Ed McMahon In Foreclosure – Lessons Learned?

Ed McMahon, notable sidekick to Johnny Carson for what, 25 years or so, host of Star Search for 12 years, and pitchman for Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes for who knows how many years, is making headlines for hitting the skids. At 85 years old, he is late on roughly $650,000 in payments on his $4.8 million mortgage with Countrywide.

So what’s the problem? For a guy who’s been working forever, in the entertainment industry, where we are taught that employment is very lucrative, this seems pretty odd.

Apparently at 83 years old, Ed broke his neck, and has been unable to work. And the housing market coupled with the his injury is forcing him to fail making his payments. He put the home on the market 2 years ago, and has been unable to sell it.

Are we really supposed to believe that a guy who was forced to stop working at 83 due to injury, and worked in a lucrative business all his life is supposed to go broke 2 years later? Are we supposed to feel sorry for this? In the article, McMahon cites “the economy, health problems, and poor planning” as reasons this happened. I think we can strike the first two excuses from the list.

He isn’t exactly shirking responsibility, but this is an “aw, shucks” way of avoiding the significance of POOR PLANNING. First of all, the guy should have socked away a boatload of cash in his line of work. Second, he should have planned for retirement, differently, and should not have been living in a house with 4.8MM in debt unless he had significant liquid assets on the other side of his balance sheet. I love that he was still working at age 83, but sadly this seems now to have been out of necessity rather than a passion for his work.

The market has been turbulent, this much is obvious. But when high profile, high income-earning people like this get caught up in the mess, you have to take a hard look at why. Is the economy so bad that even rich guys like Ed McMahon, Jose Canseco, and Evander Holyfield are getting wiped out? Or is it a fact that people with more money that most of us can fathom can get ruined with poor planning, while modest income-earning blue collar workers, and others can take a slow steady path to safety and wealth if they plan wisely? The answer is very clearly the latter.

Look at this headline for Holyfield’s case. “Not Broke, Just Not Liquid”. You must learn how to plan, and learn not to compartmentalize your financial decisions. For those who’s mortgage is their biggest bank account, this is where it begins. Work with a Mortgage Planner to learn how to position yourself for the right balance of cost, safety, and return on your investment.

Buy Or Rent – What Can We Learn From The Rent Ratio?

The New York Times has an interesting graphic illustrating the costs of renting versus owning a home in various US cities. The Rent Ratio is a useful metric for people contemplating the costs of renting versus owning a home. Bay Area residents will notice that the ownership premium is higher here than many other areas, especially non-coastal metro zones. Historical appreciation records are likely the reason why buyers are willing to pay a greater premium in these cities.

Understanding the true costs of renting relative to the true cost of owning, you need to look well beyond average rent prices and average mortgage payments for equivalent properties. A true rent vs. buy analysis will take into account:

  • inflation of rent costs
  • opportunity costs of down payment funds that could have been invested elsewhere
  • return on investment of dollars invested rather than spent on mortgage payments in excess of equivalent rent
  • tax implications of owning real estate
  • appreciation of housing as an asset

Also, are we looking at the cost of renting the home we want to buy? Or are we looking at the cost of renting the home we would likely rent, if we chose not to buy? They may not be the same, for when we are not required to sink 100k or 200k into a down payment, we may be inclined to spend an extra $200, $300 even $500 a month more in rent. If you want to see how a true rent vs. own analysis works, please email me.

Some other interesting observations: San Jose, CA has the highest ratio. New York City is surprisingly low, suggesting that it’s not only expensive to own, but also to rent in that city.

Another Reason To Pay As Little As Possible Into Your Home Equity


Reason: Corrupt Insurance Companies.

File under: SAFETY.

Staying liquid is safer. Might it cost you a few more dollars? Sure, but its safer. What’s that worth to you? Nothing brings that point home like images of houses in flames, homeowners in tears, and more houses in flames.

Watch all three installments of this video, an effort by PBS and Bloomberg.

I can’t really weigh on where the bias is in this, but I am sure there is some. The media loves to portray big business (insurance companies) as evil, and looking to choose dollars over people all day long. But how well do you know about your homeowners policy? Do you know anybody who lost their home in the Oakland Hills Fire? How about the 2003/2004/2005/2006/2007 fires in San Diego/Los Angeles/Orange/San Bernadino/Santa Barbara/Ventura County?

What I can do, is point out to you that it is important to review and understand your policy. It’s important to work with an insurance provider who is reputable and reliable. If you need a referral to one, please email me.

And I can also teach you some highly effective mortgage strategies that help you take control of your financial profile, build liquidity and safety, and rest easy at night.

Nobody expects disaster to happen to them. But if it does, and you have a fight on your hands with the insurance company, it can take YEARS to settle, or be indemnified. Regardless of the outcome, where are you going to live while the fight goes on – and how are you going to pay for it when the insurance company is denying your claim?

Here’s another example: Senator Trent Lott has been down this road related to Hurricane Katrina devastation to a home he owned free and clear.

Planning To Walk Away?

I wrote about an interesting trend/website a while back, and noticed this comment on a legal blog post. Even though the economic stimulus package included a provision for tax protection in cases of debt forgiveness, it appears that at the state level there still may be some exposure. Just as Julia says here, consult a tax professional for more details, especially if you are considering what happens when You Walk Away.

You Walk Away Dot Com – Foreclosure Trends

From the New York Times last week:

“Then in January he learned about a new company in San Diego called You Walk Away that does just what its name says. For $995, it helps people walk away from their homes, ceding them to the banks in foreclosure…

You Walk Away is a small sign of broad changes in the way many Americans look at housing. In an era in which new types of loans allowed many home buyers to move in with little or no down payment, and to cash out any equity by refinancing, the meaning of homeownership and foreclosure have changed, economists and housing experts say…

Though many states give banks recourse to sue borrowers for their losses, Mr. Case said, in practice it’s not often done “It’s tough to do recourse,” he said. “It’s costly, and the amount of people’s nonhousing wealth tends to be pretty slim…”

The company assured him that in California he was not liable for his debt, and provided sessions with a lawyer and an accountant, as well as enrollment with a credit repair agency. He stopped paying his mortgage and used the money to pay down other debts.”

Scary.

Mortgage Relief Act HR 3648 Update From CMPS


Update # 1 – Mortgage Relief Passed by Congress & Signed Into Law by the President!

On Thursday, December 20th, President Bush signed into law a bill passed by Congress: HR 3648 –Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007. The three major points are:

· Elimination of the “phantom tax” on foreclosures, short sales or other discharges of debt on a primary residence. Consider this scenario: A property is worth $250,000, and the mortgage balance is $300,000. Under the old rules, if a lender forgave the $50k difference as part of a foreclosure, short sale, refinance or loan modification, the borrower had to claim the $50k as income and pay federal income taxes on that amount. The new law eliminates this “phantom tax”, and the forgiven debt is no longer treated as taxable income to the borrower as long as certain requirements are met, such as the discharged mortgage balance must be on the taxpayer’s principal residence.

· The tax deduction for mortgage insurance premiums is now extended until December 31, 2010 instead of expiring at the end of 2007. The same rules apply as before in terms of the income limitations etc.

· The capital gains exclusion is now $500,000 instead of $250,000 for an unmarried individual who sells their primary residence within 2 years of the time their spouse has died. This new guideline applies to sales after December 31, 2007, and provides relief for widows and widowers by giving them a 2 year window from the time their spouse has died to sell their home and receive the $500,000 exclusion. Of course, the same rules apply as before, where the individual(s) need to have lived in the home as their primary residence for 2 out of the last 5 years.

You can read the full version of the bill by visiting the THOMAS Library of Congress web site and searching for HR 3648. Version # 6 (the enrolled / ENR version) is the final version that was passed by both the House and Senate.

Update # 2 – AMT Relief Passed by Congress

After much drama and a few rounds of chicken between the House and Senate, Congress FINALLY passed AMT relief on Wednesday, December 19. The President has indicated a strong willingness to sign this bill into law, and it is currently awaiting his signature. Under this one year patch, approx. 20 million taxpayers have escaped the clutches of the AMT. However, approx. 3.5 million taxpayers are still expected to be subject to the AMT.

If you have questions related to any of these updates, consult with your tax advisor or contact me for more info.

– – – – – – –

*** Posted with help from CMPS Institute

How’s This For "Contained Meltdown"?

I heard one economist recently refer to the current credit markets situation as “well-contained. Sure, contained on Planet Earth…”

A large part of the reason the markets are so erratic lately is because there is so much uncertaintly as to how much damage has been done and not yet acknowledged. How much more money will be lost, and by who? Financial engineering has helped build layers upon layers of cloaking around the bad investment eggs, and the unwind is coming in baby steps (which is good, time helps the markets digest what is clearly a big rotten meal…)

So here’s a story from a colleague of mine, which highlights the defensive posturing by creditors who are clearly fearing this “unknown risk” in the market. It also signifies a huge leap in terms of the webbing between “subprime” mortgage issues and areas of other financial concern. This is one way how the virus is NOT being contained…

“How far will this reach into credit cards? One fellow I know received a letter from American Express, dramatically lowering his available credit limit. Our analysis of the credit risk associated with customers who have residential loans from the creditor(s) indicated in your credit report.” He has two loans: one from ING Mortgage and a HELOC from JPMorgan Chase. He called Amex and they said: “We were told by Experian that your mortgages are with ‘risky lenders”. They also said that “information received from a consumer credit reporting agency was factored into the decision.” (He has no delinquencies. They listed standard reasons, inquiries, balances, etc.) He wrote, I have never seen credit being denied or reduced for something 100% out of the borrower’s control.”

Something to keep a watch on as the market feels for a bottom, those in position to lend money for any reason are proceeding with extreme caution…

Conforming Loan Limits For 2008 Set By OFHEO


OFHEO has announced the 2008 conforming loan limits – the limit stays at $417,000. Read the details at the OFHEO website. Were it not for the fear of widespread consumer damage from falling prices and tightening credit, the 2008 limit would likely have been reduced. They have made an exception to the general price-setting methodology to avoid adding insult to injury in the housing market. I discussed that here.

This number is based on national median home value info. For those of us in California, where median prices are higher than other states, hopes of a state-by-state limit are dashed with this latest release. OFHEO’s is not in the position to issue state-by-state guidance unless Congress enacts legislation directing them, which has not happened. And the last news on this was that Governor Schwarzenegger has issued a letter to the leaders in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives urging them to support legislation that would raise the loan limit for conforming loans. The median price for a home here is more than $586,000. “This disparity makes these products practically irrelevant in California. This means that for the majority of California homebuyers, the only option is to obtain a larger ‘jumbo’ loan and pay higher interest rates and fees,” said the governor. I’d say that the conforming loans have a shorter reach, but they are hardly irrelevant. In any event, most mortgage professionals say that raising the limit would be the biggest boost for the real estate market possible here in the Golden State.” Unfortunately there is probably not much taxpayer support in the rest of the nation for this…

With rates hitting 2 year lows yesterday, anybody with a rate above 6.500% (on any type of loan) should consider refinancing. Thankfully the conforming limits are staying at 417k, as the Jumbo market is still pricing at a significant premium to conforming products.

Tightening Guideliens In Mortgage Lending

The Economist has a great visual tool this week showing the trend in guideline tightening by mortgage lenders. It looks back almost 20 years, and you can see where guidelines tighten into tougher housing markets – and where they tend to get more loose (below the zero mark) during booming markets. This is quite a spike, with nearly 50% of lenders reporting that they are tightening guidelines right now.

This is why many of the borrowers who have loans entering an adjustable rate period are going to be caught between a rock and a higher payment, as many will be unable to qualify for the same loan they had, let alone a better one.

To some extent, the tightening guidelines are an over-reaction by lenders, who are trying to fix a problem after the damage has been done. Some adjustment is clearly needed, as the liberal guides can be blamed for contributing to the run-up in housing mania. But we are seeing it difficult in some cases to fit some very sensible deals together, as lenders are hyper-sensitive and picking apart every aspect of the file. Some cases, not all.

Like the housing market itself, the lender guidelines will balance out again. Markets have crossed from the manic side of balance to the panic side, and we will stay here until the participants themselves are convinced that a bottom has been reached.

Why It Helps To See Things In Perspective

Check out this chart from Barry Ritholtz. There was a lot of recent media coverage about the anniversary of the 1987 stock market crash. Black Monday. It happened on October 19, and the Dow Jones was off by 22.6% There was also a lot of comparison to today’s market environment. Coincidentally, the Dow had another big dip on October 19 2007, but a couple hundred points off of an index value of 14,000 is rather different than a couple hundred points from 2,000. On 10/19/07, the index lost 2.6%. Weird, but coincidental.


It was devastating at the time, but notice the “crash” in the red circle, and then in the context of the next 20 years in the market. Would you have bought the day after the crash?