IHB News 9-18-2010

I have a sad foreclosure for you today. Something different from the endless stream of Ponzis.

Irvine Home Address … 187 ROCKWOOD 64 Irvine, CA 92614

Resale Home Price …… $395,000

and I got a peaceful, easy feeling

and I know you won't let me down

'cause I'm already standing on the ground

Eagles — Peaceful Easy Feeling

IHB News

The deadline has come and gone for applications to the fund. This marks the end to my push to raise money, now I am focusing on making it. Over the next few weeks, I may take on a few late subscribers if I am under my sophisticated investor limit. The absolute closing date of the fund is the day I close on the first property and there is profit and loss. No subscription funds will be taken after that time. Many subscribers are processing self-directed IRAs and this processing takes a few weeks. There is still time, but don't delay.

I want to thank everyone who contacted me and requested information. I met with many wonderful people over the last several weeks. One of the unique joys of this hobby is being famous in a circle of people. It's always fun to talk to people that genuinely appreciate the work I do.

Self-Directed IRAs

The most common questions I was asked over the last several weeks concerned self-directed IRAs. For self-directed IRAs, I recommend any of the following:

Entrust Administration

IRA Services

Sterling Trust

I have used all three of them at one time or another. Entrust is a bit more expensive, but they also have a local office where you can go and meet with someone. Both IRA Services and Sterling Trust are very inexpensive.

Housing Bubble News from Patrick.net

Fri Sep 17 2010

Lower Your Expectations for House Prices, Sales (blogs.wsj.com)

Housing market won't improve until jobs come back (vcstar.com)

Numbers Show House Ownership To Be Horrible Investment (dailybail.com)

House "Hunters" Or Freshly Killed Prey? (patrick.net)

SF Bay Area Housing Cool Down (mercurynews.com)

New Supply Floods U.S. Housing Market (bullionbullscanada.com)

Banks hold back repos: disagreement on why only fraction of foreclosures are listed (registerguard.com)

US houses lost to foreclosure up 25 pct on year (finance.yahoo.com)

Hawaii Foreclosures hit all-time high (staradvertiser.com)

U.S. House Seizures Reach Record for Third Time in Five Months (bloomberg.com)

From Squatting to Renting: Another Solution to Stabilize Housing (irvinehousingblog.com)

The financial fallout was an 'Inside Job' (marketplace.publicradio.org)

Rep. Frank backs higher subsidies for wealthiest owners (reuters.com)

Canadian Banks "More Prudent" on Mortgage Lending than US Banks. Really? (Mish)

Housing Crisis Threatens Spain's Economic Recovery (online.wsj.com)

Why China's Housing Bubble Is Unsustainable (Charles Hugh Smith)

Thank You Andrew W. ($3) for your kind donation.

Find cashflow-positive property easily. Free Trial


Thu Sep 16 2010

U.S. House Prices Face 3-Year Drop as Inventory Surge Looms (bloomberg.com)

Bank Repossession of Houses Sets New Record in August (finance.yahoo.com)

House Prices decline 0.6% in July (calculatedriskblog.com)

House Price Double Dip Begins (finance.yahoo.com)

House Prices Drop in 36 States; Prices to Stagnate for a Decade (Mish)

Freddie Mac estimates house sales to fall another 23% in 3Q (housingwire.com)

Want to know when prices will rise? Ask the government! (foreclosuretruth.com)

New plan gives government first dibs on foreclosures (9news.com)

Foreclosure Rescue Scams Are Going Strong (bbb.org)

Renters have tough time finding Bank's contact before foreclosure on Landlord (patrick.net)

Borrowers Losing Their Houses Are Staying (Rent-Free) in Them Longer (americanbanker.com)

Registry Might Force Banks To Clean Up Rotting Foreclosures (wsbtv.com)

Five Key Points on Buying a Short Sale (timiacono.com)

25 Most Expensive Houses Reveal US Economy Just Finance (Charles Hugh Smith)

Crisis in China: 64 million empty apartments (asianews.it)

CalPERS must release documents detailing $100M real estate investment loss (contracostatimes.com)

Forced garbage mortgage buy-backs limit new loans (prweb.com)

Fed May Print New Cash For Garbage Loan Purchases in November (blogs.wsj.com)

You Can Get a Garbage Mortgage for No Money Down – Again! (seattleweekly.com)

Irish Parliament Gets Testy About Housing Crash (dailybail.com)

Find cashflow-positive property easily. Free Trial


Wed Sep 15 2010

FHA Rules Effective October 4th, 2010 will crash housing market (patrick.net)

Maui house prices fall (staradvertiser.com)

Southern California house sales slow down in August (latimes.com)

Southern California House Sales and Median Price Dip in July (dqnews.com)

Reno housing market: American nightmare (rgj.com)

House market still shaky (startribune.com)

Jobless claims jump 31% in July (economy.ocregister.com)

The persistent and sticky unemployment of the American worker (mybudget360.com)

How Student Debt Wrecks Marriages, Delays Housing Recovery (Mish)

Student Loan Default Rate Is Continuing to Increase (nytimes.com)

BofA May Owe $20 Billion in Mortgage Buybacks (bloomberg.com)

AIG Plots End to U.S. Aid (online.wsj.com)

The Great American Stickup (huffingtonpost.com)

Business interests in all sectors organized a takeover of political power (baselinescenario.com)

Reich Foresees Phantom Recoveries, Revolt Against Wealthy (bloomberg.com)

Effects of Possible Tax Increases on the Rich (washingtonindependent.com)

Leader Says China Needs to Stabilize Home Prices (nytimes.com)

The Least Boomers Can Do (theatlantic.com)

Legalizing pot would free up police to fight violent crime (latimesblogs.latimes.com)

Find cashflow-positive property easily. Free Trial


Tue Sep 14 2010

House Prices Set To Fall Further (huffingtonpost.com)

House prices to fall by 10pc (telegraph.co.uk)

House Prices and Foreclosures (calculatedriskblog.com)

Luxury house builder announces plans to shut down (charlotte.news14.com)

Real estate investors may be wiped out (lansner.ocregister.com)

Banks' Key Role in Housing Prices (online.wsj.com)

Hindsight on Risky Mortgage Products (washingtonindependent.com)

JPMorgan analysts bearish on housing recovery (housingwire.com)

A Downside of Short Sales (nytimes.com)

Economic Docs Find Remedy In Same Old Poison (bloomberg.com)

The Slump Goes On: Why? (nybooks.com)

Rich Americans Save Tax Cuts Instead of Spending (bloomberg.com)

Lehman and Too Big to Fail (dailyfinance.com)

Ritz-Carlton Kapalua Facing Foreclosure (luxist.com)

One In Five Hotel-Backed Loans Is Now Delinquent (zerohedge.com)

Canadian housing looks overpriced (yourhome.ca)

Australian Lenders Learn Nothing from US Housing Bust, Offer 105% Mortgages (Mish)

Australian banks lending into housing bubble (news.com.au)

Beware of Greeks Bearing Bonds (vanityfair.com)

MERS 101 (stopforeclosurefraud.com)

Find cashflow-positive property easily. Free Trial


Mon Sep 13 2010

$8,000 tax credit cost buyers an extra $13,000 in purchase price (tampabay.com)

Tax credits for housebuyers: the downside of stimulus (csmonitor.com)

Housebuyer tax credit: 950,000 must repay (money.cnn.com)

Bankers Urge Government to Pull Plug on Fannie, Freddie (abcnews.go.com)

Executives with criminal records slip through FHA "crackdown" (washingtonpost.com)

Want to solve the housing slump? Let it be. (csmonitor.com)

As Dade, Broward market values plummet, tax bills still rise (miamiherald.com)

Housing crash's small silver lining for some — no property tax bills (sun-sentinel.com)

The Money You "Lost" in Your Price Reduction Wasn't Real (activerain.com)

Prediction of 9% fall in property prices nationwide in 2010 (housingstory.net)

Predicting Future Vancouver Housing Prices (vreaa.wordpress.com)

Enabler To Canadas Housing Addiction (zerohedge.com)

Australian housing bubble fears grow (heraldsun.com.au)

Defaulted on mortgage to save my business (ft.com)

How mortgage market has tightened (sfgate.com)

To buy or not to buy? (miamiherald.com)

Time finally reports on downside of massive mortgage debt… (time.com)

…and the builders don't like the Time story one bit (nbnnews.com)

Tell truth about banks, get sued (Freedom of speech?) (nytimes.com)

Improved Rent Estimates (patrick.net)

The saddest foreclosure to date

Usually, I don't think much of the foreclosures I have profiled because they are mostly Ponzis. I don't cherry pick those properties, it's just how the people were. They are the rule not the exception. Today's featured property didn't have HELOC abuse. It was a responsible borrower who must have fallen on hard times. The loan modifications failed, and the owner lost the property. This is the elusive hapless victim of circumstance the mainstream media is always looking for. She did nothing wrong, but she is losing the house.

  • This property was purchased for $182,000 on 8/14/1998, close to the bottom last time. The owners used a $172,900 first mortgage and a $9,100 down payment.
  • On 8/9/2005 the remaining owner refinanced the first mortgage for $175,000. That represents very little cash out given what was going on around her.
  • On 10/2/2006 she was granted a $50,000 HELOC, but there is no evidence she used it; although, once she ran into trouble paying the first mortgage, I could see where that HELOC would be a handy Ponzi loan.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 07/07/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 06/07/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 11/12/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 11/05/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 04/28/2009

Document Type: Notice of Rescission

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 04/10/2009

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 01/07/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

This property sold at auction for $319,000. There is a chance that this owner actually had equity after everyone was paid off. There is no telling how much in fees was charged to her loans while she was delinquent. You have to imagine the bank got it all.

Irvine Home Address … 187 ROCKWOOD 64 Irvine, CA 92614

Resale Home Price … $395,000

Home Purchase Price … $182,000

Home Purchase Date …. 8/14/1998

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $189,300

Percent Change ………. 104.0%

Annual Appreciation … 6.1%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$395,000 ………. Asking Price

$13,825 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.52% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$381,175 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$77,378 ………. Income Requirement

$1,936 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$342 ………. Property Tax

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

$33 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$330 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

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

$2,641 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$311 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$500 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$23 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$49 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

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

$1,902 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$3,950 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,950 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$3,812 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$13,825 ………. Down Payment

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

$25,537 ………. Total Cash Costs

$29,100 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

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

$54,637 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 187 ROCKWOOD 64 Irvine, CA 92614

——————————————————————————

Beds: 3

Baths: 1 full 1 part baths

Home size: 1,260 sq ft

($313 / sq ft)

Lot Size: n/a

Year Built: 1983

Days on Market: 43

Listing Updated: 40437

MLS Number: U10003600

Property Type: Condominium, Townhouse, Residential

Community: Woodbridge

Tract: St

——————————————————————————

One of the most desirable neighborhoods in Irvine. Don't miss out on this amazing townhome which is the largest model in the tract. Spacious open floorplan with large Living Room with cozy fireplace and seperate eating area. Desirable kitchen with stainless steel appliances and plenty of cabinet space. Near parks, tennis courts and pool & spa. Motivated seller will consider all offers.

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.

From Squatting to Renting: Another Solution to Stabilize Housing

Everyone has their pet ideas for saving the housing market. Today's post analyses one of the better ideas I have seen so far.

Irvine Home Address … 23 CALISTOGA Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price …… $799,900

You look like

A perfect fit

For a girl in need

Of a tourniquet

But can you, save me

Come on and, save me

Aimee Mann – Save Me

Some housing markets need a tournequet to stop the profuse bleeding of home equity. In the most beaten down markets, prices have overshot fundamentals to the downside. In Monday's post I discussed Another Dumb Idea to Shift Private Mortgage Losses to Taxpayers. Today, I am going to look at a much better proposal for dealing with the reality of millions of foreclosures owned by the US government.

GSEs to Lose Tens of Millions

Lisa Marquis Jackson — John Burns Real Estate Consulting

August 28, 2010

While officials were gearing up for the August 17, 2010 meeting on GSE reform, the GSEs were losing millions of dollars every hour. Why? Because home prices are falling again. We have a solution.

Recent Market Changes: When the tax credit expired on April 30, home buying activity slowed 30%+ and hasn't rebounded much while the number of homes for sale has risen. With lower demand and higher supply, it is once again a buyer's market, where sellers are forced to drop price if they want to sell. It will take almost 1 year to sell every home on the market right now! According to our proprietary survey of home builders across the country, new home prices nationwide have dropped 3% since the tax credit expiration, with declines in 9 of 10 regions, and we are seeing similar signs in the resale market. Falling home prices hurt almost everyone, especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the taxpayers that are now backing them.

Falling prices do not hurt buyers who want to see lower prices, but lower prices certainly do harm banks and now the US taxpayer who is backing the housing market.

DC Trip: This month, we spent time in Washington D.C. informing HUD, Treasury, Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials of what was going on. While most were not surprised about the price declines after we laid out the facts, we were pleasantly surprised at how much traction our proposal to help alleviate the problem received.

Proposed Rental Housing Solution: Falling home prices don't help anyone, and anyone who says we can let the free market take care of things is saying that it is ok for taxpayers and the banking system to lose many more billions of dollars, virtually assuring another recession and maybe worse.

Falling home prices do help sidelined buyers, and yes, it is okay for taxpayers and the banking system to lose billions of dollars. I don't think anyone really gives a crap about the banks, and if the taxpayers lose money perhaps those in charge that made taxpayers liable for losses they shouldn't be covering will be punished. Probably won't happen, but Ms. Jackson needs to recognize that not everyone shares her view that lower prices are the root of all evil.

To boost housing demand and limit supply, we propose the following:

1) Create an Apartment REIT: Distressed sales need to be kept off the market. Rent out the Fannie, Freddie and FHA REO (owned properties through foreclosure). These properties currently comprise 42% of the 562,000 REO and a large percentage of the 5.1 million homes currently in the foreclosure pipeline (already 90+ days delinquent or in foreclosure). This is best accomplished by contracting with an outside firm (competitively bid of course) to manage local property management firms. The rental income will be self-sustaining and the properties will be financeable in the public markets, just like publicly traded REITs are financeable. The GSEs will benefit from future price appreciation too, as opposed to being damaged by further price deterioration. The Banks, who currently own 22% of the REO, should also be allowed to contribute properties to the REIT. The Administration can keep pushing for loan mods if they want, and we heard over and over again how government doesn't want to foreclose on people. All we ask is that you keep the distressed sales off the market.

Some form of toxic turd fund as described above is the most likely solution to this problem. Renting a property is a far superior form of asset utilization than long-term squatting. People who are paying neither a mortgage nor rent need to be forced out or converted to rental status. In the post How Gaming Interests Could Save the Las Vegas Housing Market, and Why They Should, I laid out a private market solution that keeps owners in their homes and allows them to buy the property back at a later date. If this rent-to-own feature is added to the above proposal, I think the final piece to the puzzle will be in place. Of course, banks will resist the rent-to-own idea because it will encourage accelerated default, but if the government was really interested in keeping people in their homes they could do that. (Which shows where the government's allegiance is.)

Consider this: any loan requires some steady stream of payments to pay interest and recover the original capital. Since the loan balance is already set by the oversized loan of the bubble, and since the only available income stream is property rent, the GSEs could modify the interest rate on the loan to be as low as necessary to have the rental income stream pay off the loan over a 30-year term. In this fashion, the "loan" could be kept alive on the GSEs balance sheets and the debt can be retired over time by the rental income stream. There is no need to write down the loan balance if they have a steady income stream and if they control the interest rate. The taxpayers would avoid any paper losses backstopping these loans because the capital is preserved.

Once properties go REO, the GSEs can (1) keep the loan alive, (2) pay it down with the rental income from the property, (3) and offer the property to the former owners with an option to repurchase. This allows the GSEs to avoid costly write-downs, keeps people in their homes, and prevents a wave of foreclosures from pounding prices back to the 1990s like they have in Las Vegas. Isn't that what they are trying to accomplish?

2) Loans to Landlords: To stimulate demand and restrict supply on non-GSE distressed sales, have the GSEs make very safe loans to individuals or corporations who will promise to rent them out for an extended period of time. The GSEs should make a tidy profit on these loans, while also helping provide affordable rental housing to those who need it.

Sign me up for 10 of those loans. I want to buy cashflow properties in Las Vegas, keep them off the resale market, and provide an affordable rental. If they want to loan me cheap money to accomplish this, I will take all they want to offer.

3) Keep Mortgage Liquidity Flowing: Housing is extremely affordable right now [except in Coastal California], but the uncertainty in the mortgage industry is making underwriting more challenging, and uncertainty in the economy is hurting buyer confidence. Stop changing the underwriting rules so everyone knows what is required, and keep the fantastic financing environment. Once the economy turns around, real buyers will return to the market.

That is a fallacy. Many people who want to buy real estate will not be eligible to obtain a loan regardless of their income. The rent-to-own solution I outlined above will help alleviate this problem, but to suggest that buyers with good credit and a substantial down payment will suddenly emerge once the economy picks up is wishful thinking. It is a delusion everyone in the industry suffers from, particularly lenders.

We believe that the solutions above will also help restore home buyer confidence that prices won't plunge, which will boost demand.

That is a strong acknowledgement of the deflation physchology that rules the markets; although, I believe qualification standards create more problems then buyer psychology.

GSE Reform: As far as GSE reform goes, the answer is simply to turn back the clock. Fannie Mae was formed in 1938 to create mortgage liquidity, and the GSEs have played a very useful role in preventing another Great Depression, so we still need them. However, the GSEs need to be told ASAP that elected officials are not going to pull the rug out from under them so they can focus on helping manage us through the remainder of this crisis. Turn back the clock to:

  • 1967, which was the last year before Fannie Mae became a publicly traded corporation. It is impossible to serve two masters, and allowing the entities formed to assure mortgage liquidity to have their strategies dictated by shareholders was a grave mistake.
  • 1998, which was the last year before elected officials mandated that Fannie and Freddie grow homeownership by making more aggressive loans to low income households.

You can't go back. That simply isn't going to work. I discussed these issues in Can the GSEs Exist Outside of Government Conservatorship? We need to have a secondary mortgage market because it is the only way banks can manage asset-liability mismatch, but the GSEs are not the only method for maintaining a secondary mortgage market. As they are current structured, there is no way they can exist without the explicit backing of the US government. Any attempt to pretend they don't have this backing will be a joke.

We are sure this will create some controversy, particularly among extremists. I am staying out of the politics and making recommendations that we believe are sound business advice. For those who are running the troubled balance sheet of The United States of America, you need to act quickly to make sure that your asset values don't plunge. Only those who want to see you go bankrupt will oppose these ideas.

Sorry, but there are many reasons to oppose these ideas that are not extremist nor do they require a desire to see the United States go bankrupt. Give me a break.

Despite the occasional hyperbole, the ideas presented are good. If we add in the ability to keep owners in their homes with a rent-to-own arrangement, I think this proposal has real merit. If some solution like this is not implemented, we will see a repeat of the Las Vegas experience in every housing market in the country.

How low are prices in Las Vegas?

When I blather on about Las Vegas properties, people in Orange County can't quite wrap their mind around how much less expensive these properties really are.

The property pictured above is located in Henderson, Nevada. It is a 2000 SF 3/2 built in 2007 in a nice neighborhood. It originally sold for $339,993. The opening bid at auction is $92,605, and comps run about $130,000. It will likely sell for $100,000 to $105,000, and it may go for less than $100,000. That's about $50/SF. It would likely rent for about $1,250 a month. Comparable properties to this one in Irvine would cost $350/SF — seven times as much.

The cheapest 470 SF 1/1 in Irvine sells for $129,000 or $274/SF. The worst property in Irvine is more expensive than this nice middle-class home in Henderson, Nevada.

Does it make sense to you that the Orange County premium is that large?

Why Las Vegas prices are so low

What is it about the Las Vegas market that makes prices so low relative to the peak and relative to rents? When bubble bloggers first began describing what would happen when prices collapsed, the narrative when something like this: exploding loan payments would cause massive numbers of foreclosures, and this must-sell inventory would push prices lower because supply would increase and demand would collapse through a combination of deflation psychology and a diminished buyer pool brought about by all the foreclosures. In fact, this is exactly what has occurred in Las Vegas.

In a normal real estate market, properties trade at a discount to rents. Renting carries a premium because renting provides freedom of movement and insulation from liabilities for property maintenance or declining prices. However, if the renting premium becomes too large, renters are enticed by the lower cost of ownership, and many become homeowners in order to save money versus renting. If you look at historically stable housing markets, you will see the premium for renting is evident, and the premium is relatively stable.

Right now in Las Vegas, the premium for renting is very high. A property that costs $1,000 a month to rent can be owned for about $550 a month. So how does the premium get that large? It isn't because of deflation psychology. The entire buyer pool has been poisoned by foreclosure. There literally are not enough potential owner-occupants in the Las Vegas market to absorb the available inventory. Since there is a severe shortage of potential owner-occupant buyers, and no shortage of potential renters with jobs, the rental premium gets pushed to an extreme, and cashflow investors recognize this opportunity and begin buying to obtain great positive cashflow. (Yes, I know unemployment is high, but vacancy is not a problem for Las Vegas properties in nicer neighborhoods).

Think about it: we all knew the home ownership rate was going to decline because of the large number of foreclosures. That means many properties are going to get converted from owner-occupied to renter-occupied. The only way that happens is if prices fall so low that the rental income stream attracts cashflow investors. It doesn't take Nostradamus to see that cashflow investors were going to be called upon to clean up this mess.

This price-to-rent disparity exists in Las Vegas, and it will likely persist for another three to five years before the renter pool is cleared for home ownership through improved credit scores, expired waiting periods, and accumulated down payments. In the interim, cashflow properties will be abundant, and the returns to cashflow investors will be high. It is what it is.

It may seem like I am selling — and I do plan on selling readers these properties — but I am not exaggerating or puffing. I am merely educating readers to an opportunity to profit from the collapse of the housing bubble — an opportunity that hopefully will never occur again in our lifetimes. If you want to take advantage of this opportunity, I will facilitate that for you. If not, I can only lead the horse to water. Go to Las Vegas and see for yourself, or check out the listings on Realtor.com. Condos start at $12,000, less than 10% of what they cost here, and less than most will spend on their next car.

Her own private ATM machine

The married woman who bought this property as her sole and separate property treated it as her own personal ATM machine. If it doesn't cost you anything, and if you can get hundreds of thousands of dollars out of it that you never have to pay back, why not?

  • The property was purchased on 12/5/2001 for $475,500. The owner used a $468,750 first mortgage and a $6,750 down payment.
  • On 4/16/2003 she refinanced with a $450,000 first mortgage.
  • On 5/11/2004 she obtained a $600,000 first mortgage.
  • On 7/7/2005 she got a HELOC for $106,000.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal is $237,250.
  • Total property debt was $706,000.
  • She didn't get to squat long as Wells Fargo foreclosed on her quickly. Surprise, surprise, Wells Fargo did not originate the HELOC that was blown out in the foreclosure, so the process was expedited.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 05/03/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 02/01/2010

Document Type: Notice of Default

She put down $6,750 and withdrew $237,250. Do you think she will want another house? I do.

Irvine Home Address … 23 CALISTOGA Irvine, CA 92602

Resale Home Price … $799,900

Home Purchase Price … $475,500

Home Purchase Date …. 12/5/2001

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $276,406

Percent Change ………. 58.1%

Annual Appreciation … 5.9%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$799,900 ………. Asking Price

$159,980 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.36% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$639,920 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$153,773 ………. Income Requirement

$3,189 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$693 ………. Property Tax

$283 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$67 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$145 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

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

$4,378 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$755 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$864 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$254 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$100 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

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

$3,113 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$7,999 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$7,999 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$6,399 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$159,980 ………. Down Payment

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

$182,377 ………. Total Cash Costs

$47,700 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

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

$230,077 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 23 CALISTOGA Irvine, CA 92602

——————————————————————————

Beds: 3

Baths: 2 full 1 part baths

Home size: 2,223 sq ft

($360 / sq ft)

Lot Size: 3,922 sq ft

Year Built: 2000

Days on Market: 39

Listing Updated: 40410

MLS Number: P746520

Property Type: Single Family, Residential

Community: Northpark

Tract: Othr

——————————————————————————

According to the listing agent, this listing is a bank owned (foreclosed) property.

This property is in backup or contingent offer status.

BANK REPO!!! BEAUTIFUL EXECUTIVE HOME IN GATED 'NORTHPARK'. FRESH INTERIOR TWO TONE PAINT AND NEW CARPET. TILED ENTRY, FORMAL LIVING ROOM WITH PLANTATION SHUTTERS, GUEST BATH WITH PEDESTAL SINK, OPEN AND BRIGHT KITCHEN WITH GRANITE COUNTERTOPS & CENTER ISLAND, SEPARATE FAMILY ROOM WITH FIREPLACE, CEILING FAN AND FRENCH DOOR, SPACIOUS MASTER SUITE WITH WALK-IN CLOSET AND BUILT-INS, DUAL SINK VANITY AND TILED FLOORS IN MASTER BATH, JACK AND JILL BEDROOMS WITH PLANTATION SHUTTERS, UPSTAIRS LAUNDRY ROOM. SUPER MOTIVATED SELLER. SUBMIT!!!

Contrarian Investing and the Psychology of Deflation

Contrarian Investing requires the ability to ignore the prevailing mood of the market and buy when the herd is selling and sell when the herd is buying.

Irvine Home Address … 59 BAMBOO Irvine, CA 92620

Resale Home Price …… $800,000

Some of it's habitual

Some of it's predictable

sometimes the change is not enough

And in the lost empathy

memories of better days

Lagwagon — Change Despair

Bubble Blogs and Deflation Psychology

The IHB has never been a bubble blog, but it is often labeled as such because I have been bearish on housing for so long. I am still bearish on Orange County (and I am not alone), but I am very bullish on Las Vegas and many other beaten down markets. Someday, I may even be bullish on Orange County — probably after all the bulls give up.

Bubble blogs resonated with many people because they spoke a truth about greed and stupidity during a period of mass financial insanity. Prices were insane, and bubble bloggers said so. Once prices started to fall, bubble bloggers were heard by a wider audience and they fed into the cycle of deteriorating buyer confidence. Falling prices makes buyers understandably cautious, and it is this caution that creates deflation psychology that often causes markets to overshoot their fundamental valuations during the deflation of a financial bubble.

The article below is one of the finest explanations of deflation psychology I have read.

The Psychology Of Deflation Explains Why House Prices Will Continue To Fall

Edward Harrison, Credit Writedowns | Sep. 8, 2010, 12:22 PM

A great article in this past weekend’s Washington Post highlighted many of the major issues affecting the US housing market and most of those issues point to lower house prices. In particular, the self-reinforcing psychology of price deflation has already set in. And that means prices will continue to fall.

While the government is doing its best to prop up the housing sector and maintain credit growth, most common metrics suggest house prices are still elevated. This artificial prop buys banks time by preventing banks from taking losses and depleting capital while the yield curve is still steep. Yet, investors are coming to the realization that short-term rates will stay near zero percent for a very "extended period" indeed. Perpetual zero (PZ) is having the perverse effect of flattening the yield curve and reducing the carry trade that is benefiting banks. If banks are unable to restore adequate capital to deal with the loan losses that removing the government prop would induce, the next recession will be very painful.

The psychology of deflation in Japan

I first talked about the behavioural psychology of deflation in 2008 when writing about Japan’s housing bust. The post "A cautionary tale: story from 1994 Japan" relied on Michael Nystrom’s 2006 tale about a Japanese man buying a house amid the mid-1990s Japanese house price deflation to bring the psychology to life.

Michael wrote:

In spite of the booming economy, my uncle, like many Americans today, was shut out of the housing market. Prices always seemed too high, but a pullback never materialized, so he waited until the right time to buy. While he waited, prices spiraled up and away until at last they were hopelessly out of reach. By the time I arrived in 1990, his family was living in a government-owned, rent controlled flat that was, by any standards, small: Two rooms that were each about 12 feet square, a small kitchen and a tiny bath to serve three adults (including his mother) and his two kids…

My uncle thought that he would never ever be able to afford a house in Japan, and that he would live out his dying days in that little rented flat. In his experience, housing prices went only in one direction: up. But by 1992, two years after the Nikkei peaked, something strange began to happen – housing prices started drifting down…

By 1994, housing prices continued to drift lower until some units started to become, with considerable stretching and creative financing, affordable. So that year, by taking out a two generation, 60-year mortgage — with his 16-year old son on the hook for the remaining years that he might not be able to pay — my uncle bought his first home. The family had to scrimp, and both he and my aunt had to work more hours, but they were finally, proud homeowners. And it was a nice house – larger than their old house (but not much), in a nicer neighborhood, and on a higher floor with a view of the treetops. I even helped them move in. It was a happy day. I don’t recall the exact price he paid, but I remember thinking that it sure was a lot! Somewhere north of half a million dollars. Those were the kinds of details were lost on me at that age.

I left Japan in 1994, and didn’t return again for a visit until late 1998. In the intervening 4 years, housing prices had continued to fall, and fall, and fall to the point where my uncle’s house was worth only half of what he had paid for it four years earlier: A couple hundred thousand, up in smoke, just as Japan’s economy was mired in a 13-year slump. But he stuck with his loan, hoping the value will come back. And one day, it just might. So he makes his payments each month faithfully, and when he can no longer make them, his son will take over and pay off the remaining balance. And sometime, in the remaining 48 years on the mortgage, the house may once again be worth more than what is owed on it.

The psychology of deflation hits America

What happened? The psychology of deflation happened. But rather than go into some diatribe of how this works, I will use excerpts of the Washington Post article In struggling housing market, buyers and sellers are out of sync to paint the picture. While reading this, remember that the DC area has been relatively buoyant economically during this crisis compared to other American cities due to federal government largesse. I have highlighted the parts that pertain to deflation psychology.

Jack Donnelly put off selling his Capitol Hill rowhouse for three years until he thought he saw glimmers of life in the housing market this past spring. At $950,000, he said, the red brick Victorian is a "solid deal."

Jackie Wright sees it differently. The row house is one of many homes competing for her attention in uncertain economic times. She’s been looking to buy a home in the District since April but is in no rush to commit, partly because she thinks mortgage interest rates – and prices – could sink even lower.

As with many prospective sellers, Donnelly’s hopes for his rowhouse were forged in the past, before the housing bust, when homeowners assumed that real estate prices would inexorably rise. They expected to reap vast windfalls when their houses sold. But Wright’s eyes are turned to the future. She’s anxious about whether the coming months will bring more gloomy economic news and reluctant to gamble on a major purchase, especially if a flagging market might actually mean better deals ahead.

Notice the disconnect between Donnelly and Wright’s psychology. That’s the interesting thing about this story. The house was bought for $645,000 in 2004. Renovations of $150,000 (excluding labour) put the all-in cost at $850,000. So, why is Donnelly trying to sell the house for nearly a million dollars? In behavioural economics, this is called anchoring. Donnelly’s price point is anchored to the $1 million he expected to receive during the halcyon days of the housing bubble. See Michael Mauboussin on investor psychology for more on this.

Back in 2004, when Donnelly and his new bride, Roxanne, bought the home, they’d paid $645,000. It was a fixer-upper in a transitional neighborhood. And the finances had been a stretch. But with a child on the way, they had been ecstatic to find a place they could afford.

They converted the space from apartments into a single-family home and installed central air conditioning. The renovations totaled more than $150,000, not including labor costs, Donnelly said. Three years later, after the tremendous run-up in U.S. housing prices, he decided he wanted to sell it for $1 million.

By then, however, the housing market had begun to sour, and he figured the home couldn’t fetch what he thought it was worth.

"I decided to do the conservative thing, collect rent on this place and wait a couple of years for the housing market to improve," Donnelly said.

See, Donnelly bought another house and moved in there. He could have sold his old house. But he was anchored to the prices of a few years back and so decided to rent it out – that isn’t the conservative thing. The thing is house prices are lower today – even in DC. And this presents a classic negotiating problem. H. Raiifa’s "The art and science of negotiation" sets out a framework based on three sets of data (as quoted by Max Bazerman’s "Judgement in Managerial Decision Making"):

  1. Each party’s alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA – Best alternative to a negotiated agreement)
  2. Each party’s set of interests
  3. The relative importance of each party’s interests

In a period of falling house prices, a home buyer’s BATNA is to simply wait. She can rent or stay in her present home. Here’s how the Post puts the conflict.

Hart, the real estate agent, insisted that Donnelly’s house is properly priced. She said five other comparable homes within short walking distance are for sale at similar prices – $900,000 to $974,000. She said others have sold within that range recently.

Donnelly has his doubts.

"Frankly, I don’t know what number makes sense anymore," he said. "It’s not a normal market. . . . Some houses are gone, and some in the same price range are not going. I can’t gauge what’s real and what’s not."

He acknowledged that he’d been thinking of reducing his asking price, lowering his goal for a second time.

In fact, by Saturday he’d dropped the price to $895,000.

And while that may narrow the expectations gap with prospective buyers, it might not be enough. If he fails to attract a buyer soon, Donnelly said, he would take the house off the market, possibly refinance it at lower rates and keep on renting it out.

That would be one more sale that never took place.

Lower home sales presage lower prices

This last sentence is the crux of the article.

In any negotiation, the two parties have a "reservation point" beyond which they will refuse to negotiate and will simply walk away and accept their BATNA. The art of negotiating is finding a price higher than the seller’s reservation price that is also lower than the buyer’s. In a market panic, sellers reduce price quickly because markets are more transparent, the assets transacted assets are fungible, transaction costs are low and volume is high. All of this means a bottom comes more quickly because a seller’s reservation price becomes unanchored very quickly as market prices fall.

In a housing market selloff, markets are more byzantine, properties are unique, transaction costs are high, and sales are infrequent. This means that, in assessing one’s set of interests and their relative importance, many sellers decide not to transact because their reservation prices are still anchored to in bubble psychology.

So the first thing to give way in a housing bust is volume. Lower transaction volume is prelude to lower prices. If volume is falling, you can be sure it has done so because sellers have not lowered their reservation prices and are waiting for prices to rise again. But, of course, if the psychology of deflation has set in for buyers, they are not going to pay more. And that means prices and sales volumes drift lower as forced sellers dominate the marketplace.

Moreover, the psychology of price deflation is also the reason markets tend to overshoot to the downside. Buyers are saying, "wow, those prices sure have come down. Maybe they will come down even more. I think I will hold off on buying and see." This type of psychology is self-reinforcing and almost always takes markets below fair value when value players snap up bargains and change the psychology. In my view, the government can slow but simply will not be able to overcome this dynamic. That means a slow and inexorable decline for house prices.

And since housing usually leads recoveries, that spells a weak recovery and perpetual "extended period" language from the Fed. Eventually, the U.S. yield curve will flatten as it did in Japan if PZ takes hold. PZ is toxic for banks because when the next recession hits, the central bank cannot lower rates to induce a steep yield curve and bail them out. Therefore, loan losses will have to be taken without the benefit of the carry trade and that spells bankruptcy for the weakest. This is what happened in Japan and what is likely to happen in the U.S.

I agree with everything that author has written. Well done.

Notice that it is the value players that snap up bargains and form a durable bottom. Who are the value players? Cashflow investors. That is why I am so enthusiastic about Las Vegas. The market is in despair. Deflation psychology is in full force, but as individual buyers do a own versus rent analysis (at least the ones who understand how) they quickly see that ownership saves them a huge amount compared to renting, and they buy. Further, cashflow investors see the same disparity, and they buy. It is these buyers that stabilize prices and change deflation psychology.

Hard Landing Las Vegas

Understanding deflation psychology gives cashflow investors an edge. They can see the true value of a property when others are afraid to buy. If there are any enduring lessons the bubble blogs have taught readers, it is how to identify bubble psychology, and hopefully, how to identify the opposite: deflation psychology. Smart money is not buying in safe havens. Smart money is taking advantage of deflation psychology and obtaining undervalued cashflow properties in markets like Las Vegas.

Now is a safe time to quit paying your mortgage

Obviously, I watch the trustee sale market closely. Over the last two months, lenders have slowed the rate at which they allow properties to go to auction. I can only speculate as to their reasons, but a burgeoning MLS inventory is likely the cause. Of the few properties that have gone to auction, almost none of them have been priced over $500,000. That isn't likely to change considering we are still in a recession, there is too much inventory, and few buyers are stepping up to buy overpriced local properties. Any struggling property owner considering accelerating their default should do so now. There is little or no change a lender is going to begin foreclosure proceedings over the next 6 months or more. For anyone already squatting, they too will likely get through to next spring.

  • Today's featured property belongs to a Northwood II squatter. The property was purchased on 11/10/2004 for $924,000. The owners used a $738,940 first mortgage, a $92,300 second mortgage, and a $92,760 down payment.
  • On 7/19/2005 they refinanced with a $801,000 Option ARM with a 1% teaser rate and obtained a $53,400 HELOC.
  • On 8/15/2005 they obtained a $146,850 HELOC.
  • On 2/8/2006 they got a larger HELOC for $279,000.
  • Total property debt is $1,080,000.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal is $248,760.
  • Total squatting time is about 30 months (off and on).

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 05/01/2008

Document Type: Notice of Default

The received a loan modification on 5/20/2008, but they received a NOT shortly thereafter.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 05/21/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale (aka Notice of Trustee's Sale)

Click here to get Foreclosure Report.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 05/04/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale (aka Notice of Trustee's Sale)

Click here to get Foreclosure Report.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 08/11/2008

Document Type: Notice of Sale (aka Notice of Trustee's Sale)

It looks as if they are still in the property wating for the bank to accept a short sale. $250,000 in free money and 30 months of squatting. Not bad… for them.

Irvine Home Address … 59 BAMBOO Irvine, CA 92620

Resale Home Price … $800,000

Home Purchase Price … $924,000

Home Purchase Date …. 11/10/2004

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $(172,000)

Percent Change ………. -18.6%

Annual Appreciation … -2.4%

Cost of Ownership

————————————————-

$800,000 ………. Asking Price

$160,000 ………. 20% Down Conventional

4.36% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$640,000 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$153,792 ………. Income Requirement

$3,190 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$693 ………. Property Tax

$267 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$67 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$142 ………. Homeowners Association Fees

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

$4,358 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$755 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$864 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$254 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$100 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves

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

$3,094 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands

——————————————————————————

$8,000 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$8,000 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$6,400 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$160,000 ………. Down Payment

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

$182,400 ………. Total Cash Costs

$47,400 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves

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

$229,800 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 59 BAMBOO Irvine, CA 92620

——————————————————————————

Beds: 4

Baths: 2 full 1 part baths

Home size: 2,460 sq ft

($325 / sq ft)

Lot Size: 3,799 sq ft

Year Built: 2004

Days on Market: 33

Listing Updated: 40423

MLS Number: S629433

Property Type: Single Family, Residential

Community: Northwood

Tract: Came

——————————————————————————

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

Almost Brand New Home in Northwood II. Beautiful hardwood floors throughout downstairs.Upgraded carpet in great room and upstairs. Gourmet kitchen w/ stainless steel appliances, incl. extra convection oven, white Euro Cabinets,custom Caesarstone Countertops incl. butler pantry w/ full back splash and center island. Built in desk and addt'l cabinets in study alcove. Custom two tone paint & wood blinds/shutters throughout. Central vacuum & much more!

Apparently, in realtorspeak, a six year old property is "almost brand new."