Investors Losing Interest…

Investors Losing Interest in Housing, Despite Rise in Distressed Sales Share

Institutional investors appear to be losing interest in purchasing foreclosed properties for rentals in the face of rising property prices and interest rates and increased competition from homebuyers.   According to RealtyTrac's January 2014U.S. Residential and Foreclosure Sales Report, the share of home sales tied to institutional investors – entities that purchase ten or more properties in a calendar year – dropped to 5.2 percent in January, down from 7.9 percent in December and 8.2 percent in January 2013.  The January number was a 22 month low.

Daren Blomquist, a RealtyTrac vice president said, "Many have anticipated that the large institutional investors backed by private equity would start winding down their purchases of homes to rent, and the January sales numbers provide early evidence this is happening.  It's unlikely that this pullback in purchasing is weather-related given that there were increases in the institutional investor share of purchases in colder-weather markets such as Denver and Cincinnati, even while many warmer-weather markets in Florida and Arizona saw substantial decreases in the share of institutional investors from a year ago."

The fall back in institutional investors occurred in nearly three-quarters of the metropolitan areas tracked by the Irvine California company.  Areas with particularly large declines from a year earlier included Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Florida (-70 percent); Memphis (-64 percent), Tucson (-59 percent), and Tampa (-48 percent).  Institutional activity increased in 23 of the 101 areas with Austin, Texas notable for a 162 percent rise while Cincinnati was up 83 percent and Dallas 30 percent.

Institutional investment remains a major factor in sales in several areas including Jacksonville, Florida at 25.5 percent, Atlanta, (25.1 percent), and Austin (18.0).

Sales of all U.S. residential properties including single family homes, condos, and townhomes were at an estimated annual rate of 5.126 million units in January, a less than 1 percent increase from December and up 8 percent from a year earlier.  The rate of sales declined in seven states and 17 of the 50 largest metropolitan areas.

RealtyTrac said that foreclosure-related and short sales accounted for 17.5 percent of all residential sales in January, up from 14.9 percent in December.  In January 2013 distressed properties accounted for 18.7 percent of sales.  The distressed sales breakdown in January as a percent of all sales was 5.9 percent short sales, 10.2 percent bank owned real estate (REO) and 1.5 percent properties sold at foreclosure auction.

All-cash sales accounted for 44.4 percent of all U.S. residential sales in January, the seventh consecutive month where all-cash sales have been above the 35 percent level.  In several metro areas the majority of sales were all-cash; Miami (68.2 percent), Jacksonville, (66.2 percent), Memphis (64.4 percent) Tampa (61.5 percent) and Las Vegas (56.5 percent.)

The national median sales price of U.S. residential properties – including both distressed and non-distressed sales – was $165,957 in January, down 3 percent from December but up 1 percent from January 2013. The 3 percent monthly decrease was the biggest monthly drop since February 2013.  Some of the markets which had shown the fastest appreciation posted declines in January.  Some cities where prices fell 1 to 2 percent were San Francisco, Sacramento, Memphis, Cincinnati, Phoenix, and San Jose.  Prices in each, however, were a minimum of 19 percent above year-ago levels.

Best Regards, Chris Mesunas.

 

Advertisements

New Homes in Sacramento Areas…

Six-acre, 55-home community planned along Madison Avenue

 

 

Mortgage Availability Improves…

MORTGAGE AVAILABILITY IMPROVES

Written by 

According to a new survey from Fannie Mae, credit availability is improving. For the first time in over three years, the majority of consumers believe it's easier to get a mortgage.

Doug Duncan, Fannie Mae's chief economist said, "The gradual upward trend in this indicator during the last few months bodes well for the housing recovery and may be contributing to this month's increase in consumers' intention to buy rather than rent their next home."

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) says consumers are correct – credit availability has increased, particularly in the jumbo and refinance loan markets.

Explained Mike Fratatoni, chief economist for the MBA, "The market continues to adapt to the new QM [Qualified Mortgage] regulation by eliminating products that do not fit inside of the QM box. This tightening is being offset, both in the market for higher balance loans, where lenders continue to loosen terms for jumbo loans, and in the refi market, where more lenders are offering streamline refinance programs."

But there could be other reasons that credit is more available. Credit reporting agency Transunion announced that the mortgage delinquency rate for the fourth quarter of 2013 was 3.85 percent, down from 5.08 percent.

Delinquencies have been steadily declining over the past two years, while improved home sales and rising prices have allowed many homeowners on the edge of delinquency to sell their homes and get into something more affordable.

Credit has been extraordinarily tight since 2008, as lenders struggled with federal claims of mortgage fraud. For years, lenders raised credit standards beyond what was required to qualify for federally guaranteed loans and loans destined for purchase by the securities industry.

As the government leveled fines and made repayment settlements with many of the big banks, lenders are more willing to make mortgage loans. With the most toxic loans before 2008 foreclosed and disposed, lenders have more confidence in loans generated since them.

In fact, Transunion also reported that more loans were generated to borrowers with less-than-perfect credit in Q4 2013.

"We are on the downward slope of the mortgage delinquency curve, so we expect to continue seeing delinquency rates that have not been seen for several years," said Steve Chaouki, head of financial services for TransUnion.

With job gains growing, relatively low interest rates available and a tight supply of homes insuring equity gains, mortgage delinquencies should continue declining, and buyers should feel more confident in their decision to buy a home in 2014.

 

Student Debt and it’s Impact on First Time Home Buyers.

Higher Education or a House: Can Young Americans Have Both?

 

Affordability Struggle For First Time Buyers…

Explaining The Affordability Struggle for First-Time-Home-Buyers

In the latest edition of CoreLogic's Market Pulse the company's senior economist Mark Fleming provides adifferent take on housing affordability which he says economists are predicting will experience a "shock" in 2014.  There is a degree of uniformity in their predictions, he says, that rising rates, increasing house prices and stagnant incomes will soon herald the demise of the era of affordable housing. 

While Fleming does not argue with the basic premise he disagrees with the view that that news is "shocking."  "As I often point out with most housing statistics today," he says, "it is less important to focus on the fact that housing affordability is declining, but rather where it stands relative to historically normal levels."  But beyond the historical, Fleming also argues that affordability is actually proceeding along two different tracks, one for existing homeowners and another for those looking to buy their first home.

Using the same methodology as the National Association of Realtors® (NAR) and assuming a 20 percent downpayment and a 25-percent qualifying ratio Fleming constructed his own affordability index.  Using this he says national affordability was down 17 percent from the previous October and 22 percent from its peak in January 2013.  These declines are the result of an 11 percent appreciation in the CoreLogic Home Price Index (HPI) and a 100 basis point rise in interest rates.  Yet CoreLogic's affordability measure is 35 percent higherthan in 2000 when mortgage interest rates were 8 percent and home prices were rising more modestly.  So Fleming says, though clearly less accessible than a year ago, housing remains affordable in the current market."

But that analysis misses an important point.  While affordability can vary by market is also varies dramatically depending on whether you are a homeowner or not because homeowners capture price increases in the form of equity.  Thus affordability for the first time buyer is a measure of his income, the interest rates, and the price of homes; a homeowner's affordability level is functionally unchanged by increases in the latter.

The chart, which is based on a 5 percent downpayment, shows that during the period of 2003 to 2007, declining interest rates improved affordability for existing homeowners but that advantage for first time buyers was more than offset by rising home prices and housing reached its least-affordable level in 2006.  Then in 2007 the recession took hold, interest rates began their fall to historic levels, and home prices also declined dramatically, costing existing homeowners their equity but improving affordability for first-time homeowners, putting the two groups on near equal footing by the end of 2010.

Fleming said that homeowners have disproportionately lost affordability again over the last two years; down 17 percent for that group compared to 6 percent for existing homeowners.  And while first time buyers will still find affordability 35 percent higher than in the early 2000s, affordability for existing homeowners is almost 100 percent above the average back then as modest income gains have compounded and rates are still extremely low. 

Context and ownership clearly matter Fleming says.  "Will a further rate rise and increasing prices in 2014 eventually make housing unaffordable?  That will depend, but one thing is clear:  First-time homebuyers will be more significantly impacted."

Best Regards, Chris Mesunas

 

10 of the most affordable cities to purchase a home…

Top 10 cities people are moving to

Whether it's the warm weather, jobs or cheap cost of living, these are the top 10 cities Americans are moving to, according Penske Truck Rental's annual list.

 

Atlanta

  • Median income: $66,300
  • Median home price: $166,000
  • Home price growth forecast : 5.3%

Even though it was hit hard by the recession, Atlanta has claimed the top spot on Penske's list for four years running. Home to Coca-Cola, Home Depot and roughly a dozen other Fortune 500 companies, the city offers a range of job opportunities. And the cost of living is pretty cheap — less than half the cost of Manhattan — with much warmer weather (well… except for this winter).

Tampa, Fla.

  • Median income: $56,800
  • Median home price: $129,000
  • Home price growth forecast : 6.5%

Beaches, boating and baseball are among some of the top reasons people come to Tampa, which is a newcomer to the top cities list. Several Major League Baseball teams come here for Spring training and MacDill Air Force Base has long been one of the biggest employers in the area…

CNNMONEY – http://www.cnn.com

 

 

 

http://bit.ly/Mf97K6

Rental Property Depreciation…

Tax Savings: Rental Property Depreciation Explained AUTHOR:

One reason you might consider investing in rental properties is to save money on federal income taxes. While this may be true, you should fully understand how rental properties and taxes work in order to determine whether you will save money from your rental property ownership.

If you’re already an investment property owner or are thinking about becoming a landlord, here’s a refresher on how the depreciation expense could help you maximize your tax savings.

The basics

In doing your annual 1040 federal income tax return, you’ll record your rent and all expenses on a Schedule E form. The net amount of gain or (loss) is then recorded on your 1040 form and can shield your income from taxes if you had a loss. One of the bigger expenses on most rental property owners’ Schedule E is something called depreciation. Here’s how it works.

When you own property, each year you write off costs for money you expend where the cost is a one-year expense, such as gardening, general maintenance, repairs and HOA fees. But what if the cost is for an improvement such as a new kitchen or new sidewalks? Because those costs have a useful life beyond one year, you must “capitalize” and depreciate those costs. That means you divide the total cost by the useful life of the improvement, and write off 1/nth of the cost per year. For example, you do $15,000 worth of driveway and sidewalks, with a 15-year useful life, so you can write off $1,000 per year ($15,000 divided by 15 years).

The biggest capital asset of any property is the actual purchase of the house. When you buy a rental property and will own it for longer than one year, you can depreciate the structure. First you must divide the purchase price of the property between the land and the building. You can use your tax assessor’s estimate of the cost of each of those components, an appraisal or an insurance agent’s estimate of the cost of the building. Either way, you can only depreciate the building, as theoretically the land portion of your purchase price is not “used” up and cannot be depreciated.

Crunching the numbers

Here’s an example: Let’s say you buy a single-family home for $200,000. The tax assessor’s estimate of the land value is $75,000, and the building value estimate is $125,000. Your depreciation expense that you take each year against rental income would be $125,000 divided by the IRS allowed 27.5 years of useful life (residential real estate) for a depreciation expense each year of $4,545. So thanks to that depreciation expense, you are saving (assuming you can use passive activity losses) $4,545 multiplied by your marginal tax rate (which is a topic for another day). This could be tax savings from $1,000 to $2,000 per year, just for the depreciation amount.

The calculation and write-off are pretty straightforward, but the actual tax savings amount gets a little more complicated. Many people flub this calculation from the start, so it’s best to find a licensed tax professional and start saving some money going forward.

 

Assuming a Home Loan…

Real Estate Q&A: Is Assuming a Home Loan a Good Idea? Do I Need More Than One Title Insurance Policy?

Don’t Blame Tech Industry For High Home Prices…

Don't blame tech industry for tech hubs' high home prices

By:  | CNBC Real Estate Reporter
 

Housing in tech hubs is expensive. Just ask anyone in California. Home prices are in fact 82 percent higher in tech hubs than in other large metros, according to a report from Trulia. What is surprising, however, is that technology may not have contributed to that huge disparity, at least according to Trulia's chief economist Jed Kolko, who sifted through Census data to make his arguments.

"Housing in tech hubs was expensive even before the modern Internet era," noted Kolko. "In 1990, median price per square foot was 52 percent higher in tech hubs than in other large metros."

Powerfocusfotografie | Flickr | Getty Images
Victorian houses with San Francisco skyline.

So the tech industry didn't push prices higher. It was drawn to places that were already expensive. This may have been because these areas had major research universities, technically skilled workers, computer manufacturing industries or nice climates. Kolko points out that the year-over-year increase in home prices in tech hubs is actually in line with, not ahead of, the national trend; that is, after one accounts for the local severity of the housing bust.

Looking 10 tech hubs—San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego and San Jose, Calif.; Seattle; Middlesex County, Mass.; Raleigh, N.C.; Bethesda, Md.; Austin, Texas; and Washington, D.C.—the average price gain in 2013 was 13.4 percent from 2012. Compare that to an 11.4 percent gain for the 90 other large metros. The gap, Kolko argued, has to do with fact that tech hubs had steeper price declines during the housing crash but have fewer homes stuck in foreclosure today. If you adjust for that, the gap disappears.

(Read moreAll-cash offers crushing first-time homebuyers)

Still, there has been growing animosity, in San Francisco especially, that the influx of workers from Google has made the city increasingly unaffordable. Affordability actually varies pretty widely among the top 10 tech hubs. Just 14 percent of homes in San Francisco are considered affordable (based on median metro household income) compared with 60 percent in Raleigh, Bethesda and Washington, notes the Trulia report.

The reason San Francisco is so expensive may not be the high-paid tech workers, but a far more old-fashioned scenario: too little supply amid high demand.

(Read moreCold weather puts chill on home sales)

"Since 1990, there have been just 117 new housing units permitted per 1,000 housing units that existed in 1990 in San Francisco," Kolko said. "That's the lowest of the 10 tech hubs and among the lowest of all the 100 largest metros, even with the recent San Francisco construction boom."

Other tech hubs, like Raleigh and Austin, have 10 and eight times as much construction, respectively. The Bay Area's tough geography and regulatory environment have pushed development prices higher, limiting construction.

 

Micro-apartments on the rise in big cities…

Micro-apartments offer slight relief for San Francisco residents