Are You Ready for the 2.XX% Mortgage? Are You Sure?

15 year mortgage sets record low
15 year mortgage rates break the 3% barrier

Ahh…

It seems like only yesterday that I was shaking my head in disbelief about mortgage rates heading below 4 percent. That was many mortgage moons ago, way back in September of 2011.

When Mortgage Rates Broke 4.00%

The catalyst at the time was the Federal Reserve announcement about Operation Twist, a program designed to press down on long term interest costs, namely 30 year mortgage rates. It did not take long either; the average rate on a 30 year mortgage fell below 4% in late 2011, and has remained in the 3.XX zone for most of the year so far.

This time, it’s all about Europe.

Mortgage Rates Now Break Below 3.00%

According to the latest survey data, the record low on 30 year fixed rate mortgages was established two weeks ago, and then maintained through last week. But stealing the show last week was a fresh new record low on 15 year mortgage rates. Now officially below the 3% mark at a survey average of 2.97%.

That is an eye-popping number.

Source of the Data

We’ve discussed the Freddie Mac mortgage rate survey before, and it can be a little misleading if you’re trying to get a live rate quote. However, when viewing the week by week trend in the numbers, you do get an accurate depiction of the market.

click here for a free, live rate quote 

Is it Worth Committing to a Faster Payoff?

Applications for shorter mortgages, such as the 15 year, are on the rise. With the quicker payback schedule of a 15 year mortgage comes a higher payment than with a 30 year mortgage. This is despite the 15 year’s relative discount in the rate. And because 15 year mortgage payments are higher, qualification for a new 15 year loan is actually more difficult than it is for a 30 year loan.

So it may be the case that in order to break the 3.00% mortgage barrier, you’ll need to take out a smaller loan. Is it worth it? Sometimes there’s more to it than just the rate on the loan. For each consumer evaluating this decision, a different set of unique variables will apply.

We can help. Click here to check rates on 15 year and 30 year loans

Are You Ready for the 3.XX% Mortgage?

Speaking of no-brainers...
Speaking of no-brainers... mortgage rates set new lows... again!

You’re probably somewhat tired of hearing about the “all-time historical lows in mortgage rates”. Especially if you’re in the ‘mortgage hurt locker’ – trapped in an outdated (high) mortgage rate where if you want to refinance you’re required to make a whole new down payment just to get your loan balance in line with your new (lower) property value. That’s just adding insult to injury, and I talk to people in that situation every day. So I get it. The radio blasts claiming “the biggest no-brainer in the history of mankind” are just plain obnoxious.

I mean, this is my business, and I’m tired of hearing about it. I love that it’s true, but I’m tired of the over-broadcasting.

Mortgage Rates About To Start With A Three?

So, I kind of hate to break it to you, you’re about to hear it all over again. That said, I probably don’t need to explain why this could be a great thing for you, do I?

I watch the mortgage bond trading data on a daily basis. Reading and interpreting the mood of the markets is a bit of an obsession of mine. The markets move fast, and usually when the news about ‘record lows’ is hitting the press, the market has already offered those low rates, briefly, and then bounced back higher. In fact, there are small changes to mortgage rates for any given borrower scenario just about every day. I think the most changes I’ve seen in a day is six.

And Then There Are Seismic Shifts

Before mortgage rates can fall, mortgage bond values need to increase. In recent weeks, the bond values had bounced several times against the same level, causing rates for mortgages to similarly skip off these ‘historical low’ points, with rhythmic increases in between each bounce. Today, the ceiling was broken, and bond values soared into a new range. Lenders don’t often bring their rates down as instantly, for reasons too complex to go into here. But if this move sticks, the new water cooler conversation in the office is going to be about Lumberg’s new Three-point-something 30 year fixed. 

We had one of these shifts when the Fed announced they’d be buying Mortgage Bonds in Nov 2008 and again when they essentially doubled-down and committed a new budget for Mortgage Bonds in August 2010.

So What is it This Time? … What’s Operation Twist?

Yesterday the Federal Reserve announced details of the awaited “Operation Twist”, which is a new Open Market activity designed basically to compress borrowing costs. It appears to be almost specifically targeted in the mortgage/housing sector. The “twist” part refers to the idea that the Fed will be converting existing capital versus deploying new capital (so-called Quantitative Easing) but affecting prices and rates without expanding their balance sheet… That’s all probably more technical than we need to worry about. If you want the details, read more about Operation Twist here.

Remember those $300 one-time stimulus checks we got a few years ago? The idea behind an effort like Operation Twist is that if the Federal Reserve can press mortgage rates lower, across the board, then millions of Americans can knock off $50, $100, $300, maybe $500 off their existing mortgage payments … per month… for 30 years. That’s quite a bit more meaningful than a one-time check that might barely cover your cable bill and a tank of gas.

It serves to put spending money in people’s pockets, and extend the survival time for all those people who are hanging on by a thread trying to keep up with mortgage payments in this miserable job environment.

With the direction of rates, and this new low water mark, you simply have got to review your options. There is no black or white answer, each case has unique circumstances, and a unique cost/benefit proposition. But with a backdrop of mortgage rates starting with 3 – for the first time ever – your options should be looking pretty good here.

Contact me by filling in the form below if you’d like to schedule a review. All we’ll do is identify the opportunities you have, and quantify the cost of each – including doing nothing at all.

 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    Resetting ARM Loans and the Libor Index: heads-up!

    If you took out a 5 year ARM loan just under 5 years ago, your rate is getting ready to ‘float to market’. In this environment, that’s a good thing.

    ARM loans are typically structured as 30 year loans with fixed rate periods of 3, 5, 7, or 10 year periods. At the end of the specified period, the rate becomes adjustable. There are predetermined rules for the adjustment parameters that govern:

    • What financial index the rate is tied to
    • What the margin is
    • How frequently it will adjust
    • How far it can adjust on the initial adjustment
    • How far it can adjust on each consecutive adjustment
    • How far it can adjust over the duration of the 30 year term

    Most ARMs can adjust a maximum of 5.000% (sometimes 6.000%) above their initial ‘start’ rate. This cap applies to both the first and usually the lifetime adjustment. Interim adjustments after the initial one are most often either 1.000% or 2.000% max.

    So if you started at 5.000%, it’s possible that you could adjust to 10.000% or even 11.000% on the first adjustment date. That would be the fastest route to a worst case scenario. But to be able to see something like this coming, you need to understand what index your loan is tied to, and where it is.

    Typical ARMs are built with a 2.25% to 2.75% margin, and tracks the 1 year LIBOR and adjust 1 time per year. Sometimes 2 times per year, in which case they might be tracking the 6 month LIBOR.

    What the heck’s a LIBOR? Allow me to introduce you to wikipedia, if you want to know more. Then you can come back here and continue.

    Here’s the good news. LIBOR is super-low right now. It has been for a while. Typical ARM loans resetting in this environment are landing between 2.750% and 3.250% for their rate resets. A 5 year ARM was getting close to 6.000% 5 years ago, so if you’re in one of those, get ready to see your rate drop in half.

    But there’s something worth keeping an eye on here. During the Financial Crisis of 2008, LIBOR was spiking. Referring back to the wikipedia definition will help understand why. Banks were facing liquidity issues, and nobody wanted to lend money to anyone. One measure used to gauge the health of LIBOR was the “Ted Spread“. You can see how quickly the spread spiked during the onset of the crisis – that spike was because of a skyrocketing LIBOR.

    In contrast to today’s environment, an ARM loan resetting in 2008 was looking to land close to 8.000%

    So all is well and good in the resetting ARMs world. At least for near term planning; remember, ARMs reset each year, so your ~3.000% rate will be great until it resets, then you’re back to the current market.

    Wait just a second… Why you might want to be looking out

    Right now there’s a slow motion train wreck happening in the Euro Zone economy. Check out Jim Cramer on CNBC getting heated in a debate about whether there’s a liquidity crisis and inter-bank contagion risk brewing. Clearly, these are uncertain times. I think that if you’re facing an ARM reset, you need to be a little cautious in the coming months, and make sure you’re not landing on a LIBOR spike.

    At the moment, LIBOR is relatively calm. It’s still really really low, though it has risen a little. But what if some event sparks a contagion fest in the Euro Zone? The entire world economy is on such thin ice it seems. I think you just have to keep an eye on it.

    Consider making a lateral move into a fixed rate loan while the rates are so low. When LIBOR is headed higher, and you want out of that adjustable loan, the low fixed rate environment will have already left the station. You have to be forward-facing with this.

    Some further food for thought about the relative calm of LIBOR in the face of what is happening in Europe. This is settling, but I would worry about how quickly it could all change. This is from highly regarded industry writer Rob Chrisman on Mortgage News Daily:

    In this era of low mortgage rates, few borrowers are opting for ARM loans. We all know that at some point that will change and lenders will all have to dust off their ARM margin notes and remember things like LIBOR, created in the 1980’s. The London Interbank Offered Rate is a key adjustable rate mortgage index, but also helps price trillions of dollars of derivatives and corporate loans. Calculated daily, Libor (not all in caps) is supposed to measure borrowing costs for a panel of banks globally. The rate “floats,” or ebbs and flows depending on how much banks charge one another. At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, Libor was one of the most-watched indicators, as nervous investors looked at its sharp rise as a sign of waning confidence in the stability of the global financial system. These days, however, two key Libor gauges are being suppressed because of sharply shrinking demand since banks have a lot of cash, and don’t need to borrow from each other. Libor rates are very low, and have failed to reflect turmoil in the bank markets amid the European debt crisis. (In the 2008 financial crisis, by contrast, the rate rose to about 4.82% from 2.81% in a six-week period.)

    For consumers and companies, low Libor is good news because some home, student and corporate loans, among other things, are tethered to Libor. Just think of all those resetting ARM loans (although the impact depends on margins). Most U.S. auto and credit-card loans are set against the prime rate, however, which now stands at 3.25% and often have margins in the teens.

    The British Bankers’ Association “oversees” Libor, and has some reasons why Libor is so low and why banks are borrowing less from one another in the Libor market. In the U.S. and Europe, regulators have given banks cheap access to their lending facilities since the 2008 panic. And depositors are parking their money in banks – who needs to borrow outside aside from banks with end-of-month funding needs? Retail deposits are desirable because they are stable. The Fed has a lot of cash now (which they could use to buy bonds) which also keeps Libor low: there is a massive liquidity cushion.

    You know the extreme low on adjustable loans can’t hold up indefinitely. With fixed rates down all around you, it’s as good a time as ever to consider locking something in for the long haul.

    When Do Conforming Loan Limits Change?

    San Francisco
    Fewer homes in San Francisco and other Bay Area counties will transact under conforming loan guidelines effective 10/1/2011

    photo © 2006 Franco Folini | more info (via: Wylio)After several months of speculation that conforming loan limits would be reduced in 2012, FHFA released the official numbers last night. A similar announcement was already made about FHA loans. This another significant step in the declared effort to limit future US Government involvement in the mortgage industry.

    Economists and regulators have so far speculated that the broader market impact will be insignificant. However, in a case study below, we will see that at the individual level, property transactions in the affected price ranges will assuredly notice a difference.

    Quick Background

    At the beginning of 2008, we found the market throat-deep in the mortgage meltdown, and in the early stages of the housing crisis. Conforming loan limits were set nationally at $417,000. Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, bumping the conforming loan limit celiling to $625,500 for select ‘high cost’ areas, as defined by median house value in 2007. Some counties hit the max, others landed somewhere between the old limit and the new one.

    But a few months later the Economic Stimulus Act (ESA) of 2008 took over with a more liberal approach, and the new ceiling was raised to $729,750. ESA is set to expire on before October 1, 2011. The HERA limits will still be in place.

    San Francisco Bay Area mortgages – What’s the Impact?

    For most parts of the country, the conforming loan limit is, and has been $417k since 2005. That is not going to change.

    Seven Bay Area counties currently have ‘high cost’ conforming loan limits at the national maximum of $729,750. These are:

    • Alameda County
    • Contra Costa County
    • Marin County
    • Napa County
    • San Francisco County
    • Santa Clara County
    • San Mateo County
    Effective October 1, 2011, all of these counties except Napa will revert to the new max of $625,500. Napa County will fall all the way to $592,250.

    Impact to the Market and to Buyers and Sellers

    For the last year’s worth of mortgage data, approximately 50k loans would have fallen in this ‘used-to-be-conforming-now-jumbo’ range. Roughly 30k of those are California transactions, and though the data didn’t get more specific than this, it’s safe to assume that a significant number of those were from Bay Area real estate transactions. Market-wise, economists say this will not have a significant impact.

    But for an individual transacting in the affected sector, the impact will be substantial.

    Taking a single price point as a case study:

    • Purchase price $787,500, 20% down
    • Loan amount $630,000 (just over the new conforming limit)
    • Assuming a 0.500% rate increase for jumbo rates relative to conforming
    • Assuming a .04% qualifying ratio limit decrease for jumbo relative to conforming
    • As a conforming loan, assuming 4.750%, normal tax and insurance figures, the monthly housing payment in this scenario would be about $4106. Conforming loans allow for up to 45% of gross monthly earnings to be used to service recurring obligations, so the minimum income needed to qualify in today’s environment would be $9125
    • As a jumbo loan, assuming 5.250%, the same tax and insurance figures, the monthly housing payment in this scenario would be about $4299. Jumbo loans allow for up to 41% of gross monthly earnings to be used to service recurring obligations, so the minimum income needed to qualify after October 1 would be $10,485.

    There’s a squeeze play at work here. It will take 14.9% more income to qualify for the same sized loan, because the costs are higher, and so are the benchmarks for qualification. Just like that. Overnight.

    In this case, a borrower would likely find another $4,500 to put down on the house and keep the loan under conforming limits. A keen understanding of the marginal costs of borrowing would provide that incentive. But what if the loan amount would have been $640k? $650k? $675k?…. $700k or $725k?

    Simply put, there’s a bandwidth of market activity that will be disrupted by these changes. Along with the changes to FHA loan limits, any property selling for between $650k and $912k will have a buyer pool who has seen their borrowing options change. Faced with a different set of options:

    • Some will put more money down, keep the loan conforming. But not all will have the capital to do so.
    • Some will digest the higher jumbo loan costs. But others will reduce their top price to keep the payment from increasing.
    • Some will simply not be able to qualify for financing the home they wanted.
    If you’re a seller in this range, this is one more reason to get your home on the market today. If you’re a buyer in this range, this is one more reason to ramp up your home search today. And if you’re a refinance candidate with a balance between $625,500 and $729,750, this is one more reason to evaluate your options today.

    Do not Assume the Effective Date is a Safe Deadline

    FHFA has announced the change to be effective October 1, 2011. However, even before the announcement was made, last Friday we learned that a major national lender was ceasing all applications above $625,500 for conforming loans. For whatever reason, they’ve decided that the don’t want to participate in this sector for the final three months. Other lenders could follow suit. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow. Maybe not until September. But you certainly don’t want to be too patient here. Rates are presently low as it is, so the risk of waiting is only increasing, and seems to exceed any potential benefits.

    Don’t wait. If you’d like to see how these changes would impact your loan payment and long term cost of financing, or if you’re a real estate agent who would like to show a buyer or seller client how these changes might impact their transaction, send me a note in the form below, and let me know the details.

     

     

    FHA Borrowers In The SF Bay Area To Face Restricted Access

    California awash in red as the most severe adjustments will hit the highest cost areas

    There is structural change pending for FHA mortgages that will soon trim down the maximum size of an FHA loan by 14%.

    Due to change on or before October 1, 2011, this change will impact the San Francisco Bay Area more than any other part of the country.

    The following counties in the Bay Area are presently at the loan limit ceiling of $729,750, and will be reduced to $625,500 ceilings in a matter of months:

    Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara

    Already on Borrowed Time

    The limit of $729,750 is a temporary extension afforded by stimulus act legislation that put a temporary lift on the conforming loan limits. This was intended as a way of opening mortgage refugee camps to provide borrowing access to just-barely-jumbo borrowers when the jumbo market went into seizure in August of 2007 – the beginning of the financial crisis.

    The limits have been extended by Congress each year since. But for the first time since the crisis and associated meltdown in financial markets, the political sentiment has flopped the other way. Movements are afoot to trim down the exposure and involvement of government-sponsored, government conservatorized, and government run bodies in the mortgage marketplace.

    That means that despite the growing realization that the economy is not on a clear recovery path, the usual assumption that Congress will extend these loan limits is currently questionable.

    HUD Releases Impact Study Findings

    HUD recently issued a study to measure the impact. Their findings suggest that for California FHA-endorsed loans since January 1, 2010, 5% of the cases representing 12% of the outstanding balances in dollar total would be ineligible under the new ceilings.

    Reaction

    12% of the dollar volume of the FHA marketplace is not insignificant by any stretch.  Right now, you can use a maxed-out FHA loan to buy a home worth $756,000 with the minimum 3.5% down payment. Once these limits expire, the reach is reduced to $648,000

    That is a key price range in the high cost Bay Area. The 650k to 750k range is an active price bandwidth that will undoubtedly feel this impact. If this is to be a step backward in order to take two steps forward toward a privatized mortgage marketplace, it certainly will not have a positive initial impact; the housing economy is on wobbly knees as it is. Trimming access, as this will do undermines demand, period.

    We already have demand issues. And we certainly have credit access issues. This will not help.

    The Current Opportunity

    If you’re a buyer in this range, or a refinance candidate looking for the right opportunity to transact, you should give serious consideration here. Rates are at 2011 lows, and lenders have been known to cut off access prior to formal effective dates of changes like this. Meaning, an October 1 change date does not guarantee you that lenders will still participate in originations in September, or even August.

    If this is your range, the clock is ticking. Contact me below if you’d like to explore how this applies to your individual circumstances.

      Your Name (required)

      Your Email (required)

      Subject

      Your Message

       

      Understanding The Marginal Cost Of Borrowing (Case Studies)

      Elphinstone Winning Washington marathon (LOC)photo © 1911 The Library of Congress | more info (via: Wylio)Imagine running a marathon – a full 26 miles, only to find that you’re breaking down in the last mile. Physically exhausted, 26 miles was just one too many. All you can do is walk the end, and it’s going to blow your overall time. How much impact can one bad mile have on the overall score?

      Well, if you’re running at an 8 minute mile pace up to that point, and you have to walk – it takes twice as long – 16 minutes, then your average speed for the race is 8.3 minutes per mile, or an 8:18 average.

      By no means have you ruined the race.

      But what If there was a retroactive penalty for walking? What if it added, say, 30 seconds to every mile run thus far? In the case where you ran the last mile in 16 minutes instead of 8, given this penalty of 30 seconds per mile, the average time per mile is now 8.79 minutes (or 8:47). Your average, as far as the record books go, is 47 seconds per mile worse than your pace for 25/26ths of the race.

      That’s not an insignificant difference in the grand scheme of things. Quite a few runners likely finished ahead of you with average times of 8:00 to 8:46.

      If I were an economist, I’d call this the “marginal cost” of walking mile 26.

      The Marginal Cost of Borrowing

      One of the best questions you can address when buying a house is how much should your down payment be. There’s no set rule. There are loan guidelines to set the landscape. Within that landscape, you have options, and the options come at varying costs. Everyone brings their own somewhat unique circumstances to the table. Exploring the spectrum of options to find breakpoints where the trade-offs shift will increase your chances of landing in the sweet spot.

      There are various trigger points along the spectrum of options where additional costs will come into play. For example, if you were buying a home for $1,000,000, and planning to make a 25% down payment, your loan would be 750k. But in The Bay Area, where the split between conforming and jumbo loans is $729,750, you’ll pay a premium on your rate to borrow 750k compared to borrowing $729,750. That premium affects the entire total being borrowed, not just the “marginal” sum of $20,250. Not just the last mile… the whole race.

      Case Studies

      Understanding the marginal costs associated with borrowing inside of your transaction parameters will help you evaluate your options. In the two cases that follow, options that were previously not considered feasible suddenly looked different when the right light was shined upon them.

      Case Study 1 – The Cash-In Refinance

      THE PREMISE:

      • refinance; payoff of existing loan was 440k
      • conforming limit of 417k. Above this level is considered “high-balance conforming”. Different product.
      • rate difference for conforming vs. high-balance conforming: 0.25%

      THE MATH:

      • 417k at 5.00% for 30 years has a payment of $2238.55
      • 440k at 5.25% for 30 years has a payment of $2429.70
        • The payment difference would be $191.15
      • The difference in borrowed total is 23k. A 30 year payment of $191.15 on 23k implies a rate of 9.37%

      THE CONCLUSION:

      If the borrower has access to 23k at a cost of less than 9.37%, it presents a potentially appealing option. In this case, the borrower had ample cash reserves – earning ~1.00% – which could be moved over to reduce the loan to the conforming limit. Would it make sense to borrow money at 9.37% and invest it at 1.00? It costs another $191.15 (minus the $19.18 interest earned on cash at 1%). By understanding the marginal cost of borrowing that 23k, and it’s impact on the entire loan, the borrower saw the situation differently, and acted differently.

      Case Study 2 – The Private 2nd Mortgage

      THE PREMISE:

      • Purchasing a home at 550k
      • Planning to put 10% down
      • 10% down payment restricts options to those that include mortgage insurance – it’s an additional monthly cost

      THE MATH:

      • 495k at 5.125% for 30 years has a payment of $2695.21
        • it also caries a Mortgage Insurance cost of $350.63
          • in this case, MI was a non-deductible expense, and the borrower’s tax bracket was 25%
          • $350.63 non-deductible expense would be the same as $467.50 deductible at the 25% bracket
      • if they could find an alternative way to get to 20% down payment:
        • 440k at 5.25% (actually higher by .125%, different product entirely) for 30 years has a payment of $2429.70
        • Mortgage Insurance cost is $0.00
      • The payment with 10% down + grossed-up MI ($2695.21 + 467.40) equals $733.01 more than the payment with 20% down
      • The difference in the total being borrowed is 55k. A 30 year payment of $733.01 on 55k implies a rate of 15.81%

      THE CONCLUSION:

      At 15.81% marginal borrowing cost, the borrower might be better off taking a 55k cash advance on a credit card. Ok, maybe not that extreme, and that’s probably a bad idea for many other reasons. But the point is, there might be other cheaper ways to finance that portion of the down payment. The 10% down plan might not have been a bad option, but in this case, there was a better one. The borrower discussed it with family, and got a private, secured, tax-deductibe 8.00% loan from them. It was a great opportunity for the family member to lock in an 8% return on some of their money, and the borrower cut their costs on that portion of the funds nearly in half. Sometimes you just have to see things in a different light, and you’ll discover you have additional resources.

      Every Situation Is Different

      You can’t simply decide based on how much money you have available. You decide based on what makes the most sense from a broader view. But you need to be able to see where these breakpoints are, so you can balance the total financing costs with things like maintaining some liquidity or emergency cash. Or maybe you just need to see where the land mines are beneath the surface, so you don’t pay cash advance-like rates on any portion of the money you are borrowing.

      If you need such guidance, that’s what I’m here for. Contact me by putting your name in the form below. To learn more, sign up for email updates from this site in the upper right.

        Your Name (required)

        Your Email (required)

        Subject

        Your Message

        SF Supervisor Sends The Bank “Jingle Mail”, Oakland Mayor Takes A Pay Cut

        door keyphoto © 2010 woodley wonderworks | more info (via: Wylio)What do you make of this? San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen has entered strategic default, allowing her home to be foreclosed on not necessarily because of hardship with making the payments. It’s referred to as “jingle mail” to euphemistically represent the idea of sending your keys back to the bank by mail. The article doesn’t mention whether she demonstrated that level of courtesy.

        I am sensitive to the times we live in. There is financial wreckage all around us, I understand survival instincts, and am sympathetic to the many who have been screwed, whipsawed, and browbeaten by the markets. There’s a million places to point the blaming fingers. At the end of the day, there is damage, on a wide scale and at the individual level.

        But there’s also a spectrum here. And some people are in dire straits, losing their homes. And there are others who are financially stable, but are letting go of investments that didn’t work out. These cases introduce an interesting moral quandary in a paradoxical situation: what’s good for the individual is not good for the collective.

        Meaning, at the individual level, default makes sense when you’re upside down. Or at least it might. We do the math, sometimes it says let go, sometimes it doesn’t. But strategic default isn’t just about you and some big evil corporation. It affects your neighbors. And neighborhoods. And collectively, the entire fabric of the US housing market. And then the broader economy. There’s a ripple effect here. More defaults lead to more defaults, when you think it through.

        So what moral obligation does one have when addressing this equation individually? I first wondered about the fading social stigma associated with strategic default back in December of 2009.

        What if that individual is in a position of public service, like a city supervisor? Does it change? What do you think? As an interesting juxtaposition, the first link under the article is to a story about Oakland mayor Jean Quan, another public servant across The Bay, and how she took a massive pay cut.

        I’m going to leave it at that. I only wish to introduce the topic. Tell me what you think?

        Affordability Index Update – Remember Real Estate is all about Micro Markets


        Holy smokes!

        Check out this article from the LA Times, talking about the real estate market in Lancaster, CA. House prices are down to levels not seen since the late 1980’s! If we could get an affordability index for this town alone, I imagine it would look quite exaggerated compared to the one above. And if you’re a homebuyer in Lancaster, that’s a good thing!

        Bummer for everyone who bought over the last 20 years, especially if they are looking to sell, but if you’re out looking for a home, or an investment property, this is what we call a ‘no brainer‘.

        The Case for Not Waiting

        One of the more frustrating aspects of today’s marketplace is all the wasted energy. Consumers are stuck on the fence, waiting for lower rates to refinance, waiting for lower prices to become a buyer in this buyer’s market. Sometimes waiting pays off, and it certainly has if you hesitated to buy a home in 2006, and are now reconsidering. But you could be heating your house with the windows open…

        Trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, waiting for 4.500% when you can get 4.625% today can lead to disappointing results. Rates are at or within spitting distance of all time historical low levels. With all the moving pieces of the puzzle, waiting often means a lot of false starts and missed opportunities.

        Example 1 (purchase). Defining the cost of waiting. Maybe you’ve got a pretty good read on the supply/demand dynamics of your market, you know about the seller’s circumstances, competition, etc. Visibility is ok, and you know this house is overpriced. So you try and pull down the price tag, but the seller isn’t going for it. Do you have a good read on the global markets? Well, do ya? Some sort of inside track? What if that house you want does eventually come down 25k, but at that exact point in time, the markets are digesting a panic over inflation expectations, and rates have shot from 4.750% to 5.250%? What’s a better deal? The answer is: Lower rate, higher price. I’ll show my math if you don’t believe me, shoot me an email to request it.

        Example 2-4 (refinance). Job loss, Equity loss, Rate spike. If you owe $400k 6.250%, waiting for 4.500% when you could have 4.625% today, how much do you lose paying at 6.250% for 3, 6, 12 months of waiting? Again, it’s helpful to do the math. 12 months at 6.250% costs $6500 more in interest than 4.625% over one year. The extra .125% in rate, if you can get to 4.500%, is worth $500 over a year.

        Sure, over 30 years, that’s a significant savings. But it is not worth the cost of missing the boat altogether, as we hear about consumers doing every day.

        Unemployment is rising (currently 8.5%). Equity is falling (price declines of 30-50% off peak in some markets). And there is a debate going on in the markets about inflation coming from excess stimulus cash in the financial system, and whether it will cause rates to spike without warning.

        Would you rather have a $6500 sure thing, or a shot at $7000 with a potential risk of zero? These are forces beyond your control, so eliminate them or avoid them if you can. Otherwise, if you’re sitting on that fence, and you fall asleep, you might end up with a nasty burn

        Great perspective to a timely question

        Ric Edelman fields a question from one of his radio show listeners:

        Q: Do you and your wife make extra principal payments to your
        interest-only loan? Or do you not want to own your home someday?

        Many in the investment business suggest investing it in the stock market
        – you don’t keep up with inflation by putting the money into your home
        or keeping the money in cash. Well, over the past decade or so, with all
        of the ups and downs of the stock market, I bet the folks who kept their
        money in cash or paid down their mortgages fared better than those in
        the stock market. I know, I know, the market goes up and down, and over
        the “long term” the stock market is supposed to outperform the other
        things, but I question this advice sometimes and just wonder if you are
        going to own your home someday? If not, why?

        Ric: No, we don’t make extra payments. We personally handle our money
        the same way we advise our clients and consumers.

        Why would we want to add extra money to our payment? If you believe that
        real estate values rise over long periods, the home’s equity will grow
        all by itself, and it will do so at such a rate that any extra payments
        we’d make would be pointless.

        Here’s an example: Say you own a $500,000 house with a $400,000
        mortgage. You thus have only $100,000 in equity. If you send in an extra
        $100 per month for five years, you’ll have an extra $6,000 in equity.
        But if the house grows just 1% per year, it will produce $25,505 in new
        equity, or four times more than your effort from making extra payments!
        And if the house grows 2% per year, your new equity will be more than
        $50,000!

        This is one reason – there are nine others in my DVD on the topic – why
        making extra payments is a waste of time and effort.

        Of course, I began by asking if you believe that real estate values will
        rise over long periods. If you don’t believe that, then you shouldn’t be
        a real estate owner in the first place. You should rent instead.

        Also, I note that you referred to those who recommend placing into the
        stock market all the money that you’d otherwise use to make extra
        payments. I do not agree with that advice. Instead, you should invest
        the money in a highly diversified manner. That’s because, as you’ve
        noted, it’s possible to see stock prices falter for extended periods. By
        owning a wide variety of assets, and not just stocks, you reduce the
        risk of such underperformance.

        But even if you invest solely in stocks, you’re highly likely to do
        fine. Remember that we’re comparing the interest rate on your mortgage
        to the performance of the stock market. Since your mortgage will last
        for 30 years, we need to evaluate stock prices over that same period.
        And in every 30-year period since 1926, according to Ibbotson
        Associates, stocks have handily outperformed mortgage rates.

        I realize that you’re questioning the strategy because of the stock
        market’s recent performance, but it’s precisely at such times that we
        need to remind ourselves of the long-term nature of the markets.
        Otherwise, you’ll be tempted to do the wrong thing at the wrong time for
        the wrong reason.

        Find out more about Home Ownership here:
        http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/education/home_ownership