record 12.5 months for those properties to be sold at that month's sales pace, according to the Chicago- based Realtors group.

"The best thing that could happen is for prices to get to a level that clears the market," said Shapiro, who predicts prices may fall another 10 percent to 15 percent. "Right now, buyers know it hasn't hit bottom, so they're sitting on the sidelines."

Inflated prices make for unmotivated buyers. Wise buyers know that prices are not going up (fools still get duped by realtors), so a deflationary psychology takes over. Buyers should wait because they will get a better deal if they do. Further, if buyers act in unison, the deflation becomes self generated. It isn't until prices fall to the point where renting carries a heavy premium that buyers are pushed off the sidelines.

About 2 million houses will be seized by lenders by the end of next year, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania. He estimates prices will drop 5 percent by 2013.

After reaching bottom, prices will gain at the historic annual pace of 3 percent, requiring more than 10 years to return to their peak, he said.

"A long if not lost decade," Zandi said.

See Real Estate's Lost Decade.

The national declines likely will be weighed down by more troubled markets. Working through the inventory depends on variables such as local employment and the amount of homeowner debt, said Sam Khater, chief economist for CoreLogic Inc., a Santa Ana, California-based real estate and financial information company. Nevada has the highest percentage of homes with mortgages more than the properties are worth, while New York state has the lowest, according to CoreLogic.

Douglas Duncan, chief economist for Washington-based Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. mortgage finance company, said in a Bloomberg Radio interview last week that 7 million U.S. homes are vacant or in the foreclosure process. Morgan Stanley's Chang said the number of bank-owned and foreclosure-bound homes that have yet to hit the market is closer to 8 million.

Sandipan Deb, a residential credit strategist for Barclays in New York, said prices will drop another 8 percent — to 2002 levels — before beginning a recovery in 2014.

That is a reasonable prediction. The weight of this inventory is too much, and the banks are going to liquidate this inventory eventually, or they will own a great many houses for a very long time.

"On a national level, you have never seen a decline of this sort," Deb said in a telephone interview. "I would caveat that by saying you also have not seen an increase on a national level like we saw from 2002 or 2003 to 2006."

In addition to the as many as 8 million properties vacant or in foreclosure, owners of another 3.8 million homes — 5 percent of U.S. households — said they are "very likely" to put their properties on the market within six months if there is improvement, according to a July survey by Seattle-based Zillow.

"This has the potential to create a sawtooth pattern along the bottom," Stan Humphries, Zillow's chief economist, said in a telephone interview. "Homes begin to sell and a few sidelined sellers rush into the marketplace and flood the marketplace."

The impact of overhead supply is as described above: sellers waiting for price improvement suddenly appear on the MLS when they get a whiff of their wishing price, and as the decline grinds on, sellers have a tendency to become more motivated and lower their wishing prices until they finally capitulate and sell the property for whatever they can get. That is the interaction between the psychology of the individual sellers and the broader market.

If the market doesn't fall to its natural bottom, price gains in the next five to 10 years won't keep pace with inflation as the difference is made up "on the backend," said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer of FusionIQ, a New York research company. Price increases that fail to at least match inflation are the same as reductions in value, Ritholtz said.

The Obama administration's effort to help mortgage holders, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, is another source of future inventory as owners with new loan terms re- default, Ritholtz said. About half of the modifications done in 2009 were behind in payments by the first quarter of 2010, according to the Treasury Department.

"The belief has been: if we stimulate sales with a tax credit and delay foreclosures with modifications, the market would stabilize," said Ritholtz, author of "Bailout Nation." "We're just putting off the day of reckoning and drawing out the pain by not letting the housing market hit its bottom."

I have the utmost respect for Barry Ritholtz. His analysis is always right on.

Government policy contributed to a recent stabilization in prices that may have been an "illusion," said Zach Pandl, an economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. The S&P/Case- Shiller index of home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose 4.2 percent in June from a year earlier. The measure is a three-month moving average, which means data in the month were still influenced by transactions that may have benefited from the tax incentive.

Even if modifications fail, keeping foreclosures off the market is worth the risk of a delayed recovery, Pandl said.

"It's too painful and too damaging to let it happen all at once," Pandl said from New York.

I still think that contention is nonsense. Everyone who was involved with peddling these stupid market props will look for justification of their failure after the fact. The government props were wasted money and resources. There is no silver lining in that dark cloud.

Owners of about 11 million homes, or 23 percent of households with a mortgage, owed more than their property was worth as of June 30, according to CoreLogic. Another 2.4 million borrowers had less than 5 percent equity in their houses and probably would lose money on a sale after paying broker fees and closing costs, CoreLogic said Aug 25.

In Nevada, 68 percent of homes were underwater in July, with mortgage loans statewide totaling 120 percent of home values, according to CoreLogic. Only 7.1 percent of properties in New York state were underwater, with the total loan-to-value equivalent of 50 percent, the company said.

Brandi Miner, director of marketing for the Georgia Association of Realtors, is holding back on selling her one- bedroom condominium in Atlanta's Buckhead district because she has an underwater mortgage. She paid $155,000 for the property in 2005.

"I'm stuck," Miner said. "I thought it was a stepping stone to a house."

I never quite understood this "stepping stone" idea. If you buy a house because houses are going up in price, both the house you are in and the house you want are going up together. How does buying the stepping-stone house get you any closer? Or is it good enough to stay within reach?

Miner pays about $1,100 a month for her mortgage plus $225 in condo dues, a higher price than she would spend for a three-bedroom house in a good Atlanta-area neighborhood at today's prices, she said. Selling now would cost her $10,000 to $15,000, Miner estimated.

"I'm not $200,000 in the hole, thank God," she said. "But the quarter of the country that's underwater — that's me."

That must make those California borrowers who are $200,000 in the hole realize what fools they were.

Detroit, Las Vegas and Fort Myers, Florida, will take until at least 2020 to return homeowners to positive equity, CoreLogic said in a March report that compared prices in 10 metro areas. Atlanta, Dallas and California's Riverside and San Bernardino counties will need until 2016. The Washington, D.C., area will take the least amount of time, with negative equity disappearing around 2015, CoreLogic said.

CoreLogic is wrong. They assume all markets will bottom at equal times and at prices relative to where they are today. Since many markets never deflated, these must still decline in price before they hit bottom. The low end is close to the bottom, but the mid to high end is not. Further, Riverside County is close to the bottom, and Orange County is not.

The slide in values and record-low interest rates may offer some bargains for property hunters. Prices have returned to historically affordable levels, said Karl Case, professor emeritus of economics at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller index. He estimates a bottom for prices in six months.

"It doesn't take a tremendous number of people to turn the housing market, because only about 5 percent of the stock trades in a given year," Case said in a telephone interview. "There's still a lot of people who are employed, many of whom have been looking for the opportunity to buy."

Case is an example of a homeowner waiting to sell because of low demand. He's seeking to sell the A-frame on 15 acres near Cooperstown, New York, that he bought for $190,000 in 2005.

"I want to keep it if I can't get what I want," he said. "It's a terrific little getaway and I'm not going to give it away."

OMG! That is so embarrassing. Karl Case is a loan owner in denial! Over the last year or so, Karl Case has been inexplicably bullish. Now I understand: he suffers from position bias. He is being influenced by his personal position in the market which he needs to move in his favor. He is not objectively looking at the data and making a sound analysis. He is instead interpreting what he sees based on what he wants to see, and in the process, he is ruining his credibility.

Some indicators show the real estate market has begun to turn a corner. Pending sales of existing houses increased 5.2 percent from June to July, the National Association of Realtors reported Sept. 2. Economists had estimated a 1 percent decline, according to the median of 37 forecasts in a Bloomberg survey.

"The market is starting to show some signs of stabilization," Nicolas Retsinas, director emeritus of Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies, said during an Aug. 31 interview on Bloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." "But a robust recovery is a long time away."

The number of U.S. homes in default or foreclosure fell to 7.04 million as of July 31 from a high of 8.12 million in January, Lender Processing Services Inc., a Jacksonville, Florida-based mortgage servicing company, reported Sept. 2.

Defaulted mortgages as of July took an average 469 days to reach foreclosure, up from 319 days in January 2009. That's an indication lenders — with the help of the government loan modification programs — are delaying resolutions and preventing the market from flooding with distressed properties, said Herb Blecher, senior vice president for analytics at LPS.

"The efforts to date have been worthwhile," Blecher said in a telephone interview from Denver. "They both helped borrowers stay in their homes and kept that supply of distressed properties on the market somewhat limited."

Bullshit. The foolish series of mistakes made by people in our government and their lending overlords has squandered our resources and accomplished nothing — expect perhaps to shift these losses to US taxpayers. The market will not recover faster, nor will it regain good sales volumes until prices are lowered to levels where the inventory can be cleared.

949 Days on the Market

I first profiled this property in the post Mistake 2008. Bank in 2008, this property had already been on the market for nearly a year. Here is your chance to pay $300,000 for a glorified apartment.

  • This property was purchased on 3/25/2005 for $445,000. The owner used a $400,500 Option ARM first mortgage and a $44,500 down payment.
  • Not to worry, on 4/5/2006 he opened a HELOC for $60,000 and likely withdrew his down payment plus $14,500.
  • So far the owner has been squatting for nearly three years.

How does a house spend 949 days on the market?

Date Event Price
Dec 29, 2008 Price Changed $300,000
Dec 16, 2008 Price Changed $340,000
Nov 19, 2008 Price Changed $320,000
Nov 11, 2008 Price Changed $370,000
Jun 06, 2008 Price Changed $375,000
May 15, 2008 Price Changed $399,000
May 13, 2008 Price Changed $419,000
Apr 27, 2008 Price Changed $439,000
Apr 09, 2008 Price Changed $449,000
Feb 12, 2008 Listed $460,000
Mar 25, 2005 Sold $445,000

This is shadow inventory. This is lender denial. This is ridiculous.

How many days on the market will this house see? Are lenders waiting for some buyer to step forward and pay $445,000 for a 1 bedroom apartment condo? This listing may be around in 2020 if they are waiting for that to happen.

This property is scheduled for auction on Wednesday. Perhaps the lender will finally put this listing out of its misery and foreclose. I see no evidence of any attempt at a loan modification, so the lender's failure to foreclose skips the first step of amend-extend-pretend. Based on recent trends, there is an 80% to 90% chance they will continue the extend and pretend dance for another month.

133 Danbrook kitchen

Irvine Home Address … 133 DANBROOK Irvine, CA 92603

Resale Home Price … $300,000

Home Purchase Price … $445,000

Home Purchase Date …. 3/25/2005

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $(163,000)

Percent Change ………. -36.6%

Annual Appreciation … -6.4%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$300,000 ………. Asking Price

$10,500 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.52% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$289,500 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$58,768 ………. Income Requirement

$1,470 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$260 ………. Property Tax

$200 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$25 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$225 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$2,180 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$135 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$380 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$18 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$38 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$1,721 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$3,000 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,000 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$2,895 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$10,500 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$19,395 ………. Total Cash Costs

$26,300 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$45,695 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 133 DANBROOK Irvine, CA 92603

——————————————————————————

Beds: 1

Baths: 1 bath

Home size: 822 sq ft

($365 / sq ft)

Lot Size: n/a

Year Built: 2004

Days on Market: 949

Listing Updated: 40423

MLS Number: S521349

Property Type: Condominium, Residential

Community: Turtle Ridge

Tract: Ashg

——————————————————————————

According to the listing agent, this listing may be a pre-foreclosure or short sale.

Best deal in Turtle Ridge! Better then a model, granite counters, designer paint, berber carpet, upgraded bathroom, and much more. There is a garage with direct access, a fireplace, and air conditioning. This is a primo location with access to Newport Beach, Fashion Island, The Spectrum and the Beach! There is a really nice community pool and spa with clubhouse and nearby walking trails. only way to be in the area for this price! Only one of a few 1 bedrooms every built!

every built? After three years on the market, the realtor can't be bothered to fix this error.

primo location? That sounds professional, doesn't it?

How The Lending Cartel Disposes Their REO Will Determine the Market's Fate

Currently, lenders control the housing market. How they go about disposing their supply will determine the fate of prices.

Irvine Home Address … 4 STAR THISTLE Irvine, CA 92604

Resale Home Price …… $640,000

Sometimes you think your playing the fool

he's runaround braking all the rules

some how that don't seem fair.

There's got to be a better way

you know what I'm trying to say

When It's Over! — Loverboy

Many people believe the crash is over because removing the supply stabilized prices. Most people who carefully watch housing markets agree that a cartel of lenders controls the market through its ability to control supply. Since lenders are being permitted to hold non-performing loans on their books — and allow delinquent borrowers to squat — they control the flow of properties through the foreclosure process. Also, they control the approval of short sales; therefore, they control the flow of properties through the short sale process. Since distressed sales of foreclosure properties and short sales make up a significant percentage of market sales, lenders control the bulk of the supply on the market.

I believe this cartel will fall apart (The Upcoming Collapse of the Banking Cartel) partly because all cartels are inherently unstable, and partly because the Government Expedites Foreclosures, Threatens Banking Cartel. The article below from the Wall Street Journal is one of the better descriptions of the problem I have read in the mainstream media.

Banks' Plans for Foreclosed Homes Will Drive Market

By NICK TIMIRAOS — SEPTEMBER 13, 2010

The speed at which house prices fall over the next few months could depend less on mortgage rates and Americans' appetite for home buying than on how banks decide to manage the huge number of foreclosed homes they own or may take from delinquent borrowers in the near future.

Unlike home owners, banks often are much quicker to slash prices to unload properties quickly.

This has certainly been true in the past, but lenders seem much more willing to emulate homeowner denial this time around. Loan owners are quick to lapse into denial on the false belief that prices will quickly rebound. We explored that phenomenon in Contrarian Investing and the Psychology of Deflation. Lenders are usually pressured by regulators and investors to process their non-performing loans and dispose of their REO. Because this inventory problem is so large, the groups that usually pressure disposition are embracing a hold-and-hope strategy largely doomed to fail.

The upshot is that, the more homes being sold by lenders, the faster prices tend to fall. That pattern was clear over the past two years: Price declines that began four years ago accelerated rapidly in 2008 as banks dumped foreclosed properties at fire-sale prices. By January 2009, the share of distressed sales had soared to 45% of all sales nationally; it was even higher in hard-hit markets such as Phoenix, according to analysts at Barclays Capital.

Even though mortgage defaults kept mounting, housing markets began to stabilize early last year as low prices and government interventions broke the downward spiral. Policy makers spurred demand for homes by holding down mortgage rates, offering tax credits for buyers, and extending low-down-payment loans through the Federal Housing Administration.

This is the squatting problem. We didn't have much squatting prior to 2008 because lenders processed their foreclosures in a timely manner. When they saw what this did to markets like Las Vegas, they stopped processing these foreclosures. Since subprime defaulted first, they were foreclosed on, and since the alt-A and prime mortgages defaulted later, and since those mortgages are much larger, lenders have opted to let those delinquent owners squat.

The government also attacked the supply problem. Regulators relaxed mark-to-market accounting rules, giving banks more flexibility in valuing certain real-estate assets and removing some of the impetus for banks to quickly foreclose.

This is mark-to-fantasy accounting, otherwise known as Amend-Extend-Pretend: 780 Day Short Sales, 60% of Delinquent Loans Remaining.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration put in place an ambitious program to modify mortgages.

The Home Affordable Modification Program has fallen short of its goals. So far, fewer than 500,000 loans have been modified, below the target of three million to four million. Yet the program served as a "closet moratorium" on foreclosures that stanched the flow of bank-owned homes to the market, said Ronald Temple, portfolio manager at Lazard Asset Management.

The result: The share of distressed sales fell by November to 25% of home sales, and prices stabilized. After rising in the winter, the distressed share fell to 22% in June, before bouncing to 30% in July.

The loan modifications programs have all failed, and they will continue to fail. They have provided some political cover for the amend-extend-pretend policy exercised by nearly every bank.

The problem is that these measures are wearing off. Demand plunged this summer after tax credits expired, and unsold homes are piling up. More foreclosures could move onto the market as borrowers fall out of the loan-modification program.

"We see the perfect storm brewing with rising supply and falling demand," said Ivy Zelman, chief executive of research firm Zelman & Associates and one of the first to warn of trouble five years ago. She estimated that distressed sales could account for half of the market by year-end if traditional sales didn't rebound.

Does anyone think the traditional sales market is going to rebound this fall and winter? I don't either. Ivy Zelman is usually correct. Her analysis has been some of the best of the housing bubble.

The market does have some tailwinds: Housing starts are at all-time lows. Banks have hired more staff to manage problem loans and government entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that own a growing share of foreclosures are less likely to deluge the market.

Actually, the GSEs are processing their foreclosures: Government Expedites Foreclosures, Threatens Banking Cartel.

The next leg down in prices "isn't going to be the foreclosure-induced freefall where you just had inventory coming out the wazoo, and it was going to be sold one way or the other," said Glenn Kelman, chief executive of Redfin Corp., a real-estate brokerage.

He is probably right that we will not have a mass forced auction that pounds prices back to the stone ages, but we will have significant pricing pressure until this supply is cleared from the market.

Prices also have come down so much already they have less distance to fall. During the housing boom, prices inflated much faster than incomes rose, thanks to speculation and lax lending. The ratio of home prices to annual incomes reached 1.6 at the end of June, which is below the ratio of 1.88 from 1989 to 2003, according to Moody's Analytics.

By those metrics, prices are actually undervalued in markets that have already seen huge declines, such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los Angeles. But Moody's data show that prices remain "significantly overvalued" elsewhere, including Boston; New York; Seattle; Orange County, Calif., and Charlotte, N.C. Markets in both camps face supply imbalances that will pressure prices for years.

Moody's is right on. Las Vegas is too low relative to incomes, and Orange County is much too high.

The fastest cure for housing would be job creation because it would boost demand for homes while putting delinquent borrowers back on solid footing.

But if that doesn't materialize, policy makers face a thorny question: whether to intervene if price declines accelerate beyond the 5% to 10% that most economists expect. In recent weeks, the White House has been surveying industry analysts on how to manage the inventory overhang.

I believe the government will intervene if prices fall too fast, particularly if interest rates go up too fast: The Bernanke Put: The Implied Protection of Mortgage Interest Rates.

Analysts at Barclays Capital estimate that some four million loans are in some stage of foreclosure or are at least 90 days past due, down slightly from a January peak.

While more tax credits aren't likely, policy makers could still attack the supply problem by, for example, taking foreclosed homes off the market and renting them out.

An idea I endorse: From Squatting to Renting: Another Solution to Stabilize Housing.

Ultimately, market fundamentals will prevail "and any attempt to get around that will only be short-term," said Susan Wachter, a professor of real estate at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. But officials should be prepared to intervene anyway, she said, if psychology spurs a downward spiral "where price declines are feeding further price declines."

You mean if deflation psychology takes over? Good luck combating that one: Contrarian Investing and the Psychology of Deflation.

That leaves few attractive options. Prolonged intervention could backfire by creating uncertainty that keeps buyers on the sidelines. Extending foreclosure timelines also risks inducing more borrowers to default and live rent-free.

The amend-extend-pretend policy has been a fiasco: Thinking About Accelerated Default? The Average Squatting Time Is Up to 449 Days.

Letting the market take its medicine sounds more appealing than it did 18 months ago. But it risks saddling taxpayers and the banking system with billions more in losses and trapping more borrowers in homes on which they owe more than the house is worth.

Write to Nick Timiraos at nick.timiraos@wsj.com

Kudos to Nick Tamiraos for such a lucid description of the problem, and of the problems associated with all the bad solutions that have been implemented to solve the problem to date.

Knife catcher gets sliced

One thing all knife catchers have in common is their belief that they got a good deal when they bought. They are all mistaken.

If we go back two owners, we find a major HELOC abuser:

  • This property was purchased on 3/4/2005 for $611,000. The owner used a $488,800 first mortgage, a $61,100 second mortgage, and a $61,100 down payment.
  • On 6/27/2005 he obtained a $102,500 HELOC.
  • On 1/5/2006 he refinanced with a $742,500 first mortgage.
  • On 11/14/2006 he refinanced again with a $655,200 Option ARM and a $81,900 stand-alone second.
  • The total property debt was $737,100 plus negative amortization and missed payments.

The property was sold to the current owner for $820,000 on 3/3/2007. The previous HELOC abuser got away with the abuse plus obtained some extra cash. Not a bad deal for him.

  • The current owner paid $820,000. The original mortgage data is not in my records. However…
  • On 5/3/2007 he obtained a $656,000 first mortgage and a $123,000 HELOC.
  • On 7/31/2007 he increased his HELOC to $160,000. If he maxed it out, he got most of his down payment back.
  • Total property debt is $816,000.

It's currently listed as a short sale, so we can assume he is no longer making payments.

Irvine Home Address … 4 STAR THISTLE Irvine, CA 92604

Resale Home Price … $640,000

Home Purchase Price … $820,000

Home Purchase Date …. 3/3/2007

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $(218,400)

Percent Change ………. -26.6%

Annual Appreciation … -6.6%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$640,000 ………. Asking Price

$128,000 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.34% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$512,000 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$122,743 ………. Income Requirement

$2,546 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$555 ………. Property Tax

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$53 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$30 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$3,184 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$421 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$694 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$202 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$80 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,351 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$6,400 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$6,400 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$5,120 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$128,000 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$145,920 ………. Total Cash Costs

$36,000 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$181,920 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 4 STAR THISTLE Irvine, CA 92604

——————————————————————————

Beds: 4

Baths: 3 baths

Home size: 2,474 sq ft

($259 / sq ft)

Lot Size: 4,275 sq ft

Year Built: 1974

Days on Market: 111

Listing Updated: 40365

MLS Number: P735477

Property Type: Single Family, Residential

Community: El Camino Real

Tract: Di

——————————————————————————

According to the listing agent, this listing may be a pre-foreclosure or short sale.

Great Schools!!! 4 bedrooms + den. This great house offers thousands in upgrades!! State of the art gourmet kitchen. All bathrooms remodeled. Two bedrooms down three up. Spacious family room. Flat TV and Pool table and bar could be included. Wood floor through out the first floor. Inside laundry room. Built in barbeque. Central air. Close to park.Walking distance to great schools & shopping center, NO Mello roos and low low HOA dues. This home must be seen to be appreciated. Directions Culver & Irvine Center

Great exclamations!!!

Judging by the disheveled appearance, I have to assume this property belongs to a bachelor. You have to admire a guy that has a bar in his bedroom. If he gets his dates drunk, he doesn't have to pursuade them to go far. Those horseshoes are great: Get Lucky!

I hope you have enjoyed this week, and thank you for reading the Irvine Housing Blog: astutely observing the Irvine home market and combating California Kool-Aid since 2006.

Have a great weekend,

Irvine Renter

Did We Replace Welfare with Home Ownership and HELOC Abuse?

The dramatic increase in the home ownership rate began when welfare reform was passed in 1996. Was that really the cause?

65 Olivehurst Kitchen

Irvine Home Address … 65 OLIVEHURST Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price …… $447,900

I can't compete with history

We'll film it live but dub our tale

The mystery must stay inside

Look at our homes, look at our lives

You are creating all the bubbles at night

I'm chasing round trying to pop them all the time

We don't need to trust a single word they say

You are creating all the bubbles at play

Biffy Clyro — Bubbles

Why did the home ownership rate go up?

Many people have speculated as to why the home ownership rate rose from a stable 64% to an unstable 69% beginning in 1996.

Many political operatives have tried to tie this to one piece of legislation or another, and the article I am featuring today does the same. I am going to add a crazy idea to that mix. To be honest, I don't believe political decisions and government policies had much to do with the growth in home ownership. Lax lending standards and lowered down payment requirements added buyers to the pool by converting good renters into bad loan owners.

If you want to blame any particular policy for this, I would look to Alan Greenspan's refusal to regulate credit default swaps as a good candidate. The reason lending standards got so lax is because lenders believed they had transferred the risk to someone else, most often AIG. Since this risk was grossly mispriced, lending standards continued to fall and the mispricing of risk was hidden by the rampant appreciation the influx of new, unqualified buyers created. When it all blew up, we had a major financial crisis.

The delivery mechanism that put unqualified buyers into homes was not the GSEs, so it was not government policy that increased the home ownership rate: it was private subprime lenders. The data on this point is difficult to refute (see below). Republicans have tried to blame Barney Frank which is a joke considering he had no power while all this was going on. Democrats try to blame the Republicans because they were in charge, but that isn't right either because it was caused by private companies — not the GSEs — and not by any government programs.

Notice how well the increase in home ownership rates tracks the increase in subprime lending. Correlation is not always causation, but in this case, how can you deny it. We know that many subprime borrowers were put into homes that previously could not get one. We also know these are the borrowers who have largely been foreclosed on to date as the alt-A and prime borrowers have been allowed to squat.

Subprime was private lending. I have no doubt that policy makers where happy to see this industry grow, but it was not a government policy that made this happen, and it certainly was not caused by the GSEs. Keep that in mind when you read these bogus political "explanations" of what went on. Most of them are factually challenged, and all of them miss the bigger picture connection between the activities in the private sector, credit default swaps, and the mispricing of risk that caused money to flow into the market and increase the home ownership rate and inflate a massive housing bubble.

Subprime 2.0 Is Coming Soon to a Suburb Near You

By Edward Pinto – Sep 7, 2010 6:00 PM PT

On the second anniversary of the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s now obvious that weak lending standards, serving the political interest of affordable housing for all, were the main reason for the nation’s mortgage meltdown.

Actually, no, that is not obvious. Serving political interests of affordable housing was not the culprit.

But the government just can’t permit lending to anyone and everyone; it must insist on prudent judgment about who will repay and who will default. Not only will borrowers who lack a down payment, steady income, employment and a good credit history probably get into trouble — surprise! — but too much irresponsible lending also creates artificial demand for houses, driving prices into the stratosphere and, as we have just experienced, puts all homeowners at risk.

The same mistake occurred in 1929, when any investor could buy stocks on margin with as little as 10 percent down. Small wonder that after the crash the U.S. government instituted a margin requirement of 50 percent down.

Congress should apply the same principle to housing purchases, increasing the amount a buyer must put down and other safeguards to assure prudent lending. Congress refuses to do this. Why? Giving citizens cheap, easy housing is a great way to win votes, no matter what horrific repercussions ensue.

That is certainly part of the problem, but the main reason is because any increase in the down payment requirements would cause the already diminished buyer pool to shrink further.

Who’s Following Whom?

Consider the prevailing narrative that holds a greed-driven private sector responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. A secondary narrative points to a greed-driven Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac abandoning their credit standards in an effort to follow the lead of Wall Street.

If these explanations fail to convince, a third blames a combination of deregulation and insufficient regulation, again driven by greed, as rulemakers were asleep at their posts.

Yes, the first two narratives are only partially true, and the third one hits the nail on the head as I outlined above.

What is missing is the central role played by an affordable housing policy built upon the misguided concept of loosened underwriting — a policy created by Congress and implemented for 15 years by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and banking regulators.

The reason that is missing from the narrative is because affordable housing policy did not create the problem. The affordable housing policies did not cause money to go into subprime. Now if we had seen a dramatic increase in the number of GSE loans and an increase in their market share, I might give some creedance to his supposition; however, that is not what happened. The GSEs were losing market share to subprime lenders, and it wasn't until 2005 that the GSEs became more aggressive about buying subprime loans.

From 1993 onward, regulators worked with weakened lending policies as mandated by Congress. These policies systematically dismantled a housing-finance system based on the common sense principles of adequate down payments, good credit, and an ability to handle the mortgage debt.

No Money Down

Substituted was a scam of liberalized lending standards that turned out to be no standards at all. In 1990, one in 200 home-purchase loans (all government insured) had a down payment of less than or equal to 3 percent. By 2003, one in seven home buyers had such a low down payment, and by 2006 about one in three put no money down.

Again, this problem was not driven by the public sector or the GSEs (which were not public sector at the time). This was a private sector problem that was not caused by government policy.

These policies led millions of Americans to buy homes with little or no money down, impaired credit and insufficient income. As a result, our economy has been brought down and the taxpayers have had to foot the bill for bailout after bailout.

The taxpayers didn't have to bailout anyone. Our leaders thought it was the proper course of action to give our money to the idiots that created this mess, and despite the common belief this was necessary, I remain unconvinced.

Congress and U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration refuse to learn the lesson that is painfully aware to American taxpayers, and they have made it clear that they have no intention of fixing broken underwriting.

That much is true. They need every available buyer to help clean up this mess.

Let’s start with the latest pieces of evidence. The Dodd- Frank Bill, signed in July 2010 by the president, omitted both an adequate down payment and a good credit history from the list of criteria indicating a lower risk of default as regulators sought to define a qualified residential mortgage.

‘Prudent Underwriting’

This was no oversight. Republican Senator Robert Corker and others proposed an amendment that would have added both a minimum down-payment requirement and consideration of credit history along with the establishment by regulators of a “prudent underwriting” standard. This amendment was defeated.

In early September 2010, Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, following requirements set out in 2008 by Congress, finalized affordable housing mandates that are likely to prove more risky than those that led to Fannie and Freddie’s taxpayer bailout. As required by Congress, these new goals almost exclusively relate to very low- and low- income borrowers. Meeting these goals will necessitate a return to dangerous minimal down-payment lending, along with other imprudent lending standards.

Of course, FHFA Director Edward DeMarco notes that Fannie and Freddie aren’t to undertake risky lending to meet these goals. As has already been noted, Congress doesn’t consider low down payments and poor credit as indicative of risky lending. How convenient.

It is troubling that our financial reform didn't reform much. That Republican amendment was a good one. Unfortunately, Democrats feel they need warm bodies to take on bad loans, so now the US government is replacing subprime.

Return to Subprime

The Federal Housing Administration, in its actuarial study released late last year, projected that it will return to an average FICO credit score of 635 by 2013. This signals the FHA’s intention to return to subprime lending. Once again, Dodd-Frank supports this policy change.

The FHA, the Veterans Affairs Department and the Agriculture Department’s grip on the home-purchase market increases month by month. They now guarantee more than half of all home-purchase loans. However, skin in the game isn’t a requirement. For example, the FHA’s average down payment is just 4 percent. Even this meager amount disappears after adjusting for seller concessions and financed insurance premiums.

On Christmas Eve in 2009, the Treasury Department announced new terms to the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie. Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, the terms of the bailout agreement provide for a continuing obligation to provide about $274 billion in capital to Fannie and Freddie. This amount is in addition to the unlimited sums that are available between now and Dec. 31, 2012. As a result, one or both of these entities can now continue indefinitely as zombie institutions under conservatorship.

As a society, we have to go back to at least 20 percent down, with limited exceptions. Credit histories need to be solid. Documentation has to be iron-clad. Lender capital levels need to be raised.

Yes, that is exactly what we must do. Can you imagine how prices would crater if we did? Perhaps we could phase it in, but it seems more likely that we will not move in that direction at all.

Here’s my proposal to bring Congress’s penchant for imprudent lending to a quick end: All congressional pension assets should be invested in funds backed solely by the high- risk loans mandated by federal housing legislation. I have a feeling that things would change fast.

That is hilarious!

(Edward Pinto, a mortgage-finance consultant, was executive vice president and chief credit officer at Fannie Mae from 1987 to 1989. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Edward Pinto at epinto@lendersres.com

Despite my disagreement with many of his contentions in the article, I support his conclusions that we need to return to sane underwriting standards even if that caused prices to fall further. Do we really want a housing market completely controlled and financed by the US government?

Did We Replace Welfare with Home Ownership and HELOC Abuse?

Here is my bogus correlation to politics for your amusement. Democrat Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." Newt Gingerich as part of the Republican Contract With America agreed. Together they passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Since poor people could no longer count on the government for ongoing support payments, they needed a new source of spending money. The government eager to avoid civil disorder came up with an idea: make all these people home owners to make them feel vested in the community, and give them home equity they can convert to spending money to make up for the lost welfare money.

This legislation does correspond to the beginning of the housing bubble, and the cause and effect is plausible. Also, during the bubble rally, there were certainly many poor subprime borrowers who got to take a ride on the HELOC gravy train. I don't happen to think this correlation is causation, but it is something to think about. It is certainly more plausible than most of the nonsense coming out of the Right-wing narratives I have read.

571 Days on the Market. Is it really for sale?

I first profiled today's featured property in Will HELOC Abuse Doom the Housing Market? After 571 days on the market it is still there. Do you sense any urgency in the banks to process short sales?

  • This house was purchased on 3/29/2004 for $539,000. The owner used a $431,200 first mortgage, and a $107,800 down payment.
  • On 12/10/2004 they opened a HELOC for $147,000.
  • On 11/2/2006 they refinanced with a $520,000 Option ARM, and opened a new HELOC for $65,000.
  • Total debt is $585,000.
  • Total Mortgage Equity Withdrawal is $153,800 including their down payment.

There is no filing on this property, so it does not appear in any foreclosure list. Do any of you believe she is still making the payments? Does anyone attempting a short sale bother making payments? Why would they. This has been for sale for nearly two years, so we have to assume she has been squatting without making a payment for at least that long.

What the hell are the banks waiting for? 571 days? Do they really believe prices will go up in the face of all the visible and shadow inventory? Not a chance.

65 Olivehurst Kitchen

Irvine Home Address … 65 OLIVEHURST Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price … $447,900

Home Purchase Price … $539,000

Home Purchase Date …. 3/29/2004

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $(117,974)

Percent Change ………. -21.9%

Annual Appreciation … -2.6%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$447,900 ………. Asking Price

$15,677 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.36% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$432,224 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$86,104 ………. Income Requirement

$2,154 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$388 ………. Property Tax

$125 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$37 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$242 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

============================================

$2,947 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$343 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$584 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$25 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$56 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

============================================

$2,101 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$4,479 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$4,479 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$4,322 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$15,677 ………. Down Payment

============================================

$28,957 ………. Total Cash Costs

$32,200 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

============================================

$61,157 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 65 OLIVEHURST Irvine, CA 92602

——————————————————————————

Beds: 2

Baths: 2 baths

Home size: 1,550 sq ft

($289 / sq ft)

Lot Size: n/a

Year Built: 2001

Days on Market: 568

Listing Updated: 40360

MLS Number: I09021936

Property Type: Townhouse, Residential

Community: Northpark

Tract: Aubr

——————————————————————————

According to the listing agent, this listing may be a pre-foreclosure or short sale.

This is a Short Sale.TRI-LEVEL HOME: FIRST LEVEL W/ (2) CAR GARAGE & STORAGE AREA. SECOND LEVEL: LIVING RM W/ CARPET, KITCHEN/DINING W/ WHITE TILES, BAMBOO HARD WOOD FLOOR, TILED BATHROOM FLOOR, WASHER/DRYER HOOKUP, BEDROOM W/ CARPET/MIRRORED CLOSET. COVERED BALCONY. OPEN FLOOR PLAN W/ MULTIPLE WINDOWS, HIGH VAULTED CEILINGS, RECESS LIGHTING THROUGH THE HOUSE. THIRD FLOOR: MASTER BR W/ WALK-IN MASTER BATH, EXTRA-LARGE TUB, STAND-UP SHOWER, HIS/HERS VANITY, MIRRORED CLOSET, STAIR CASE OVER LOOKING SECOND FLOOR AND MOUNTAIN VIEW.