Mortgage Mania 19 - The Jumbo Strikes Back
September 9, 2008
Amid all the celebration and hullabaloo associated with the recent drop in conforming interest rates as a result of the Treasury Department taking over management of GSE’s Fannie May and Freddie Mac, there has been scant analysis of the elephant in the room, namely Jumbo (aka non-conforming) loans that are part and parcel of home purchasing here in Silicon Valley.
The GSEs hold or have securitized nearly half — roughly $5 trillion — of all mortgages in the U.S., and in the current environment with private lender constraints, they account for the vast majority of all new mortgages in California.
This bailout (oops, did I say bailout?) removes much of the risk to lenders of writing mortgages for under $729,000 locally, decreasing to $649,000 next year, because they can resell these loans to the government backed and now managed GSE’s.
But what about loans over $729,000? Well, Wall Street and the secondary market will still be willing to buy those that are considered low risk (excellent credit score, low loan-to-value ratio, verifiable income), but they will demand a risk premium for those loans, meaning that rates are likely to go up, taking us back to the bifurcated market for rates that we have seen in previous years.
On his way to the SILVAR Golf Tournament yesterday, co-contributor and local mortgage banking hotshot of Absolute Mortgage Bank in Palo Alto gave this quick analysis of where he sees rates going (paraphrased here):
If you know you can sell off a loan to a government backed agency, you have very low risk, so you demand a low interest rate. However, as risk increases you will demand a greater “risk premium” to hedge against not being able to sell that loan, or the buyer defaulting on that loan. Right now we are seeing investors who are willing to lend the 20% to take a buyer from a 20% down, 80% loan to a 100% loan, but at 15% with 5 or 6 points. That’s expensive money, which is why it is dubbed “hard money”, but it offsets the risk to the lender.
Eric thinks we could see Jumbo rates heading to the 8 - 9% region, which is still lower than in the 80’s, but the difference between a 6% loan and a 9% loan on $1,000,000 is $2500 a month just in interest.
Let’s do some math. If you have an 80% mortgage on a median priced home in Palo Alto ($1,921,214, source Altos Research). That is a mortgage of $1,536,971, and payments increasing from $7685 @ 6% to $11,527 @ 9%. That’s a lot of $4.25 a gallon gas!
So, if you are planning on buying a new home and you need to borrow more than $729,000 you may want to get out there looking sooner rather than later.
To learn more about the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and what it means to your home purchase, check out a new video featuring California Association of Realtors Executive Vice President Joel Singer at http://www.car.org/newsstand/video-js-gse. In “Fannie and Freddie: Why They Matter to You,” Joel explains the often confusing but critical role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in the housing market in clear and concise terms.
Thanks for reading . . .
Tags: 2008 loan limits, 2009 interest rates, 4---mortgage-mania, bailout, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, interest rates, Jumbo Loans, mortgage bailout, treasury
Mortgage Mania 18 - Can You Say Taxpayer Bailout?
September 9, 2008
What The Government Seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Means To You
Unless you have been hiding under a rock the past couple of days, you couldn’t miss the announcement that the U.S. Department of the Treasury has placed government backed mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a conservatorship. Under the terms of the deal, the federal government is authorized to take up to an 80 percent stake in the companies, and, as part of its duties under the conservatorship, will review both Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial condition quarterly, as well as inject money into the operations as needed.
of Stern Mortgage in Palo Alto had this to say about the Treasury Department’s move.
“To promote market stability, the companies will be allowed to buy more mortgages through the end of 2009. However, starting in 2010 the number of mortgages they own will gradually be reduced at a rate of 10% per year, eventually stabilizing at about $250 billion.”
As part of this weekend’s action, both CEOs were relieved of their duties and Herbert Allison, former Merrill Lynch vice chairman, and David Moffett, former U.S. Bancorp CFO, were selected to lead Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, respectively.
The markets cheered the move with the NYSE and NASDAQ rallying on the news, and mortgages rates for conforming loans (under $650,000 in 2009) fell almost half a point.
All great news, mortgage rates fall, and the housing slump is averted, right? Not so fast there partner . . .
In a statement released today by the California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.), concern over the long-term impact of the move was expressed with the following cautionary forecast:
“Without an institutionalized mortgage-backed securities market, mortgage capital eventually will be less predictable and more expensive, and adjustable-rate mortgages could become the standard loan for home buyers, as could higher down payment requirements. The 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage as we know it will no longer be readily available for most home buyers and may effectively disappear. The result could be a dramatic decline in homeownership rates in California and across the nation.”
C.A.R. is concerned that the Treasury, and Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s new CEOs, will overreact and change the mission and role of the GSEs. Wall Street and investors are understandably reluctant to buy mortgage backed securities (MBS) that are not either originated from or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie.”
I added the underlining for emphasis because what nobody is talking about is JUMBO loans. Those mortgages above $729,000 (over $650,000 in 2009) that are part and parcel of almost ALL sales of single family homes here in Silicon Valley (the median home price in Palo Alto this week is: $1,921,214, courtesy of Altos Research).
In summary, while this is a good move for conforming loans, and the majority of potential homebuyers across the country, high-cost areas like Silicon Valley may once again be left out in the cold.
Stay tuned for our next edition of Mortgage Mania - The Jumbo Strikes Back
Thanks for reading . . .
Tags: bailout, California Association of Realtors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, housing market, housing market turnaround, Mortgage, Palo alto housing market, silicon valley economy, silicon valley real estate
September 1, 2008
Credit for this post really goes to 3 Oceans contributor Eric Trailer who sent me this content in a letter this week. My clients got it last week, and the blogoshpere can now benefit. We can assume that Eric has better things to do on Labor Day than blog. I’m guessing something involving his lovely wife and son . . .
To see current market data and price trends over the past year for local communities and confirm or refute Eric’s prognostications on the local market in Palo Alto and the surrounding communities,
CLICK HERE to see real-time market data, courtesy of our friends at Altos Research.
As you have likely been hearing, there continues to be more and more evidence that it will cost prospective home buyers more to purchase a home in select areas of the Bay Area as they allow time to go by.
Why? Let’s look at the basic reasons, then review an example:
1. The median price across the board in Palo Alto and the surrounding communities has risen since the beginning of the year.
2. On a national basis, the trough of the market was reached in April.
3. The conforming loan limit will DECREASE over $100,000 in 2009 to $625,000.
4. Rates have risen about .5% since the beginning of the year, despite the increase in the conforming loan limit to $729,750
5. Loan qualifications are becoming more restrictive with each passing week.
6. More restrictions on loans and a tighter supply of money forces rates to go up
7. Because loans require more work to process them (requirements today are 4x what they were a year ago), rates will go up.
8. Inflation is the number one concern of the Fed, and should be the number one concern for all of us.
Let’s say for a moment that you agree that rates are on the rise, but feel as though prices may come down on a $1mm property today; thus, you want to wait. Let’s further assume that you are right and the future price is $950,000, but rates have increased .5% at that future time. Using 20% down, waiting just cost you an ADDITIONAL $117 per month-over $1,400 per year.
But now let’s be more realistic given the appreciation rates of desirable areas of the Bay Area. If rates increase and the $1mm home appreciates to $1,050,000, you are looking at an ADDITIONAL $550 PER MONTH-OVER $6,000 PER YEAR!
What’s the take-away here? Price matters much less than true cost… My motto has always been that it always pays off to buy sooner than later, provided your holding period is greater than four years. And to prove that I walk the walk, I am happy to share my personal situation written as an article titled, “How to Afford a Home in Palo Alto Without a Trust Fund.”
To call Eric on his walking the walk comment, and get a copy of his article, “How to Afford a Home in Palo Alto Without a Trust Fund.”, click on his pretty picture over there in the contributor column to send him an email.
Tags: 4---mortgage-mania, absolute mortgage bank, mortgage rates, Mortgages, palo alto home prices, Palo alto housing market, palo alto market, palo alto real estate market
July 23, 2008
CNN Money is a favorite consumer source for news and sensationalism about issues affecting us financially. A friend uses it as his homepage, and sent me this article on indications that the housing market is pulling out of its downward spiral. Judging by the commentary on the Yahoo news service that picked it up, most people think it is another self-serving article written by real estate agents who want to further dupe consumers into buying homes and further leveraging them selves with unnecessary debt. There, I said it, so you can save your comments.
Here in Sillycon Valley, we are continuing to see variations on the Tale of Two Cities theme, with markets like Palo Alto and Menlo Park holding up strongly (click the links to see current market data), while prices in parts of Sunnyvale and San Jose have fallen off a cliff this year. We won’t mention Sacramento, because it’s not nice to kick ‘em when they’re down.
So, the key leading indicators for monitoring the health of your local housing market are:
- Is the housing stock shrinking?
- Are home prices falling at a slower pace?
- Is it cheaper to rent than own?
- Are houses becoming more affordable (relative to local incomes)?
Locally, we are still kind of bumping along. The current housing stock in Palo Alto is up slightly, but that isn’t unusually during the late Summer. If the trend continues through Fall, it may signal a trend.
Home prices have been stable here, so that is tough to measure, though the multiple-offer / overbid madness is definitely a rarity these days.
Depending on how you measure it, it’s still cheaper to rent than own, but tell that to my clients who were tossed into the housing market when the rental property was sold and they received a 60 day notice from the new owner.
Houses here are still unaffordable, but take a look at the chart at the bottom of the page and compare San Jose and San Francisco. It may be a good time to get into San Jose, especially if you understand foreclosures and short sales. If not, contact 3Oceans contributor Bart Marchioni, aka Mr. Short Sale.
Remember, real estate is local, and be careful what you read on the internet.
Thanks for reading . . .
Tags: 2008 real estate market, housing market turnaround, mortgage crisis, mortgage mania, Palo alto housing market
April 25, 2008
As our resident expert, Kevin Boer noted in his April 1 posting, the housing market officially hit bottom a couple of weeks ago. For those of you who were skeptical of his information given the April 1 posting date, and Kevin’s well known reputation for satire and irony, the California Association of Realtors published some new market data yesterday (April 24) showing how real estate really is local, and that the local real estate market in Silicon Valley is humming along nicely, thank you:
In case you’ve been wondering why high-end real estate markets continue to perform relatively well: One out of every 10,000 American families has an annual income greater than $10.7 million, according to two university professors who study the super-rich. By their tally, there are some 15,000 Americans who fit into that category. These individuals also are getting an increasing share of the economic bounty: In 2006, the super-rich possessed 3.89 percent of total income, up from .87 percent in 1980 and the highest level since 1916.
Strong employment and wage growth are two factors that have helped the San Francisco Bay Area stave off the kind of home sales and price declines experienced in the inland regions of California. For example, Santa Clara County residents earn nearly double the nation’s average weekly wage and surpassed Manhattan as the county whose residents take home the largest paycheck, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Santa Clarans take home an average of $1,585 per week, slightly more than Manhattanites, who earn an average of $1,544 a week. San Mateo County ranks fifth in the nation at $1,322, while San Francisco is eighth at $1,286. Nationally, the average is $818. San Francisco ranked tenth in new-job generation, adding 18,000 jobs for the twelve months ending Sept. 30, 2007.
Despite the above, some worry that California’s technology sector may be in for another “dot bomb.” But experts say technology and Internet companies are better prepared to weather the storm this time around. Their reasoning? Many Web 2.0 companies learned a lesson from their free-spending predecessors and have discovered ways to operate with fewer employees and at lower costs. That appeals to venture capitalists, who have tightened their criteria but continue to seek companies with strong revenue models.
Lately, I have been describing the market as “upside down”, where I am seeing unusually strong sales activity in the over $3 million market, while under $1 million is about the same as last year, or a little off depending on the neighborhood. What is interesting, is the $1 million to $3 million market, what I call “tweeners”, because these homes are in-between the entry-level and high-end.
Gross simplification warning: Buyers of “tweener” homes have significant amounts of cash or equity to put down, but still need a mortgage, and often a significant one. As banks and other mortgage providers have tightened their lending guidelines from recent years, it has become harder to get a $1.5 - $2 million mortgage, and those have become more expensive. As a result, more people aren’t upgrading, or they are getting priced down from say, $2.5 million to $2 million. Thus reducing demand relative to supply and creating a soft spot in the market.
In my experience, in the $3 million and over market, Buyers have more cash, Euros, Rubles, Yuan, Dinars, stock, gold, trust money, etc. to use to purchase their new “executive home”, so they are less concerned or affected by interest rates and loan qualification hurdles.
Let’s hope that VC money mentioned in the article above keeps flowing so we can keep paying for our million dollar tract homes and $5 a gallon (you know it’s coming!) gas.
I know you will have an opinion or comment, share it here.
Thanks for reading.
Tags: 2008 real estate market, housing market, palo alto economy, palo alto real estate market, palo alto realtor, silicon valley economy, silicon valley real estate
April 14, 2008
Some of you will remember my post on the lawsuit in Southern California where the buyers of a home were suing their agent because they felt they overpaid, and the agent had acted to hide that information from them (Refresher available here).
This case had lawyers salivating, and brokers trembling, as it potentially could provide precedent and open the door to lawsuits by home buyers who purchased homes during the recent run-up in housing prices, and are now seeing their local markets stagnate or fall.
According to the following article released by the California Association of Realtors, the jury on the case found in favor of the real estate agent.
There was no mention of the issues that I flagged in my earlier post, namely that the agent didn’t share the appraisal or list of comparable properties with the client, or that he encouraged them to get their home loan through him and use his appraiser.
I’m sure that there are many real estate agents out there who also are great mortgage brokers. I’m not one of them. Frankly, I’m not smart enough to keep up with all the issues in real estate law and the local market, plus all the ongoing changes in the lending market.
Thanks for reading . . .
REALTOR® WINS HIGH PROFILE JURY TRIAL
After only two hours of deliberation yesterday, the jury unanimously vindicated a buyer’s agent accused by his clients of failing to disclose that two other homes in the neighborhood sold for less than what they paid. As a trial court case, this decision in Ummel v. Little is binding on the parties to the case, but has no binding authority for other cases. Moreover, the buyers may file an appeal.
This case involved a couple who bought a home in a coastal Carlsbad community in 2005 for $1.2 million. They regretted their purchase when they discovered that two other homes sold for about $150,000 less than theirs. They sued their real estate agent for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Their lawsuit grabbed national attention, given the recent downturn in the real estate market.
At the trial, the agent’s attorney argued that there were valid reasons these two other properties sold for less. One home, for example, had a lap pool which was unappealing to many buyers, and the sellers wanted to rent back the home for two years.
Tags: agent sued over negligence, carlsbad realtor lawsuit, realtor lawsuit
February 21, 2008
All hail our legislative and executive branches for passing into law the latest shot of adrenaline to our economy: the 2008 stimulus package. And it looks like a record was set with how fast the bill became law– wow, pretty impressive… Efforts like providing consumers with tax refund checks and businesses with additional write-offs should certainly inject the economy with billions of dollars, but many have asked me how raising the conforming loan limit, especially in CA, will truly stimulate the economy. Further, many of those have asked me whether it’s really the right thing to do.
Let’s start with whether it’s the right thing to do. Probably one of the better arguments against raising the conforming loan limit is the fact that doing so seems to reward those institutions and individuals that/who put us into this mess. If estimates by the National Association of Realtors is correct, 500,000 refinance transactions will be generated, 300,000 additional homes will be purchased and 210,000 foreclosures will be avoided. So if we conservatively estimate the revenue generated and the losses avoided using industry standards, the total is over 40 billion dollars! $40 billion certainly helps answer the question of how such an effort helps the economy; but again, why help those who caused billions of dollars of losses and a turned the market upside down? Shouldn’t we be punishing those bad, bad people and institutions? Well, the truth is that many of those institutions and individuals have gone away or moved on. So let’s take a moment to see what’s being created here.
Raising the conforming loan limit has the following benefits:
- It does in fact greatly stimulate the economy
- Many consumers who got in over their head will now be able to afford their mortgage
- Greater affordability for housing is created
- It will influence a portion of the jumbo market that has been lost and create some investor confidence, and finally
- California has been long overdue to have a raise to the conforming limit given that over 50% of the nation’s jumbo mortgages were originated in California.
Okay, let’s say that raising the conforming loan limit is good for a moment. What’s next and what are the details? There’s still some speculation, but here goes:
- The conforming loan amount will be determined based on 125% of the median price of a given county…
- This allowance will NOT go into effect for purchase or refinance transactions until July 1, 2008 (that’s the earliest date that the loan application may be signed) since the market needs from now to June 30, 2008 to liquidate current qualifying mortgages available for sale from institutions
- The types of programs allowed will be fixed-rate programs on a full-doc basis, which means that the hybrid, interest-only programs using “stated” income will not be allowed
- The property must be single-family and owner occupied, which means that 2nd homes, investment properties and multi-unit properties are ineligible
- Credit scores must be “reasonable” with a combined loan-to-value not to exceed 90%
- No cash-out, which means that a refinance may not allow the borrower to receive any greater than $2,000 at closing
- Loans must be funded and closed prior to December 31, 2008
The last question really has to do with what pricing of conforming loans will look like come July 1, 2008. My prediction is that, all things being equal today, that conforming loan rates will increase and that jumbo loan rates will decrease, leaving a much smaller margin between conforming and jumbo loans in the future. Since all things won’t be equal due to decreased short-term rates by the Fed and the overall stimulus package helping the economy, conforming loan rates will increase greater than jumbo loan rates will decrease. So, if you’re buying closer to the conforming level today, you’re better off getting a mortgage for the long term; if you’re at the jumbo level today, you’re likely better off going more for a short-term solution. Of course always consult closely with your mortgage, tax and legal professional for the best advice as it relates to your individual situation.
Tags: Buyers, Conforming Loan Limit, Conforming Loans, first-time buyer, For buyers, Mortgage
February 19, 2008
. . . Said my friend Amy to me the other day. Since she is sort of a typical first time buyer, (actually not), I decided to make an example of her and contribute to her 15 mins of fame.
Amy is your somewhat typical Sillycon Valley MBA tech-marketing type. She works in marketing for a large company, so her income is derived from her salary, as opposed to commissions or stock options that may or may not vest. The company is stable, so her bonuses tend to be consistent and her income fairly predictable. She recently moved from one giant tech company to a large one, so she has a number of years of experience in her industry and job classification, excellent credit, and some equity from a condo that she sold.
Being an MBA, and financially conservative (politically liberal), she can comfortably afford something in the $650K price range, even in the current lending environment. The previous idea was for her to take out two mortgages, a conforming loan of $417,000, and then a second or equity line to cover the rest.
Now that Mr. W. has signed off on the stimulus package that included a short-term increase in the conforming loan limit for 2008, Amy’s interest in buying a house has gone up. The tax rebate will let her buy her kids a happy meal and some new jeans, so her interest is much more in the mortgage changes.
At the time of our conversation, the difference in rates between a conforming (under $417,000) and jumbo ($417,001+) loan was about .75%, depending on a million things, which I will leave to co-contributor Eric Trailer to explain. Jsut plugging in some numbers, on a loan of $585,000 (10% down on our $650K house), her payments would drop about $4300 a year excluding taxes if that loan was at the lower rate. Now we are talking interesting.
Admittedly, this is very simplified, because it doesn’t take into account the cost of a conforming first and then a second, or whether lenders will have tiered pricing based on the loan amount, or credit scores, documented vs. non-documented income, etc., etc., etc.
My intent is to show the effect of this new law on “normal” Silicon Valley home buyers who have “normal” jobs, and are trying to put a roof over their heads. While the tax rebates of a few hundred dollars will only have minor impacts on most of us (I get $300, I think), the effect on home buying capability will be potentially significant.
Let the comments fly, and thanks for reading.
Tags: 2008 loan limits, Conforming Loans, economic stimulus, Home buying, Jumbo Loans, Mortgage, mortgage mania, mortgage rates, new home buyer
February 10, 2008
The Superbowl traditionally marks the beginning of the Spring real estate market here in Silicon Valley. True to form, we are seeing inventories climb from seasonal lows, and a lot more people visiting open houses on the weekends. As the media continues to run stories on increasing foreclosures, and an economic stimulus package that includes an increase in the limits for conforming loans wends its way through Congress, more and more people are asking me if this is a good time to buy a home.
In our area (Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, Mountain View), prices have been stable in 2007 (except Palo Alto which is up significantly), and we aren’t seeing the big jumps in foreclosure activity that are widely reported in the media in other areas. As the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to stave off a national recession, loans have become more affordable nationwide, with rates near historic lows.
The majority of short sales and foreclosures in the area have been in homes in the $600,000 price range, having the effect of making many of these homes more affordable as lenders want to get rid of them. In contrast to most economic downturns, the higher - end market is doing better than the lower end.
Fellow contributor and mortgage banker Eric Trailer at Absolute Mortgage Bank in Palo Alto had these thoughts on the local housing market for the next few months:
“The coil on the Spring market is winding tighter every day this year already. Applications are up 100+% this month over December and January’s production is more than double December’s. In addition, we continue to be flooded with refinance inquiries this month. Many of the buyers that we had on the fence have been jumping off in an attempt to get into contract on a home prior to February 9. Why Feb 9? That’s the weekend following The Superbowl, and those fence-jumpers feel as though they can avoid the threat of multiple offers by securing their home now. With many of the top agents that we do business with stating that they have multiple listings coming on the market the week of February 9, combined with the flurry of activity on the buyer’s side, combined further with the strength of our local economy, it’s looks like this Spring will produce transactions well beyond expectation.”
Well Eric, it’s February 10th, my open house for today sold without contingencies 3 days after going on the market, and the number of new listings in Palo Alto this week was double that of any week for about 3 months. It looks like we are off to a good start to 2008, and the local economic indicators are still favorable.
Homes are not liquid investments like stocks, so make sure you actually like the house you are buying, and plan to be there for 5 years or more. With those caveats, in this area, it’s almost always a good time to buy a home.
Thanks for reading.
Tags: 2008 real estate market, absolute mortgage bank, Home buying, Mortgage, mortgage rates, palo-alto-real-estate, silicon valley real estate
Relief Ahead For Troubled Areas of the Housing Market? If This Law Passes, Your $750K Home Could Cost You $500 Less Per Month
January 24, 2008
Several changes are afoot that may give some breathing room to the troubled parts of the housing market — which includes much of the country, even some areas here in the Peninsula. The Fed’s surprise 75-basis point rate drop a few days ago may lead to lower mortgage rates, and some of those with soon-to-reset adjustable rate mortgages may also be breathing easier.
The news today is that the House of Representatives has signed off on at least a temporary increase in the conforming loan limit, from its current level of $417,000 (more than enough for much of the country, almost irrelevant here) to $625,000, and perhaps as high as $700,000 in high-cost states. Now if the Senate and W. sign off on it, we could have ourselves a deal!
Currently, conforming loans (those which are guaranteed and resold by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are limited to $417,000 in most states, but are about 50% higher in “high-cost” states like Hawaii and Alaska. By some twisted government logic, California is not included as a “high-cost” state.
What impact would raising the limit from $417,000 to $625,000 have on our local market? As a non-mortgage professional, here’s my take on it… (I’m hoping that a local mortgage expert or two may chime in here.)
First, if you’re buying a $1.5M home and putting $300K down — ie you’re borrowing $1.2M — nothing would change for you. Since you’re borrowing more than the limit, your loan can’t and won’t be resold and guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, and the risk premium for this has increased dramatically over the last year. A quick check over at bankrate.com shows a full 1.16% price difference between a conforming 30-year mortgage at 5.25% and a jumbo 30-year mortgage at 6.41%. Sorry, you’re stuck in the 6.41% camp.
However, if you’re buying a less expensive home — or putting down a lot more money — this could help dramatically. Say you’re buying a $750,000 home and you’re planning on putting $125,000 down — ie you’re getting a $625,000 loan.
Currently, that’s above the conforming loan limit, so with today’s rates you’d be paying (click click click on my calculator) $3914 per month. If the bill passes, you could get that same $625,000 loan for for 5.25% (click click click) or $3451 per month. That’s a handy pre-tax savings of a tad over $500/month, hardly chump change.
The lesson? If this bill passes, and the numbers work out such that the home you’ve been eying would require a loan between $417,000 and $625,000, here’s what you need to do:
- Scramble, beg, borrow, steal — do whatever you need to do in order to get enough of a downpayment to bring your loan in under $625,000.
- Work with your mortgage person to get a big enough second mortgage so that your first comes in under $625,000
- Brian Brady notes that some political horse-trading may be ongoing as part of the negotiations. In particular, President Bush may have dropped his insistence on increases in loan limits being tied greater regulatory oversight.
- The Front Steps blog posits that this will cause a rush of demand for appropriately priced properties in San Francisco, leading to a good year for real estate.
- A commenter at Socketsite notes the downside of this move: Hooray! Privatize profits, then socialize the losses…Now all the troubled lenders can refinance this toxic garbage and put it into Fannie/Freddie’s lap (oh, and FHA too.)…I’m saving my $300 tax rebate (that I don’t qualify for) so that I can pay my share of the bailout.
The OFHEO (government body charged with oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) released a hefty 19-page position paper earlier this month with some fascinating statistics. Of particular note:
Nearly 50% — half — of all jumbo loans come from California.
Secondly, this graph, from the same OFHEO report, clearly shows the havoc the whole mortgage fiasco has caused to the Jumbo loan market: the difference in interest rates between conforming and Jumbo loans more than quadrupled in 2007. Here’s how to read this graph: In January 2007, the interest rate difference between conforming and Jumbo loans was a scant 20 basis points; a confirming loan product at, say 6%, would have a comparable Jumbo product at 6.2%; by the end of 2007, that difference had increased to 80 basis points, so a conforming product at 6% would have a corresponding Jumbo product at 6.8%.
That’s real money, folks!
Caveat: I am not a mortgage broker or banker. In particular, I am not your mortgage broker or banker. The above represents my layman’s understanding of the issue. Don’t make any kind of home purchasing decision based solely on the above. Talk to your mortgage professional. ‘Nuff said.
Tags: Conforming Loans, Consumer, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Mortgages, Real estate
Next Page »