Foreclosures: Doing the Right Thing

Today there is an article in the Star Tribune discussing options for homeowners that are underwater.  Today this is a commonly discussed topic and one that shouldn’t be ignored.  The first couple in the article talk about their decision to walk away from their home.  The article discusses their reasoning for walking away and they give some strong reasons why they did.

My problem with this is that these are insanely well educated people that have decided to screw their lender and the rest of us and still believe that they have “acted as responsibly as we could have.”  One is a doctor, the other is an adjunct professor.  One of their reasons is that they “barely change the light bulb in our own house that we are living in, let alone being caretakers of another property.”  So why did you buy a house in the first place?  There are probably 100+ property management companies in the Twin Cities, did you even try calling any of them to discuss the rentability of your home?p

Another of their justifications is that they don’t live on credit and so having a severely damaged credit score is “a small price to pay.”  Small price for them maybe, but not for the rest of us.

While they are now free of the burden of making payments on a house as they contractually agreed to do when they purchased their home, the problems have just started for their lender, their (former) neighbors and the American Taxpayer.  There’s a strong chance that at the end of the day the loan is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac which means their choice to walk away means that the rest of us will end up paying for their decision.

The foreclosure process in Minnesota is a slow and arduous one, so it may be 6, 9, or even 12 months before the bank takes the home back through the process of foreclosure.  In the mean time, an abandoned home has a much higher risk of vandalism and crime and can also deteriorate quickly if small problems are not fixed.  Further, abandoned homes don’t help the neighbors around them that have decided to honor their obligations or the new neighbors that have come into the neighborhood for the first time.

For many, the circumstances that led them to foreclosure were unforeseen, unavoidable and make foreclosure their only option.  These people have all of my compassion and sympathy. For people who take the foreclosure path simply because it is more convenient for them have my anger.

I don’t mean to imply that this family is doing something illegal but I do claim that what they are doing is immoral.  I would think a doctor and a teacher who most certainly know better would choose to do better.  They are far from the only ones doing this but each person that chooses to do this ends up putting a greater burden on the rest of us who do honor our obligations.

If you or someone you know is facing foreclosure, you should seek FREE counseling from trained housing counselors.  The Minnesota Home Ownership Center is your best place to start.

Survey Bias Can Skew Anything

I just responded to a survey of real estate agents that I get on a regular basis. While I don’t want to name names, the survey comes from a group inside the real estate industry.  The survey covers a lot of things like sales activity, inventory, types of sales, experiences during the sales, and forward-looking opinions. I got to the question below and was quite upset:

In your area, what are your expectations for home prices over the next year?

Home prices will rise 0-5%
Home prices will rise 5-10%
Home prices will rise 10-20%
Home prices will rise more than 20%
Home prices will fall over that time period

This is a very biased question.  It is clear from the possible answers that the intent is to skew responses to the “home prices will rise” category.  Fully 4 out of 5 (80%) of the possible answers are for rising prices.  Anyone whose ever taken a basic statistics class will realize that the answers to this question will be unfairly go heavily towards the positive side.

If I could make my own answer to this question, I would say prices will remain flat. I believe many of my peers would do the same. Back in the 2000-2004 era the options given above may have been less biased, given that the market trends were all pointing to the upside, but when we’ve had multiple years of declining prices and only recently seen some stabilization, these options heavily influence the response and do a huge disservice to the accuracy and quality of the survey.

Retailers Sinking Housing Market?

Could retailers be sinking the housing market?

Ok, so I doubt they’re sinking the housing market but retailers are likely having some influence in the housing market today:

  • When the annual holiday season rolls around, home buyer activity falls sharply and home seller activity wanes too.
  • In addition, retailers are also throwing out their holiday deals sooner as well – what once was left for the day after Thanksgiving is now becoming a month-long saleabration. When consumers spend money on “deals” they are less likely to be saving for a home.
  • This year we have retailers putting out their holiday displays sooner than ever before.  When you start the holiday season early (retailers) then you shorten the “home selling season.”

So if the housing market slows to a crawl this Winter, just blame the retailers.  I know I will.

:-)

CNBC Gets it Terribly Wrong

On Tuesday, July 28th, CNBC Host Dennis Kneale talked with CNBC’s Michelle Caruso-Cabrera and her recent experience in the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP).  See the video below:

Dennis and Michelle got this story completely wrong.  This program is meant to allow homeowners who couldn’t refinance because of Loan-to-Value ratios, income, etc.  The only loans that can be refinanced are those owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the borrower still has to pay all the principal of the loan (no principal reductions) and pays for refinancing costs.  This allows a borrower that is current on their loan (they must be current) to secure a lower interest rate (the market rate at the time) and therefore reduce their mortgage payment and/or replace their ARM with a Fixed Rate.

Because the borrower still pays refinancing costs and still pays the total amount due, the cost to the government is minimal.  The best reason that borrowers can refinance LTV’s up to 125% is because the loan is already Fannie/Freddie owned and will still be Fannie/Freddie owned afterwards – refinancing borrowers with LTV’s above 100% should actually REDUCE the number of defaults on those homes in the future as the borrower has a more affordable payment.

Dennis and Michelle make it sound like homeowners that are not desperate are getting free Government handouts and that it is costing taxpayers a lot.  What it is really doing is simply facilitating a more flexible refinancing of higher-rate loans by the now government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The second program, Home Affordable Modifications, is designed for borrowers that are at high risk of foreclosure and can include interest rate reductions, loan term extensions, and principle reductions – all of which will have substantial costs to taxpayers but are also critical to reducing mortgage foreclosures.  It seems that the CNBC reporters confused the terms of one program with the goals of the other.



Equal Housing Opportunity and REALTOR logo

TwinCitiesRealEstateBlog.com is not a Multiple Listing Service MLS, nor does it offer MLS access.
This website is a service of Aaron Dickinson of Edina Realty, a broker Participant of the Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc.