friction in Obama's refi proposal

"The response to President Obama's recent proposal to refinance more borrowers into lower interest rate mortgages was at best underwhelming and at worst scathing. The plan would expand the government's so-far disappointing, Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP), which helps current but underwater borrowers with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans to refinance. 'Mr. President, the housing market is the foundation of the US economy. It is cracked and chipping away,' writes Florida real estate consultant Jack McCabe in an editorial in the Herald-Tribune. 'The walls are beginning to cave. Your answer, anecdotally, seems to be put a new roof on it.' McCabe is calling for principal write-down for troubled mortgages, not refinances for borrowers who are current on their monthly payments. The argument so far against principal write-down is that it would cost banks and investors (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) too much.

Unfortunately the plan, which could allow borrowers with more than 25% in negative equity to refinance, is being deemed too costly as well. While the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost investors in the original mortgages between $13
and $15 billion (while potentially saving 111,000 borrowers from defaulting), analysts at JP Morgan Chase say it would cost more: If such a policy were successful on a large scale, it would clearly devalue higher coupons, and would threaten lower coupons
with incremental gross supply. A more modest HARP overhaul, while less disruptive, still forces investors to require more conservative valuations until details emerge.

All these arguments, however, may be moot, as the overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which would have to approve the refinance effort, is sounding wildly cautious. In a statement following the President's speech, Director Ed DeMarco states, 'If there are frictions associated with the origination of HARP loans that can be eased while still achieving the program's intent of assisting borrowers and reducing credit risk for the Enterprises, we will seek to do so.' He goes on to say, however, that there are 'several challenging issues to work through,' and then he uses the word 'uncertain' twice in characterizing any outcome. While DeMarco doesn't detail said 'frictions,' they are vast and not limited to investor cost. First of all, too many borrowers probably still wouldn't qualify if they just did away with the loan to value ratio of 125%. Of the 838,400 HARP refinancings done so far, only 62,432 had LTVs above 105%, according to Jaret Seiberg at MF Global. 'We believe lenders are reluctant to HARP a loan if they fear the borrower is so underwater that they might default anyway,' writes Seiberg. Then there are issues of loan origination dates, put-backs on loans that default and borrower qualifications. Frictions. Beyond the friction, however, is the simple fact that a refinance program, while potentially an economic stimulus, is not a housing stimulus and shouldn't be characterized as such. The HARP program is and always was for current borrowers and does nothing to address the millions of non-current borrowers, bank-owned foreclosed homes and falling home prices."

Q1 mortgage volume drops
Independent mortgage banks and subsidiaries made an average profit of $346 on each loan they originated in the first quarter of 2011, down from $1,082 per loan in the fourth quarter of 2010, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) First Quarter 2011 Mortgage Bankers Performance Report released yesterday. “Mortgage origination volume in the first quarter of 2011 dropped significantly from the refinance-heavy fourth quarter of 2010. As in the past, mortgage companies had difficulty managing staff levels to reflect the drop in loan volume. This caused higher per-loan production costs. Even though overall revenues went up, they did not go up fast enough to offset the higher costs,” said Marina Walsh, MBA's Associate Vice President of Industry Analysis. Walsh continued, “In the first quarter of 2011, changes in compensation plans and investor expectations are additional factors that likely drove up loan production expenses per loan to the highest levels ever reported for this study.”

Among the other key findings of MBA’s Quarterly Mortgage Bankers Performance Report are:

- Average production volume was $164 million per company in the first quarter of 2011, down from $286 million per company in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- The refinance share of total originations by dollar amount for this sample of independent mortgage bankers and subsidiaries was 50% in the first quarter of 2011, compared to 63% in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- Average loan balances dropped to $196,456 in the first quarter of 2011, from $208,319 in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- Measured in basis points, net secondary marketing income rose to 201 basis points in the first quarter 2011, compared to 188 basis points in the fourth quarter of 2010. But with the decreasing average loan balances, net secondary marketing income dropped to $3,827 per loan in the first quarter of 2011, from $3,870 per loan in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- Personnel expense drove the majority of the change in net production income, rising to $3,640 per loan in the first quarter of 2011, compared to $3,124 per loan in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- Total production operating expenses - commissions, compensation, occupancy and equipment, and other production expenses and corporate allocations - rose to $5,837 per loan in the first quarter of 2011, compared to $4,930 in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- The "net cost to originate" increased to $3,540 in the first quarter of 2011, from $2,827 per loan in the fourth quarter of 2010. The "net cost to originate" includes all production operating expenses and commissions minus all fee income but excludes secondary marketing gains, capitalized servicing, servicing released premiums and warehouse interest spread.

- 63% of the firms in the study posted pre-tax net financial profits in the first quarter of 2011, compared to 84% in the fourth quarter of 2010.

- Full-year 2010 production profits were $1,054 per loan originated. In comparison, average production profits in 2009 were $1,135 per loan originated and $305 per loan originated in 2008, based on MBA’s Annual Summary Report, which is available free to annual subscribers of MBA’s quarterly reports.

Lenders make short sales even more attractive

CitiMortgage, the mortgage servicing arm of Citigroup is paying borrowers an average $12,000 after completing a short sale this year. Justin Rand, the senior vice president of loss mitigation at the bank, said servicers are putting more of an emphasis on streamlining the process and pursuing a short sale ahead of foreclosure. The short sale process in 2009 took an average 120 days from listing to close. But by reaching out to borrowers instead of waiting for them to ask the bank, short sales now take an average 83 days to complete, Rand said at a panel for the REO Expo Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, earlier this week. "For Citi-held portfolio loans today, we have a little over 16% of delinquent loans in a short sale program," Rand said, adding that increased from roughly 4% two years ago.

Not only are the timelines shrinking to complete these deals, but the incentives paid to qualifying borrowers – again only on loans owned by Citi – increased in recent years as well. In early 2009, Citi offered an average $1,500 to qualifying borrowers. That went up to between $3,000 and $5,000 in 2010 and finally up to an average $12,000 so far in 2011, Rand said. "Incentives will be offered to customers experiencing financial hardship who need funds to proceed with the short sale," a Citi spokesman said. "The amount, which is agreed upon up front, varies according to the borrower's individual circumstances and loan characteristics. It is disbursed to the homeowner when the sale is completed."

The key to a successful short sale, just like modifications, is the timely collection of financial documents. Regulators helped move the process along with guideline changes to programs like the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives initiative, which lessened the amount of documents required. "It took us about 30 days to collect documentation in 2009 to now less than 10 days," Rand said. "A lot of the time, for seriously delinquent loans, all we need is just a letter of authorization from the homeowner." David Sunlin, the operations executive for short sales at Bank of America (BOA) was on the same panel as Rand. He said the entire industry is becoming more proactive. BOA completed more short sales than REO every month for the last year and a half. The short sale department at BOA grew from 150 people to now over 3,000. Each employee handles roughly 75 cases. "We're past the point where we're bumbling around losing files," Sunlin said.

Rand said the big shift began in 2009 as the Treasury Department was putting together plans for the HAFA, which would launch in April 2010. "In 2009, we started a proactive approach, reaching through MLS services and reaching out to real estate agents and customers with underwater mortgages, distressed loans," Rand said. "We're not going to turn anybody away if the short sale meets the net requirement we're looking for."

Fannie Freddie are better, but still cash drains

Conservatorship has been good for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but
the companies continue to drain federal resources away from other
government operations, according to the regulator of the mortgage
giants. In its third annual letter to Congress, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA ) said stronger loan underwriting
standards enabled the companies to narrow losses in 2010 to $28
billion from $93.6 billion a year earlier. The companies have
received more than $160 billion funding from the Treasury
Department the past few years. "Since being placed under
conservatorship in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain
critical supervisory concerns," said Edward DeMarco, acting
director of the FHFA. This is a "result of continuing credit
losses in 2010 from loans originated during 2005 through 2007 as
well as forecasted losses from loans originated during that
time." Still, DeMarco said governmental control allowed the
companies to "accomplish their statutory mission of facilitating
stability and liquidity for single-family and multifamily housing
finance."

The FHFA said Fannie and Freddie remain plagued by "credit risk,
operational risk, modeling risks and retention of qualified
leadership and personnel." The companies hold a 60% share of
single-family loan production. As conservator, the FHFA is
tasked with minimizing credit losses at the GSEs, and DeMarco
said more stringent underwriting standards and a stronger price
structure have helped. "Although past business decisions leading
to these losses cannot be undone, each enterprise, under the
oversight and guidance of FHFA as conservator and regulator, has
improved underwriting standards for loan purchases in the past
two years.," he said. "Another way FHFA minimized losses was to
require the enterprises to enforce existing contractual
representation and warranty loan repurchase agreements with
lenders." The FHFA also oversees the dozen Federal Home Loan
Banks and said all 12 reported profits in 2010. Loans to the
banks dropped to $479 billion last year from $631 billion at the
end 2009. The regulator said the banks' financial condition and
performance stabilized in 2010, but several continue "to be
negatively affected by their exposure to private-label
mortgage-backed securities."

Create A Note -- And Sell It!

Credit of the Property Buyer(s)
The better it is, the more valuable the carryback note is going to be to a prospective note buyer. Don't know what the property buyer's credit is? Then don't bet the barn on a great note
sale, because the note buyer will want to know the buyer's credit. And if the property buyers are husband and wife, or more than one buyer, demand credit and financial statements from everyone. These days it's common for the wife to earn more than the husband, and you want to know all about both. If the noteholder is not equipped to obtain a credit report, ask your bank or local credit agency. They'll help you get it.

Sales Price of the Property
This should be at or LESS than the provable/establishable value of the property. Is it more than the actual value of the property? Then expect your note to sell for LESS than you want,
because the experienced note buyer wants the property buyer to have some equity in the property so the property buyer isn't likely to default.

Provable Value of the Property
Don't know? And the property buyer hasn't demanded an appraisal of any kind? Great, if the property is selling for all cash -- but if you're taking back a note and you want to sell that
note simultaneously, be aware that the note buyer is going to want to know the property value. And many problems are created if your note sale is AFTER the property sale, and the property is now inaccessible to an appraiser.

Down Payment
Zero down deals are done all the time but are not popular with note buyers. They want to know that the buyer has immediate equity in the property, something to protect, so the less the down payment you're taking, the less the cash you're going to be selling your note for.

Terms Of The Carry-Back Note
A. Interest Rate: The higher the better, but not so high as to gamble with usury law violations. Many states have usury laws that govern personal, consumer loans (e.g. Washington State has a 12% "do not exceed" rate); however, not all states have usury laws. So check before you structure your deal. Don't know what a good interest rate is for your deal? Ask a mortgage person or residential agent. They live with this on a daily basis and they'll give you some good advice. The lower the rate, the poorer the deal for the note buyer, and he'll just make it up by charging you more of a discount when he buys it.

B. Length of Note: Again, ask what is normal currently. Probably the typical length is 5 years, or maybe 10 to 25 years but with 3 to 5 year balloon. This is important to the note buyer, because he doesn't want to wait forever to get repaid. But not too short...I've seen notes with 6-12 months go begging for a buyer because the note buyers feared the property buyer couldn't pay it off in that time period.

C. Balloon: Again, the note buyer wants to have this on his books for no more than 3-5 years, so even if the new note has a 20-25 year amortization period, to keep the monthly payments
within reason, the note should have a 5 or so year balloon for full payoff in that time.

D. Loan-To-Value Ratio (LTV): Total loan-to-value, of both the first and new second, must be considered, and typically not to exceed 75% of provable value, for the buyer of the new
second to be seriously interested. Also, many second buyers want the ratio of the first to the second to be no more than 4:1. Translation: they don't want a little second that's behind a huge first, which might have a much bigger RATIO than 4:1. (e.g. $100,000 first and $10,000 second would be 10:1; but $30,000 first and $10,000 second would be 3:1). Do some shopping and learn what note buyers would accept before you structure your property sale. Of all the elements listed here, this is probably the one most ignored by note buyers. If they like everything else, they might not care at all about the LTV.

E. Will the Lender on the First Permit the Second You're Willing to Carry? Frequently, the lender on a new institutional loan inserts a clause to the effect that it is permitting NO carryback loan by the seller, and you'd better hammer this out up-front if you plan to carry a second and are expecting to sell it.

F. Security For Your Second: Normally it should be a recordable deed of trust, or mortgage in non-deed of trust states, drafted to comply with laws of property situs (where it's at!) to secure payment of the second. And to be recordable in deed records it should normally be signed and acknowledged by a notary. Further, it should normally have provisions to the effect that any default on buyer's part in payment of his first note is also a default in the carryback second. And, although frequently omitted, it should contain explicit, written permission for its holder to verify the current status of the first.

G. Buyer's Identity: If the payors are husband and wife, make sure they ARE husband and wife and have both executed the note and deed of trust individually. Don't permit one to sign for both. This is not permissible or binding on the spouse in every state, and you don't even know for sure they're still married. If you're selling to a corporation or LLC, make sure you're also getting the buyers on the note and deed of trust INDIVIDUALLY. I see too many notes where ONLY the corp/LLC is on there, and the people signing, sign ONLY as corporate officers -- this doesn't bind them individually and your note isn't going to sell.

One element that has not been addressed in this article is "seasoning," or aging. While there is no doubt that a note that has a few years successful seasoning is a more valuable note, of course this element is completely absent in a "simultaneous" sale, where the note is purchased as the property sale is closed.

Mortgage servicing crackdown expected

U.S. banking regulators are close to finalizing new national guidelines that will impact mortgage servicing shops after an interagency investigation revealed "significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing related to foreclosure oversight and operations," said John Walsh, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, in prepared statements to be delivered before a Senate Banking panel today. "In general, the examinations found critical deficiencies and shortcomings in foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party law firms and vendors," Walsh said.

"These deficiencies have resulted in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations, or rules and have had an adverse affect on the functioning of the mortgage markets and the U.S. economy as a whole." Walsh said even though the process of outlining new guidelines for servicers is at its early stage, regulators intend to address some of the pressing issues they discovered while investigating the servicing process — namely a lack of national standards for the foreclosure process and borrower confusion over whom to contact in foreclosure cases due to uncertain protocols.

Walsh's report on the investigation of loan servicing firms comes on the heels of a major announcement from the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS. MERS, which is an electronic registry of mortgage records, informed members late Wednesday that they are now prohibited from foreclosing on residential loans using the MERS name. MERS has long been the target of foreclosure defense attorneys and consumer advocates for creating a foreclosure process that fails to create transparent oversight and protocols.

Walsh said as part of their comprehensive examination of servicing shops, regulators examined Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS), MERSCORP, the parent company of MERS, and MERS itself. After reviewing the servicing shops and examining bank self assessments, as well as 2,800 foreclosure cases, Walsh said investigators concluded that there were "significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing related to foreclosure oversight and operations." He said regulators have yet to finalize their proposed guidelines, but that will be the next step in the process.

Foreclosures falling - not

The number of homes receiving foreclosure filings, default notices, auctions, and repossessions, fell 17% in January compared to a year earlier, RealtyTrac reported today. But that's still 261,333 properties and a 1% increase compared to December. Even with the slowdown, more than 78,000 borrowers lost their homes in January, easing off the record 102,000 that was reached last September. Besides, it's less a sign of a robust housing recovery and more a sign that lenders have become bogged down in reviewing procedures, resubmitting paperwork and formulating legal arguments related to accusations of improper foreclosure processing.

"We expect a spike in the first quarter," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac spokesman. "If we don't get that, it could mean that the foreclosures are being pushed back even more and that the time needed for recovery will be prolonged." There was a bit of a shakeup among the individual states at the top of RealtyTrac's hardest-hit states. Florida, which had been outpacing all others for years, fell to ninth place in January, with a rate of one in ever 409 homes receiving a filing. Year-over-year, filings are off by 54% in the Sunshine State. Now, the seven states with the highest rate of foreclosure filings in January were all in non-judicial states, where foreclosure auctions can be scheduled and homes repossessed without any court hearing. Nevada led the states for the 49th consecutive month; Arizona was second and California third. Idaho and Utah filled out the top five worst-hit states. Among metro areas of more than 200,000 residents, Las Vegas had, as usual, the highest
foreclosure rate.

Home affordability at pre-boom prices

WSJ - home affordability at pre-boom prices

Data provided by Moody's Analytics track the ratio of median home prices to annual household incomes in 74 markets. By that measure, housing affordability at the end of September had returned to or surpassed the average reached between 1989-2003 in 47 of those markets. Most economists believe the housing boom took off in 2003. Nationally, the ratio of home prices to annual household income reached a peak of 2.3 in late 2005. But by last September, it had fallen to 1.6, matching the lowest level in the 35 years the data have been collected and well below the historical average of 1.9 between 1989 and 2003. "Based on incomes, this is as affordable as it gets," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "If you can get a loan, these are pretty good times to buy."

Measuring home prices relative to income is not the only way economists calculate housing affordability. They also examine the relationship between house prices and rents. Measured by the price-to-rent ratio—the price of a typical home divided by the annual cost of renting that home—prices are fairly valued, or undervalued, in around 20 markets. Nationally, the price-to-rent ratio stood at 14.85 at the end of September, above the 1989-2003 average of 12. The data suggest pockets of the country have further to fall. Home prices still remain overvalued by both measures in several markets, including Seattle, Charlotte, New York and Portland, Ore. Based on rents, "it's still not a slam dunk to buy" in those markets, said Mr. Zandi. He said markets appeared most overvalued in the Pacific Northwest, which was among the last regions to enter the housing downturn.

Historical measures also showed prices were still high along the Northeast corridor from Baltimore to Boston. Of the 74 housing markets, Baltimore appeared to be the most overvalued. By contrast, prices in Cleveland, the most undervalued market, have returned to 1991 levels based on the price-to-rent ratio. Historical measures comparing rents and incomes with home prices provide a useful gauge of affordability, but can be imperfect at measuring how close different markets are to recovering from a bubble.

GOP calls for end to HAMP

House Republicans introduced a bill this week that would repeal the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The bill was introduced by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who cited yet another report from government watchdogs about the program’s underwhelming performance. The Treasury Department introduced HAMP in March 2009 allocating nearly $50 billion in incentive payments to servicers, borrowers and investors for modifying mortgages on the verge of foreclosure. Through December, servicers have modified more than 579,000 loans, well short of the 3 million to 4 million the Obama administration targeted. In December, the Congressional Oversight Panel estimated the program ultimately will reach between 700,000 and 800,000 borrowers.

If the bill passes, the Treasury will be unable to provide assistance under HAMP, which was authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The bill also would terminate all contracts between the servicers and the Treasury. “HAMP is a colossal failure,” Jordan, co-sponsor of the bill and chair of the oversight subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending said. “In many cases, it has hurt the very people it promised to help. It’s one more example of why government interference in the private sector doesn’t work and that’s why it should be repealed.”

Year-end housing sales end in the black; month-to-month median price increases 6 percent

(January 13, 2011 – Orlando, FL) Members of the Orlando Regional REALTOR® Association closed just 1.74 percent fewer homes in December of this year (2,368) than last (2,410), keeping year-to-date Orlando area sales in the black at 19.57 percent above 2009.

“In the first half of the year, the extended $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit and expanded $6,500 tax credit for repeat buyers helped encourage sales,” reviews ORRA Chairman of the Board Mike McGraw, McGraw Real Estate Services, PL. “Orlando’s homebuyers in 2010 also benefited from historic affordability levels, record low mortgage rates, and an inventory chock full of moderately priced homes.”

The 8,363 sales under contract and awaiting closing at the end of December are 2.45 percent above December 2009, which recorded 8,163 pending sales. There were 8,998 pending sales in November 2010.

Newly filed contracts —like pending sales an indicator of future sales activity — reached 3,196 in December 2010, a 7.1 percent increase over the 2,984 newly filed contracts in December 2009.

The median sales price of all homes sold in the Orlando area increased to $106,000 in December from the $105,000 median price that had held steady since September. According to ORRA the current median price is 6.11 percent above than the $99,900 median price recorded in August 2010 (the year’s lowest) and is 11.67 percent below the median price of $120,000 recorded in December 2009.

The median price for “normal” existing homes – i.e., those that are neither a short sale nor a foreclosure – sold in December is $160,000. The median price for bank-owned sales is $75,000 and the median price for short sales is $100,000. The lower median prices of bank-owned and short sales, which accounted for 68.71 percent of all sales in December, exerts a downward influence on the overall median price ($106,000).

The Orlando affordability index decreased to 246.73 percent in December. (An affordability index of 99 percent means that buyers earning the state-reported median income are 1 percent short of the income necessary to purchase a median-priced home. Conversely, an affordability index that is over 100 means that median-income earners make more than is necessary to qualify for a median-priced home.) Buyers who earn the reported median income of $53,447 can qualify to purchase one of 11,729 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $261,532 or less.

First-time homebuyer affordability in December decreased to 175.45 percent. First-time buyers who earn the reported median income of $36,344 can qualify to purchase one of 8,450 homes in Orange and Seminole counties currently listed in the local multiple listing service for $158,083 or less.

Homes of all types spent an average of 96 days on the market before coming under contract in December 2010, and the average home sold for 94.40 percent of its listing price. In December 2009 those numbers were 89 and 93.95 percent, respectively. The area’s average interest rate increased in December to 4.92 percent.



Inventory

There are currently 14,993 homes available for purchase through the MLS. Inventory decreased by 199 homes (1.31 percent) from November 2010, which means that 199 more homes exited the market than entered the market. The December 2010 inventory level is 3.58 percent lower than it was in December 2009 (15,549). The current pace of sales translates into 6.33 months of supply; December 2009 recorded 6.45 months of supply.

There are 11,919 single-family homes currently listed in the MLS, a number that is 4.13 percent more than the 11,466 single-family homes listed in December of last year. Condos currently make up 1,814 offerings in the MLS, while duplexes/town homes/villas make up the remaining 1,260.



Condos and Town Homes/Duplexes/Villas

Sales of condos in the Orlando area increased by 7.74 percent in December 2010 when compared to December of 2009 and increased by 24.55 percent compared to November of 2010.

As we’ve seen all year long, the most (254) condos in a single price category that changed hands in December 2010 were yet again in the $1 - $50,000 price range. This year-long trend accounted for 54.32 percent of all condo sales in 2010.

Orlando homebuyers purchased 224 duplexes, town homes, and villas in December 2010, which is a 6.16 percent increase from December 2009 when 211 of these alternative housing types were purchased.



MSA Numbers

Sales of existing homes within the entire Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties) in December were down by 2.05 percent when compared to December of last year. Throughout the MSA, 2,910 homes were sold in December 2010 compared with 2,971 in December 2009.

Each county’s December-to-December sales comparisons are as follows:

Lake: 5.51 percent below 2009 (360 homes sold in 2010 compared to 381 in 2009);
Orange: 5.21 percent below 2009 (1,527 homes sold in 2010 compared to 1,611 in 2009);
Osceola: 3.40 below 2009 (511 homes sold in 2010 compared to 511 in 2009); and
Seminole: 13.78 percent above 2009 (512 sold in 2010 compared to 450 in 2009).


2010 Year-end Recap

Sales in 2010 were up by 19.57 percent over 2009. A total of 28,602 homes were sold in 2010 compared to 23,921 the previous year.
From a year-long perspective, the 2010 cumulative median price fell 16.23 percent to $108,900 compared 2009’s $130,000.
Throughout 2010, the majority (10.25 percent) of single-family homes that changed hands each month were sold for less than $50,000. About 8 percent of all single-family home sales in 2009 were in the $50,000 or less price range.
Condo sales increased 49.34 percent in 2010, with 6,532 condos sold in all of 2010 compared to 4,374 sold in 2009 and 1,454 sold in 2008. An enormous majority (3,548 or 54.32 percent) of sold condos fell into the $50,000 or below category. For the entire year, duplex, townhome, and villa sales were up 28.52 percent.
By year’s end in 2010, 35,021 homes were sold in the Orlando MSA while 30,377 homes had been sold by year’s end in 2009 (a 15.29 percent increase).


Each county’s 2010 year-end sales comparisons are as follows:

Lake: 2.19 percent above 2009 (4,199 homes sold in 2010 compared to 4,109 in 2009);
Orange: 16.29 percent above 2009 (18,823 homes sold in 2010 compared to 16,186 in 2009);
Osceola: 11.13 percent above 2009 (6,311 homes sold in 2010 compared to 5,679 in 2009); and
Seminole: 29.18 percent above 2009 (5,688 sold in 2010 compared to 4,403 in 2009).


For detailed statistical reports, please visit www.orlrealtor.com and click on “Housing Statistics” on the top menu bar. This representation is based in whole or in part on data supplied by the Orlando Regional REALTOR® Association or its Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

Revised appraisal guidelines haunt investors

Revised appraisal guidelines haunt investors
Posted on January 28, 2011

Just in case you haven’t run into it yet, our wise government – particularly the agencies that oversee mortgages – instituted more new guidelines in December that are just now starting to affect real estate investors. Effective Dec. 2010, in order to continue policing the mortgage industry, the Federal Reserve System engaged new policies for Automated Valuation Models on appraisals. (See http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20101202a.htm) The newest guidelines require “interagency cooperation” in inputting data into the huge property database. These agencies include the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), FDIC, Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal Reserve System, and the National Credit Union Administration. Further, the guideline goes one step further requiring actual visits to the property for a property condition report. Certainly, this inspection is needed in many circumstances. However, it does slow the process down by several more days and, on REO and foreclosure properties oft times, this can be the kiss of death.

How does this affect you? If you are a real estate investor that uses mortgage financing on potential rentals or flips, you may run into a new set of appraisal problems. Most affected are non-owner occupied loans, second mortgages, and lines of credit. If you’re one of those rare birds that still has a line of credit in place, it means when the bank is reviewing their collateral for the line, your ability to borrow may be reduced – sometimes drastically.

For potential new homebuyers, this doesn’t change things much. If it is an owner occupied property for a traditional or FHA first mortgage, lending institutions policies on appraisals are fairly close to the same as they were prior to December 2010. Some, however, have gone to the “two appraisal” rule. This means, to be safe, they are requiring two independent appraisals on each property. Whether they select one appraisal to go with, choose the lower of the two, or average the two varies with each institution.

Bottom line: In the near future, if you have been dependent on mortgages to purchase investment properties, you may want to adjust your business model. Several investors I know have already been shocked by hugely reduced values lenders are willing to do on investment properties. This is no fun when you’re expecting to have a closing. So, to be safe, do one of two things: (1) Use property you already own to collateralize lines of credit. Realize there must be plenty of equity available to do this smoothly; or (2) Even if you do fewer transactions, simply pay cash. Whether this is your own funds or those of an angel investor doesn’t matter. Paying cash is and has always been the path of least resistance. All others to the back of the line.