Freddie Sees Mortgage Rates Hitting 6% in 2010
By Dina ElBoghdady
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 26, 2009
After hitting an all-time low in early December, the average rate on a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage rose to 5.05 percent this week and could climb to 6 percent by the end of 2010, if not sooner, according to giant mortgage financier Freddie Mac.
The results are noteworthy because rates have not topped 5 percent since the last week of October, when they reached 5.03 percent, based on the results of this closely watched survey, which polls lenders during the first three days of every week.
Many firms regularly track interest rates and come up with slightly different numbers because they survey different lenders at different times of the day or week. But several have reported the upward trend in recent weeks. They attribute it in part to the effects of the holiday season, when demand for buying and refinancing homes dies down and financial markets coast through the end of the year.
"However, this is also a glimpse of what we're going to see in 2010," said Greg McBride, a senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, a personal finance Web site.
The key catalyst for interest rates going forward will be the end of a Federal Reserve program that buys a sizable chunk of mortgage-backed securities issued by firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That program succeeded in immediately pushing mortgage rates well below the 6 percent mark when it was announced last year.
But the Fed has committed to winding down the program by March. The central bank is betting that by gradually tapering its purchases, private buyers of mortgage-backed securities, who have largely been absent from the market, will return and rates won't rise much.
But Amy Crews Cutts, deputy chief economist at Freddie Mac, said interest rates are bound to rise to 6 percent by the end of 2010 because private buyers will demand a higher rate of return on the securities than the Fed did. Lenders may have to raise the rates they charge to consumers in order to make that happen.
"Extraordinary resources have been put into keeping the rates down and supporting the mortgage markets and it's hard to imagine that the rates can go much lower than they are," Crews Cutts said. "Anything we get at or below 5 percent is a gift at this point."
This week's Freddie Mac survey found that the 5.05 percent average on 30-year fixed-rate loans (with an average 0.7 point) was up from 4.94 percent the previous week but down from 5.14 percent at the same time last year. The all-time weekly low since the firm started tracking the numbers in 1971 was in the first week of December, when rates fell to 4.71 percent.
Many borrowers have not been able to secure the best rates because they lack the stellar credit scores and hefty down payments that many lenders now demand. Some who have tried to refinance have not been able to qualify because their home prices have plummeted to the point where they now owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth.
But anyone who can secure a loan should not wait much longer, especially if they are looking to refinance, McBride said. Homeowners are more sensitive to interest rates when they refinance than when they buy a home.
"The difference between 5 percent and 5.5 percent could mean the difference between refinancing or not," he said.
But the interest rate is less critical to people who want to buy a home, McBride said. In that case, price and affordability should trump interest rates.
The general rule of thumb is that your monthly mortgage payment (property taxes and insurance included) should not exceed 28 percent of gross pay. All your loans combined -- mortgage, car, credit card, student debt -- should not exceed 36 percent.
"Yes, a higher mortgage rate would steal some buying power, but it doesn't price buyers out of the market entirely because 6 percent is still pretty low," McBride said. "If you can't afford the house with rates at 6 percent, you can't afford the house."
Monday, December 28, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Fund Boss Made $7 Billion in the Panic
Fund Boss Made $7 Billion in the Panic
by Gregory Zuckerman
Monday, December 21, 2009
provided by
The Wall Street Journal
In this comeback year for investors, David Tepper may have scored one of the biggest paydays of all.
Mr. Tepper's hedge-fund firm has racked up about $7 billion of profit so far this year—with Mr. Tepper on track to earn more than $2.5 billion for himself, according to people familiar with the matter. That is among the largest one-year takes in recent years.
More from WSJ.com:
• Morgan Stanley's New CEO a Switch
• How Tiger Protected His Image
• 'Avatar' is Test of Industry
Behind the wins: a bet worth billions of dollars that America would avoid a repeat of the Great Depression.
Through February and March, Mr. Tepper scooped up beaten-down bank shares as many investors were running for the exits. Day after day, Mr. Tepper bought Bank of America Corp. shares, then trading below $3, and Citigroup Inc. preferred shares, when that stock was under $1. One of his investors insisted more carnage loomed. Friends who shared his bullish beliefs were wary of aping his moves amid speculation that the government was about to nationalize the big banks.
"I felt like I was alone," Mr. Tepper recalls. On some days, he says, "no one was even bidding."
The bets paid off. A resurgent market has helped Mr. Tepper's firm, Appaloosa Management, gain about 120% after the firm's fees, through early December. Thanks to those gains, Mr. Tepper, who specializes in the stocks and bonds of troubled companies, manages about $12 billion, a sum that makes Appaloosa one of the largest hedge funds in the world.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• 15 Most Powerful People in the World
• 6 Biggest Mistakes Job Hunters Are Making Now
• Best Jobs in the U.S., 2009 Edition
Visit the Career & Work Center
Mr. Tepper, whose office overlooks the parking lot of a Hilton hotel in Short Hills, N.J., across from an upscale mall, now is taking aim at a new target. He's purchased about $2 billion of beaten-down commercial mortgage-backed securities. Among his purchases are bonds backed by chunks of the debt of Peter Cooper Village & Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York, two high-profile real-estate deals that have fallen in value over the past two years.
Some experts predict more bad news for commercial real estate—and say that if Mr. Tepper's move doesn't pan out, it could jeopardize a chunk of his recent gains. Mr. Tepper says he remains optimistic.
Hedge funds, once darlings of well-heeled investors, suffered dearly in 2008, dropping 19%. Nearly 1,500 funds, or 16% of the total, shuttered last year. This year, hedge funds are clawing back, with gains of 19% through November, on pace for their best annual gains in a decade, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc.
A handful of funds—including Everest Capital's emerging-market funds and the stock-focused Glenview Capital—have racked up fat gains this year. In sheer dollars, though, none appear to have come close to matching Appaloosa's winnings.
Mr. Tepper grew up in a middle-class neighborhood in Pittsburgh, the son of an accountant who worked seven days a week and once won a $715,000 lottery payout. In the late 1980s, he helped run junk-bond trading at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Tepper wears jeans and sneakers to work, and can be self-deprecating, playing down his successes. He claims to have popularized on Wall Street the phrase "it is what it is" to explain the need to adjust a portfolio if facts on the ground shift.
After he was repeatedly passed over for a partnership, Mr. Tepper left Goldman to start Appaloosa in 1993. By 2008, he had a track record of annual gains averaging about 30% and a net worth estimated at about $2 billion.
Mr. Tepper lives in a two-story home in New Jersey he bought in 1990 for $1.2 million. He recently purchased an ownership stake in the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, and flies to every home game. In 2004 he gave $55 million to Carnegie Mellon University's business school, his alma mater, which renamed itself the Tepper School of Business.
The husky, bespectacled trader laughs easily, but employees say he can quickly turn on them when he's angry. Mr. Tepper keeps a brass replica of a pair of testicles in a prominent spot on his desk, a present from former employees. He rubs the gift for luck during the trading day to get a laugh out of colleagues.
His biggest scores over the years have come from buying large chunks of out-of-favor investments. When Asian markets crumbled in 1997, Mr. Tepper added Korean stocks to a portfolio laden with Russian debt. The moves led to hundreds of millions of dollars in profits when markets rebounded two years later. He scored big on junk bonds in 2003, and his 2007 wager on steel, coal and other resource companies paid off in 2008 when commodity prices soared.
But because he sometimes places more than half of his portfolio in a single trade idea, Mr. Tepper also is prone to brutal, abrupt losses.
That approach cost him more than $1 billion last year. In January 2008, Societe General SA trader Jerome Kerviel was revealed to have lost €5 billion ($7.2 billion), one of the world's largest trading loss. Mr. Tepper sold large chunks of his holdings, fearing a market tumble. Prices held up, though, hurting Appaloosa. In the spring of last year, he turned bullish on large-company stocks and did some buying, but suffered as markets declined.
Mr. Tepper made a big wager on Delphi in 2006. But in April of last year he and a group of investors withdrew from a deal to inject as much as $2.6 billion in the bankrupt auto-parts supplier, sparking a nasty legal battle that was resolved this summer. Appaloosa lost almost $200 million on its investment in Delphi.
Mr. Tepper's largest fund dropped 25% for 2008, worse than the industry's 19% average decline.
"Investing with David is like flying, with hours of boredom followed by bouts of sheer terror," says Alan Shealy, a client of more than 18 years. "He's the quintessential opportunist, investing in any asset class, but you have to have a cast-iron stomach."
Mr. Tepper entered 2009 cautiously, with more than 30% of his firm's assets in cash, or more than $2 billion. He itched to do some buying. Mr. Tepper explains his investment philosophy with a line from Allan Meltzer, a professor at his alma mater: "Trees grow." In other words, growth is the natural state of economies, so optimism usually is rewarded.
On Feb. 10 of this year, Mr. Tepper read that the Treasury Department was introducing the so-called Financial Stability Plan. It included a commitment by the government to inject capital into banks by buying their preferred stock, or shares that carry less chance of reward but also less risk than common stock.
At the time, investors worried that the government ultimately would have to nationalize big banks. U.S. officials said they had no intention of such a move, which could wipe out common shareholders, but investors were dubious.
The news from the Treasury Department struck Mr. Tepper as proof that the government would stand behind the banks. He directed his traders to begin buying bank stock and debt.
Few investors were feeling as optimistic. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 382 points on the day Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduced the plan, nearly 5%. Bank shares continued to tumble in the days that followed. Bank of America shares fell as low as $2.53 on Feb. 20. By March 5, Citigroup traded as low as 97 cents.
"This is ridiculous, it's nuts, nuts, nuts!" Mr. Tepper recalls saying to Michael Lukacs, one of his partners, on the firm's small trading floor. "Why would the government break its word? They're not going to let these banks go under, people aren't being logical!"
Mr. Tepper huddled with Mr. Lukacs and Jim Bolin, another top Appaloosa executive. Mr. Tepper insisted that stimulus spending and low interest rates would boost the economy. He said he estimated there was only a 20% chance that the U.S. would nationalize banks such as Citigroup.
Mr. Bolin, who people at the firm say tends to be more conservative than Mr. Tepper, was bullish about banks, but still thought it safer to stick to bank debt than to riskier shares. Mr. Tepper says he listened to the arguments, but said it was time to place a big bet.
Over several weeks, Mr. Tepper's team bought a variety of bank investments, including debt, preferred shares and common shares. Just months earlier, the government had injected billions of dollars to keep companies such as American International Group Inc. going, much as they were now doing with the banks. But that didn't prevent shares of those companies from tumbling.
At one point in March, the firm was down about 10% for the year, or about $600 million. Mr. Tepper got on the phone to make more trades, something he often left to subordinates. This time, he wanted to talk directly to Wall Street brokers to test how bad things really were.
The answer: really bad. Mr. Tepper says he was told that he was the only big investor doing much buying.
"Clients were nervous that the game had changed and capitalism wouldn't be the same. There was real fear," recalls Timothy Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management, a $2 billion investment firm, who says he only bought a small amount of bank shares during this period.
One day in late winter, Mr. Tepper heard from a skeptical client of his own, Mr. Shealy.
"This thing is far from over," Mr. Shealy recalls saying, referring to the bank problems. Still, Mr. Shealy, who runs an investment firm in Boise, Idaho, stuck with Mr. Tepper. "I figured the positions were fairly liquid, so if he was wrong, he would get out."
Mr. Tepper hadn't paid his investors' nerves much heed since 2000. That year, he bet that the tech-heavy Nasdaq index would fall. But so many investors complained that Mr. Tepper was straying from his roots in debt investing that he canceled his bets. When the Nasdaq collapsed months later, Mr. Tepper fumed.
By late March of 2009, Citigroup shares had tripled, and Mr. Tepper's other holdings, including junk bonds, were rising. He and his team bought more, spending more than $1 billion, when various banks conducted share sales. Mr. Tepper says his average cost for shares of Citigroup was 79 cents; for Bank of America it was $3.72.
At one point in the summer, Mr. Tepper had recorded about $1 billion of profits in shares of just Citigroup and Bank of America, and his overall gains soared past $4.5 billion, or 70%, since January.
After Mr. Bolin, the Appaloosa executive, urged caution, Mr. Tepper did some selling to lock in gains. But the firm remains a big holder of both Bank of America and Citigroup shares, which now trade at $15.03 and $3.40, respectively.
Mr. Tepper remains upbeat. He says he expects interest rates to stay low, and argues that stocks and bonds are reasonably priced.
This belief is driving another risky bet. At the end of each quarter this year, Mr. Tepper noticed that investors were dumping holdings of troubled bonds backed by commercial properties. He had never dabbled in these investments, but he and his 10-person team did some research and judged them attractive, with some seemingly safe debt trading at yields above 15%.
Mr. Tepper slowly spent more than $1 billion to gain ownership of between 10% and 20% of highly rated slices of commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. He focused on debt backed by loans of properties including Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York.
His bet: If the economy improves, he'll earn hefty interest payments on the bonds. But if the properties can't make their payments, Mr. Tepper believes he owns so much of the debt that he'll have a big say in how the properties get restructured. That means he could ultimately end up ahead.
He's taking a big risk, some analysts warn. The value of commercial real estate continues to fall. Owners of debt classes don't always have much power to influence a commercial real-estate restructuring. And because the debt of these big properties was carved into many pieces, and many investors are involved, any battle for control will be complicated.
Mr. Tepper says the worrywarts have it wrong: "If you think the economy will be fine, as we do, then we're going to do very well."
by Gregory Zuckerman
Monday, December 21, 2009
provided by
The Wall Street Journal
In this comeback year for investors, David Tepper may have scored one of the biggest paydays of all.
Mr. Tepper's hedge-fund firm has racked up about $7 billion of profit so far this year—with Mr. Tepper on track to earn more than $2.5 billion for himself, according to people familiar with the matter. That is among the largest one-year takes in recent years.
More from WSJ.com:
• Morgan Stanley's New CEO a Switch
• How Tiger Protected His Image
• 'Avatar' is Test of Industry
Behind the wins: a bet worth billions of dollars that America would avoid a repeat of the Great Depression.
Through February and March, Mr. Tepper scooped up beaten-down bank shares as many investors were running for the exits. Day after day, Mr. Tepper bought Bank of America Corp. shares, then trading below $3, and Citigroup Inc. preferred shares, when that stock was under $1. One of his investors insisted more carnage loomed. Friends who shared his bullish beliefs were wary of aping his moves amid speculation that the government was about to nationalize the big banks.
"I felt like I was alone," Mr. Tepper recalls. On some days, he says, "no one was even bidding."
The bets paid off. A resurgent market has helped Mr. Tepper's firm, Appaloosa Management, gain about 120% after the firm's fees, through early December. Thanks to those gains, Mr. Tepper, who specializes in the stocks and bonds of troubled companies, manages about $12 billion, a sum that makes Appaloosa one of the largest hedge funds in the world.
More from Yahoo! Finance:
• 15 Most Powerful People in the World
• 6 Biggest Mistakes Job Hunters Are Making Now
• Best Jobs in the U.S., 2009 Edition
Visit the Career & Work Center
Mr. Tepper, whose office overlooks the parking lot of a Hilton hotel in Short Hills, N.J., across from an upscale mall, now is taking aim at a new target. He's purchased about $2 billion of beaten-down commercial mortgage-backed securities. Among his purchases are bonds backed by chunks of the debt of Peter Cooper Village & Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York, two high-profile real-estate deals that have fallen in value over the past two years.
Some experts predict more bad news for commercial real estate—and say that if Mr. Tepper's move doesn't pan out, it could jeopardize a chunk of his recent gains. Mr. Tepper says he remains optimistic.
Hedge funds, once darlings of well-heeled investors, suffered dearly in 2008, dropping 19%. Nearly 1,500 funds, or 16% of the total, shuttered last year. This year, hedge funds are clawing back, with gains of 19% through November, on pace for their best annual gains in a decade, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc.
A handful of funds—including Everest Capital's emerging-market funds and the stock-focused Glenview Capital—have racked up fat gains this year. In sheer dollars, though, none appear to have come close to matching Appaloosa's winnings.
Mr. Tepper grew up in a middle-class neighborhood in Pittsburgh, the son of an accountant who worked seven days a week and once won a $715,000 lottery payout. In the late 1980s, he helped run junk-bond trading at Goldman Sachs. Mr. Tepper wears jeans and sneakers to work, and can be self-deprecating, playing down his successes. He claims to have popularized on Wall Street the phrase "it is what it is" to explain the need to adjust a portfolio if facts on the ground shift.
After he was repeatedly passed over for a partnership, Mr. Tepper left Goldman to start Appaloosa in 1993. By 2008, he had a track record of annual gains averaging about 30% and a net worth estimated at about $2 billion.
Mr. Tepper lives in a two-story home in New Jersey he bought in 1990 for $1.2 million. He recently purchased an ownership stake in the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, and flies to every home game. In 2004 he gave $55 million to Carnegie Mellon University's business school, his alma mater, which renamed itself the Tepper School of Business.
The husky, bespectacled trader laughs easily, but employees say he can quickly turn on them when he's angry. Mr. Tepper keeps a brass replica of a pair of testicles in a prominent spot on his desk, a present from former employees. He rubs the gift for luck during the trading day to get a laugh out of colleagues.
His biggest scores over the years have come from buying large chunks of out-of-favor investments. When Asian markets crumbled in 1997, Mr. Tepper added Korean stocks to a portfolio laden with Russian debt. The moves led to hundreds of millions of dollars in profits when markets rebounded two years later. He scored big on junk bonds in 2003, and his 2007 wager on steel, coal and other resource companies paid off in 2008 when commodity prices soared.
But because he sometimes places more than half of his portfolio in a single trade idea, Mr. Tepper also is prone to brutal, abrupt losses.
That approach cost him more than $1 billion last year. In January 2008, Societe General SA trader Jerome Kerviel was revealed to have lost €5 billion ($7.2 billion), one of the world's largest trading loss. Mr. Tepper sold large chunks of his holdings, fearing a market tumble. Prices held up, though, hurting Appaloosa. In the spring of last year, he turned bullish on large-company stocks and did some buying, but suffered as markets declined.
Mr. Tepper made a big wager on Delphi in 2006. But in April of last year he and a group of investors withdrew from a deal to inject as much as $2.6 billion in the bankrupt auto-parts supplier, sparking a nasty legal battle that was resolved this summer. Appaloosa lost almost $200 million on its investment in Delphi.
Mr. Tepper's largest fund dropped 25% for 2008, worse than the industry's 19% average decline.
"Investing with David is like flying, with hours of boredom followed by bouts of sheer terror," says Alan Shealy, a client of more than 18 years. "He's the quintessential opportunist, investing in any asset class, but you have to have a cast-iron stomach."
Mr. Tepper entered 2009 cautiously, with more than 30% of his firm's assets in cash, or more than $2 billion. He itched to do some buying. Mr. Tepper explains his investment philosophy with a line from Allan Meltzer, a professor at his alma mater: "Trees grow." In other words, growth is the natural state of economies, so optimism usually is rewarded.
On Feb. 10 of this year, Mr. Tepper read that the Treasury Department was introducing the so-called Financial Stability Plan. It included a commitment by the government to inject capital into banks by buying their preferred stock, or shares that carry less chance of reward but also less risk than common stock.
At the time, investors worried that the government ultimately would have to nationalize big banks. U.S. officials said they had no intention of such a move, which could wipe out common shareholders, but investors were dubious.
The news from the Treasury Department struck Mr. Tepper as proof that the government would stand behind the banks. He directed his traders to begin buying bank stock and debt.
Few investors were feeling as optimistic. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 382 points on the day Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner introduced the plan, nearly 5%. Bank shares continued to tumble in the days that followed. Bank of America shares fell as low as $2.53 on Feb. 20. By March 5, Citigroup traded as low as 97 cents.
"This is ridiculous, it's nuts, nuts, nuts!" Mr. Tepper recalls saying to Michael Lukacs, one of his partners, on the firm's small trading floor. "Why would the government break its word? They're not going to let these banks go under, people aren't being logical!"
Mr. Tepper huddled with Mr. Lukacs and Jim Bolin, another top Appaloosa executive. Mr. Tepper insisted that stimulus spending and low interest rates would boost the economy. He said he estimated there was only a 20% chance that the U.S. would nationalize banks such as Citigroup.
Mr. Bolin, who people at the firm say tends to be more conservative than Mr. Tepper, was bullish about banks, but still thought it safer to stick to bank debt than to riskier shares. Mr. Tepper says he listened to the arguments, but said it was time to place a big bet.
Over several weeks, Mr. Tepper's team bought a variety of bank investments, including debt, preferred shares and common shares. Just months earlier, the government had injected billions of dollars to keep companies such as American International Group Inc. going, much as they were now doing with the banks. But that didn't prevent shares of those companies from tumbling.
At one point in March, the firm was down about 10% for the year, or about $600 million. Mr. Tepper got on the phone to make more trades, something he often left to subordinates. This time, he wanted to talk directly to Wall Street brokers to test how bad things really were.
The answer: really bad. Mr. Tepper says he was told that he was the only big investor doing much buying.
"Clients were nervous that the game had changed and capitalism wouldn't be the same. There was real fear," recalls Timothy Ghriskey, chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management, a $2 billion investment firm, who says he only bought a small amount of bank shares during this period.
One day in late winter, Mr. Tepper heard from a skeptical client of his own, Mr. Shealy.
"This thing is far from over," Mr. Shealy recalls saying, referring to the bank problems. Still, Mr. Shealy, who runs an investment firm in Boise, Idaho, stuck with Mr. Tepper. "I figured the positions were fairly liquid, so if he was wrong, he would get out."
Mr. Tepper hadn't paid his investors' nerves much heed since 2000. That year, he bet that the tech-heavy Nasdaq index would fall. But so many investors complained that Mr. Tepper was straying from his roots in debt investing that he canceled his bets. When the Nasdaq collapsed months later, Mr. Tepper fumed.
By late March of 2009, Citigroup shares had tripled, and Mr. Tepper's other holdings, including junk bonds, were rising. He and his team bought more, spending more than $1 billion, when various banks conducted share sales. Mr. Tepper says his average cost for shares of Citigroup was 79 cents; for Bank of America it was $3.72.
At one point in the summer, Mr. Tepper had recorded about $1 billion of profits in shares of just Citigroup and Bank of America, and his overall gains soared past $4.5 billion, or 70%, since January.
After Mr. Bolin, the Appaloosa executive, urged caution, Mr. Tepper did some selling to lock in gains. But the firm remains a big holder of both Bank of America and Citigroup shares, which now trade at $15.03 and $3.40, respectively.
Mr. Tepper remains upbeat. He says he expects interest rates to stay low, and argues that stocks and bonds are reasonably priced.
This belief is driving another risky bet. At the end of each quarter this year, Mr. Tepper noticed that investors were dumping holdings of troubled bonds backed by commercial properties. He had never dabbled in these investments, but he and his 10-person team did some research and judged them attractive, with some seemingly safe debt trading at yields above 15%.
Mr. Tepper slowly spent more than $1 billion to gain ownership of between 10% and 20% of highly rated slices of commercial mortgage-backed securities, or CMBS. He focused on debt backed by loans of properties including Stuyvesant Town and 666 Fifth Ave. in New York.
His bet: If the economy improves, he'll earn hefty interest payments on the bonds. But if the properties can't make their payments, Mr. Tepper believes he owns so much of the debt that he'll have a big say in how the properties get restructured. That means he could ultimately end up ahead.
He's taking a big risk, some analysts warn. The value of commercial real estate continues to fall. Owners of debt classes don't always have much power to influence a commercial real-estate restructuring. And because the debt of these big properties was carved into many pieces, and many investors are involved, any battle for control will be complicated.
Mr. Tepper says the worrywarts have it wrong: "If you think the economy will be fine, as we do, then we're going to do very well."
The Safest Ways to Buy Foreclosures
The Safest Ways to Buy Foreclosures
By Bankrate.com
With interest rates at record lows and the stock market looking too perilous for small investors, many people are putting money in an asset they understand -- real estate.
One of the best places to invest is in foreclosures and bargain residential real estate.
The current market conditions make it a perfect time for a small investor to purchase one or more foreclosure properties for their private residence, rental or resale. During economic downturns, more upscale homes go into foreclosure, so the notion that foreclosure homes are only available in crime-ridden areas is inaccurate. Beachfront and homes in affluent areas are part of the mix of foreclosed properties available.
But anyone considering buying a foreclosed home should forget about paying pennies on the dollar.
"You can buy foreclosures for as cheap as 30% or 40% below market, but most foreclosures sell for 5% below market," said John T. Reed, editor of Real Estate Investor's Monthly, a newsletter based in Alamo, Calif.
Yet the savings may be twofold if the property is purchased from the lender who holds the mortgage that's in default. That lender may be willing to waive some closing costs, maybe even offer a break on the interest rate or the down payment.
Investment of time
A novice must learn to navigate the foreclosure process. But Todd Beitler, owner of the Real Estate Library in Boca Raton, Fla., says the time and effort can translate to savings. "If somebody spends 10 hours a week for five weeks to do research, it's worth it."
For most consumers, however, the foreclosure process can prove daunting, Reed says. Good buys are available, but they require research, preparation, patience and persistence.
The foreclosure process starts when a property owner falls behind on mortgage payments. Many owners of homes that go into foreclosure have been struggling financially for almost a year before they give up, which usually means that the house has not received needed repairs or general maintenance for a while.
This may include everything from missing light bulbs to roof leaks. Tree limbs in front yards, broken appliances and windows, and dirty carpets, floors and walls are found in even very-affluent area foreclosures.
This can be a boon -- or boondoggle -- for a buyer. Houses in poor condition might fetch bargain prices, but repairs can boost the cost again. The first rule of real estate, "location, location, location," applies in these situations. If there is trash in every room of the house, but the foreclosure is in a good area with high property resale values, hold your nose, walk through the entire house and consider making a low offer.
Reading assignments
When a lender decides to foreclose on a property, a notice of default or a lis pendens (Latin for "lawsuit pending") is filed, depending on the state. This document is a public record, and for buyers, it's the first step in locating a property in foreclosure. A buyer looking for foreclosures also can buy magazines and newsletters that list properties in default.
Once a home has been located, search public records. Look for liens on the property, since they can drive up the purchase price. Liens typically are placed on a house for unpaid property taxes. Also check assessed values and sale prices of neighboring properties.
Research local state foreclosure laws, since they differ. Some states -- such as Florida, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- require the lender to sue the borrower and get a court order for the sale of the property, a process known as judicial foreclosure. Other states -- including California and Texas -- follow the non-judicial foreclosure process, which doesn't require a lawsuit.
For novice investors, buying from the lender is the safest way to buy. Most foreclosures are taken back by the bank during auction, Beitler says. While well-located homes in good shape generally don't sell for deep discounts, rundown properties can be sold more cheaply.
Often, the banks hire a real estate agent and sell foreclosed homes in the traditional manner, Reed says. But sometimes buyers can succeed by pestering bank loan officers with low offers.
Buyers might try low-balling the lender's REO (for "real estate owned") officer shortly before the nonperforming assets have to be reported to supervisors, Beitler says.
The safest deals
Bank-owned properties offer the safest deal for inexperienced foreclosure buyers, Beitler says: "There's no risk. There are no taxes, no liens, no tenants to evict."
A lender that's eager to sell might be willing to offer attractive terms, says George Tribble, broker of record at Jetstream Mortgage in Oakland, Calif., and past president of the California Association of Mortgage Brokers.
The lender might offer to finance the property at a below-market rate or with a lower-than-usual down payment. Because the bank already has done an appraisal, the buyer might not have to pay an appraisal fee, Tribble says. And lender deals typically include title insurance, which removes much of the risk that accompanies buying homes earlier in the foreclosure process.
Hidden foreclosures
Not all foreclosures are previously owned homes. Some foreclosed homes are new. These homes are not as easy to identify and rarely appear on national lists. In some areas, the slow economy has left many builders of new midscale and upscale homes at the end of their construction-loan periods without finding buyers for their homes.
In these cases, the banks that issued the construction loans take possession of the homes and attempt to sell them, using real-estate agents to handle the deals.
These, too, are foreclosures. They are "hidden" foreclosures because no one associated with the sale of these properties will refer to them as foreclosed homes.
More daring investors can find other points in the process to buy homes, like just before foreclosure. The buyer finds a homeowner about to go into default. The homeowner doesn't want to lose all of the equity in the property, so accepts a portion of the difference between the equity and the home's market value.
Pre-foreclosure buys offer bargains but demand persistence. That's because creditors are often hounding owners at this stage. "Trying to get through to the homeowner is virtually impossible," Beitler says.
If the homeowner is contacted, the buyer could be in for a surprise, Reed adds. Homeowners in default might not have phones or electricity, and they might have a variety of personal and legal problems. What's more, they probably need somewhere to live before they can move out of the property the buyer wants.
This is a high-risk, high-reward proposition, and it's not for first-time foreclosure buyers, Beitler says.
The auctioneer
Most auctions take place at the county courthouse steps, and they pose disadvantages: Buyers might not be able to inspect the property, and they'll have to put up the entire purchase price the same day.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also runs auctions to unload homes it has acquired through defaults on federally backed mortgages. There aren't a lot of steals in this process, according to a study by Tim Allen, a real estate professor at Florida Atlantic University.
Allen tracked sales at a HUD auction in Florida in 1998; he found that buyers paid prices very close to assessed value. Beitler agrees that there's a "frenzy" at HUD auctions that can push prices to unreasonable levels.
The cost of getting started
With good credit, many banks will loan the full price of the foreclosure or more. If the home is to be used as a rental, many banks will require only a 10% down payment.
Individuals with a large amount of equity in another home may get a line of credit from their bank to purchase a foreclosure. When they convert the line of credit to a mortgage, no down payment may be required.
Foreclosure homes bought in good areas at below market values that appreciate annually can be a sound investment strategy for many investors. The appreciation of the homes is tax-exempt until the home is sold. If the home is a primary residence, the appreciation may be tax-free.
Homes used as rental properties give most investors valuable tax deductions while the house increases in value and builds equity. With many stock portfolios down, foreclosure real estate investing may be the alternative many people are seeking.
By Bankrate.com
With interest rates at record lows and the stock market looking too perilous for small investors, many people are putting money in an asset they understand -- real estate.
One of the best places to invest is in foreclosures and bargain residential real estate.
The current market conditions make it a perfect time for a small investor to purchase one or more foreclosure properties for their private residence, rental or resale. During economic downturns, more upscale homes go into foreclosure, so the notion that foreclosure homes are only available in crime-ridden areas is inaccurate. Beachfront and homes in affluent areas are part of the mix of foreclosed properties available.
But anyone considering buying a foreclosed home should forget about paying pennies on the dollar.
"You can buy foreclosures for as cheap as 30% or 40% below market, but most foreclosures sell for 5% below market," said John T. Reed, editor of Real Estate Investor's Monthly, a newsletter based in Alamo, Calif.
Yet the savings may be twofold if the property is purchased from the lender who holds the mortgage that's in default. That lender may be willing to waive some closing costs, maybe even offer a break on the interest rate or the down payment.
Investment of time
A novice must learn to navigate the foreclosure process. But Todd Beitler, owner of the Real Estate Library in Boca Raton, Fla., says the time and effort can translate to savings. "If somebody spends 10 hours a week for five weeks to do research, it's worth it."
For most consumers, however, the foreclosure process can prove daunting, Reed says. Good buys are available, but they require research, preparation, patience and persistence.
The foreclosure process starts when a property owner falls behind on mortgage payments. Many owners of homes that go into foreclosure have been struggling financially for almost a year before they give up, which usually means that the house has not received needed repairs or general maintenance for a while.
This may include everything from missing light bulbs to roof leaks. Tree limbs in front yards, broken appliances and windows, and dirty carpets, floors and walls are found in even very-affluent area foreclosures.
This can be a boon -- or boondoggle -- for a buyer. Houses in poor condition might fetch bargain prices, but repairs can boost the cost again. The first rule of real estate, "location, location, location," applies in these situations. If there is trash in every room of the house, but the foreclosure is in a good area with high property resale values, hold your nose, walk through the entire house and consider making a low offer.
Reading assignments
When a lender decides to foreclose on a property, a notice of default or a lis pendens (Latin for "lawsuit pending") is filed, depending on the state. This document is a public record, and for buyers, it's the first step in locating a property in foreclosure. A buyer looking for foreclosures also can buy magazines and newsletters that list properties in default.
Once a home has been located, search public records. Look for liens on the property, since they can drive up the purchase price. Liens typically are placed on a house for unpaid property taxes. Also check assessed values and sale prices of neighboring properties.
Research local state foreclosure laws, since they differ. Some states -- such as Florida, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- require the lender to sue the borrower and get a court order for the sale of the property, a process known as judicial foreclosure. Other states -- including California and Texas -- follow the non-judicial foreclosure process, which doesn't require a lawsuit.
For novice investors, buying from the lender is the safest way to buy. Most foreclosures are taken back by the bank during auction, Beitler says. While well-located homes in good shape generally don't sell for deep discounts, rundown properties can be sold more cheaply.
Often, the banks hire a real estate agent and sell foreclosed homes in the traditional manner, Reed says. But sometimes buyers can succeed by pestering bank loan officers with low offers.
Buyers might try low-balling the lender's REO (for "real estate owned") officer shortly before the nonperforming assets have to be reported to supervisors, Beitler says.
The safest deals
Bank-owned properties offer the safest deal for inexperienced foreclosure buyers, Beitler says: "There's no risk. There are no taxes, no liens, no tenants to evict."
A lender that's eager to sell might be willing to offer attractive terms, says George Tribble, broker of record at Jetstream Mortgage in Oakland, Calif., and past president of the California Association of Mortgage Brokers.
The lender might offer to finance the property at a below-market rate or with a lower-than-usual down payment. Because the bank already has done an appraisal, the buyer might not have to pay an appraisal fee, Tribble says. And lender deals typically include title insurance, which removes much of the risk that accompanies buying homes earlier in the foreclosure process.
Hidden foreclosures
Not all foreclosures are previously owned homes. Some foreclosed homes are new. These homes are not as easy to identify and rarely appear on national lists. In some areas, the slow economy has left many builders of new midscale and upscale homes at the end of their construction-loan periods without finding buyers for their homes.
In these cases, the banks that issued the construction loans take possession of the homes and attempt to sell them, using real-estate agents to handle the deals.
These, too, are foreclosures. They are "hidden" foreclosures because no one associated with the sale of these properties will refer to them as foreclosed homes.
More daring investors can find other points in the process to buy homes, like just before foreclosure. The buyer finds a homeowner about to go into default. The homeowner doesn't want to lose all of the equity in the property, so accepts a portion of the difference between the equity and the home's market value.
Pre-foreclosure buys offer bargains but demand persistence. That's because creditors are often hounding owners at this stage. "Trying to get through to the homeowner is virtually impossible," Beitler says.
If the homeowner is contacted, the buyer could be in for a surprise, Reed adds. Homeowners in default might not have phones or electricity, and they might have a variety of personal and legal problems. What's more, they probably need somewhere to live before they can move out of the property the buyer wants.
This is a high-risk, high-reward proposition, and it's not for first-time foreclosure buyers, Beitler says.
The auctioneer
Most auctions take place at the county courthouse steps, and they pose disadvantages: Buyers might not be able to inspect the property, and they'll have to put up the entire purchase price the same day.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also runs auctions to unload homes it has acquired through defaults on federally backed mortgages. There aren't a lot of steals in this process, according to a study by Tim Allen, a real estate professor at Florida Atlantic University.
Allen tracked sales at a HUD auction in Florida in 1998; he found that buyers paid prices very close to assessed value. Beitler agrees that there's a "frenzy" at HUD auctions that can push prices to unreasonable levels.
The cost of getting started
With good credit, many banks will loan the full price of the foreclosure or more. If the home is to be used as a rental, many banks will require only a 10% down payment.
Individuals with a large amount of equity in another home may get a line of credit from their bank to purchase a foreclosure. When they convert the line of credit to a mortgage, no down payment may be required.
Foreclosure homes bought in good areas at below market values that appreciate annually can be a sound investment strategy for many investors. The appreciation of the homes is tax-exempt until the home is sold. If the home is a primary residence, the appreciation may be tax-free.
Homes used as rental properties give most investors valuable tax deductions while the house increases in value and builds equity. With many stock portfolios down, foreclosure real estate investing may be the alternative many people are seeking.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Housing Crash Leads to a Falloff in Divorces
EDITED BY NIKKI WALLER
The divorce rate in the U.S. fell 4% last year, according to a report released last week by the National Marriage Project. The news might cheer family advocates, but the lousy housing market is probably the cause, as couples with depreciated home values wait to split until the market rebounds.
Right now, home values are down substantially. According to Moody's Economy.com, 31.8% of owners with a first mortgage currently owe more than their house is worth. Couples who decide to get divorced are splitting liabilities instead of assets.
"It used to be that couples fought over the house because of continuity and stability for the children," says Fadi Baradihi, president of the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts. "That's not happening anymore. Now everybody wants to run from it."
But when a property has lost significant value, running isn't so easy.
When it comes to the dilemma of selling or keeping the family home, the issue is if either spouse can actually qualify to refinance the home as a single, one-income household. With negative equity so prevalent, it's virtually impossible to refinance, says Leslie Thompson, a certified financial planner and partner at Spectrum Management Group in Indianapolis. That doesn't leave a divorcing couple with many good options. Here are a few to consider.
Wait it out: Continue joint ownership with an agreement to defer the sale of the house, in the hope that home values will rise down the line. Under this arrangement, one spouse usually moves out.
If both spouses are on the mortgage, the one who moves won't be able to get another mortgage, since banks are unlikely to lend to someone whose assets are tied up. When the house sells, each spouse gets half the proceeds at the time of sale (not at the time they got divorced). If one spouse has been making mortgage payments, he or she should get credit for the amount of the principal paid since the split.
Rent it out: In this increasingly popular arrangement, both spouses move out and rent to someone else. This setup also makes it difficult to buy another house, because both spouses are stuck with the house and the payments for a long time.
Just get out: Sometimes it's best to sell at a loss and move on, says Ms. Thompson. The couple negotiates with the lender to pay the difference between the sale price and the amount they owe or a lesser amount -- in which case they will have to determine how the debt will be paid. The lender also might agree to take the entire loss.
-- Liza Scherzer
SmartMoney.com
The divorce rate in the U.S. fell 4% last year, according to a report released last week by the National Marriage Project. The news might cheer family advocates, but the lousy housing market is probably the cause, as couples with depreciated home values wait to split until the market rebounds.
Right now, home values are down substantially. According to Moody's Economy.com, 31.8% of owners with a first mortgage currently owe more than their house is worth. Couples who decide to get divorced are splitting liabilities instead of assets.
"It used to be that couples fought over the house because of continuity and stability for the children," says Fadi Baradihi, president of the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts. "That's not happening anymore. Now everybody wants to run from it."
But when a property has lost significant value, running isn't so easy.
When it comes to the dilemma of selling or keeping the family home, the issue is if either spouse can actually qualify to refinance the home as a single, one-income household. With negative equity so prevalent, it's virtually impossible to refinance, says Leslie Thompson, a certified financial planner and partner at Spectrum Management Group in Indianapolis. That doesn't leave a divorcing couple with many good options. Here are a few to consider.
Wait it out: Continue joint ownership with an agreement to defer the sale of the house, in the hope that home values will rise down the line. Under this arrangement, one spouse usually moves out.
If both spouses are on the mortgage, the one who moves won't be able to get another mortgage, since banks are unlikely to lend to someone whose assets are tied up. When the house sells, each spouse gets half the proceeds at the time of sale (not at the time they got divorced). If one spouse has been making mortgage payments, he or she should get credit for the amount of the principal paid since the split.
Rent it out: In this increasingly popular arrangement, both spouses move out and rent to someone else. This setup also makes it difficult to buy another house, because both spouses are stuck with the house and the payments for a long time.
Just get out: Sometimes it's best to sell at a loss and move on, says Ms. Thompson. The couple negotiates with the lender to pay the difference between the sale price and the amount they owe or a lesser amount -- in which case they will have to determine how the debt will be paid. The lender also might agree to take the entire loss.
-- Liza Scherzer
SmartMoney.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
