As interest increases to use eminent domain to assist underwater homeowners, there is opposition in Maryland.
Eminent domain has not received as much attention since the controversial decision in the 2005 case Kelo v. City of New London. However, the issue could become a hotly debated topic in the current session of the Maryland General Assembly, since the introduction of HB1365/SB850 Real Property – Prohibition on Acquiring Mortgages or Deeds of Trust by Condemnation on February 7th; the bills propose the prohibition of acquiring mortgages through eminent domain, stating, “The use of eminent domain to acquire mortgages undermines the sanctity of the contractual relationship between a borrower and a creditor.”
The issue of using eminent domain as a vehicle to restructure underwater mortgages became a national conversation in 2012, when a few municipalities began the discussion as a means to assist underwater homeowners. The plan caught the attention of Baltimore officials, who began a discussion last year of doing something similar.
As the housing market slowly recovers, many homeowners are emerging from a negative equity position on their homes. According to the Zillow Negative Equity Report (zillow.com), the national negative equity rate for homeowners with a mortgage dropped to 21% during Q3 2013 (from a peak of 31.4% during Q1 2012); while 14.7% of homeowners who own their home free and clear are underwater. Regional statistics vary depending on the strength of the local markets compared to peak home values.
The Baltimore Sun reports that about 13% of mortgages in the Baltimore-Towson area are underwater; neighborhood percentages vary, and there some with significantly more underwater homeowners (Some call on city to explore eminent domain to combat blight; Program targets underwater mortgages, By Natalie Sherman; The Baltimore Sun; November 25, 2013).
A recent industry article looks at the back story and status such plans, as well as discussing some practical considerations. The article asserts that the concept is “far from dead,” stating that “…Local government and community leaders have legitimate concerns about their constituents, many of whom are struggling with mortgage payments on inflated loans that have made their homes unaffordable, and nearly impossible for them to sell without sufficient equity to pay off the loans…” However, the conclusion states that such a plan at present “…appears wrought with complications and does not appear likely to lead to any significant chance of furthering its stated “public” purpose-economic development…” The result may be “lengthy and expensive legal battles; and possible disruptions or changes to the credit industry, which decrease access to mortgages and/or increase interest rates (Dellapelle & Kestner (2013). Underwater mortgages: Can eminent domain bail them out? Real Estate Issues, 38(2), 42-47).
In response to the effort to implement eminent domain in such a way, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA.gov), the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the regulator of the Federal Home Loan Banks asked for public input; and subsequently issued a General Counsel Memorandum on August 7th 2013:
The General Counsel Memorandum was a summary and analysis of the public comments and input regarding the use of eminent domain to restructure mortgages. The memo discussed a number of legal issues as well as issues that relate to the FHFA. The memo stated the pros and cons of such a plan too: Proponents claimed “…if securities have lost value, then the proper and fair valuation of mortgages backing the securities through eminent domain results in no loss to a securities investor, but permits a restructuring of a loan that would benefit homeowners and stabilize housing values…” while opponents point to “…numerous legal problems with the proposed use of eminent domain; some centered on the proper use of eminent domain itself and others on attendant constitutional issues related to taking of property or sanctity of contract. Opponents noted strong reaction of financial markets that support home financing in terms of upsetting existing contracts but as well creating an unworkable situation for providing and pricing capital based on the uncertainty of such a use of eminent domain…” However, the conclusion states, “…there is a rational basis to conclude that the use of eminent domain by localities to restructure loans for borrowers that are “underwater” on their mortgages presents a clear threat to the safe and sound operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks as provided in federal law…”
Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.
After much speculation, new mortgage and appraisal rules have recently been revealed and will go into effect in January. Combined with the recent news of FHA’s reduction of loan limits (authorized increased limits sunset the end of 2013), there’s been a lot of buzz about how the housing market and home buyers could be affected.
On December 18th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) launched a campaign to educate consumers about new mortgage rules that go into effect January 10th; specific information and fact sheets can be found at consumerfinance.gov. Among the new rules, several include: the creation of the Qualified Mortgage (QM); new mortgage servicing rules; and additional protections financially challenged borrowers.
The QM is classified by the CFPB as a loan which qualified borrowers are presumed to be able to repay; and is described as a “safer” loan compared to some of loans originated prior to the mortgage crisis. One of the main features of a QM, as of January 10th, is that mortgage lenders will have to assess the borrower’s ability to repay. Additionally, the borrower cannot exceed a total monthly debt-to-income ratio (all monthly obligations including mortgage payments) of 43%. Although lenders must make an effort to determine a consumer’s ability to repay based on typical factors including: income, assets, and debts; the new rules do not eliminate all subprime mortgages.
Two additional features of a QM include safer terms and limiting points and fees. A QM cannot have loan terms that have been attributed to “risky” loans, such as negative amortization or interest only payments. Furthermore, if you are directly paying a mortgage broker to originate your loan, they can no longer receive additional payment by another party for the same transaction; a QM is limited to 3% of the loan amount for points and fees.
To assist borrowers, the CFPB has set new mortgage servicing rules that include: providing clear mortgage statements that show how payments are credited; addressing mistakes promptly; crediting payments when received; and providing early notice for adjustable interest rate increase.
To assist borrowers facing financial challenges, the CFPB institutes rules that include: foreclosure cannot be initiated prior to 120 days delinquent; a foreclosure cannot be initiated if a complete application for mortgage assistance has been submitted; servicer call centers must be able to answer borrower questions relating to critical documents; as well as providing accurate and timely foreclosure status to borrowers who ask.
Financially challenged borrowers seeking assistance through their mortgage servicer have additional protections. Borrowers who make application for loss mitigation early on must have all their options evaluated with one application; an explanation must be provided to borrowers rejected for loss mitigation; and borrowers could appeal a loan modification rejection based on the servicer’s mistakes.
New appraisal rules instituted by the CFPB become effective January 18th. Although these rules do not apply to all mortgages, typically a borrower should expect: a licensed appraiser; an interior of the property, and a copy of the appraisal prior to closing. Additionally, a second appraisal is required for a home that is considered a “flip;” a home sale that has sold in the previous six months is classified as a flip.
Although some have speculated the new rules, along with reduced FHA loan limits, will limit the availability of mortgages for some home buyers; others see the resurgence of the subprime mortgage to fill the gap.
New mortgage rules, lowered FHA loan limits, and other new changes are increasing investor backing of non-conforming mortgages.
Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.
A new economic paradigm for housing markets. The new real estate economics are about recovery trends and bubble fears.
Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors®, stated in a November 8th news release, “…existing-home sales have shown a 20 percent cumulative increase over the past two years, while prices have gained 18 percent, but incomes have risen only 2 to 4 percent in the same timeframe.” Additionally, it is expected that existing home sales to maintain 2013 gains through 2014; and home prices to continue and upward trend (realtor.org).
The 2014 prediction for U.S. housing sounds great. But does this mean we are expecting increased multiple offer situations with further plummeting of average days on market? In a post housing bubble world, some wonder if this year’s real estate activity is sustainable – maybe it was no coincidence that some descriptions of hot housing markets sounded like the go-go market that occurred during the housing bubble years. And yet with hindsight, should we be concerned about “priming the pumps” for another housing bubble?
Sentiment about over-valued markets around the world was expressed by none other than Robert Shiller. Shiller, of the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index, won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences this year for the “empirical analysis of asset prices.” And if Robert Shiller is talking about over-valued markets, maybe we should listen.
Shiller’s book, “Irrational Exuberance” is said to have made the argument for the dot-come (2000 edition) and housing (2005 edition) bubbles, as well as predicting the subsequent market crashes. (Interestingly, the book title is said to be taken from an Allan Greenspan speech described the rapid cycling stock market activity of the mid 1990’s.)
Two weeks after Janet Yellen’s confirmation hearings to become Chairperson of the Fed, Robert Shiller was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel. Yellen’s responses to Senators during the hearing suggested that there were no bubbles in equities and housing, although she conceded that bubbles are hard to predict; while Shiller expressed concern about over-valued equities in many markets throughout the world, as well as a sharp rise in home prices in some global real estate markets (including some U.S. real estate markets such as Las Vegas). Shiller made specific mention of the U.S. Stock market saying that data is suggesting an equities bubble. However, as he cautioned that it might be too early to sound the alarm, there is an expectation that the market will go even higher.
Is this the new real estate economics?
Are bubbles such a bad thing? Economist Matthew Klein (Is the Only Choice Bubbles or Recession?; Bloomberg; Nov 19, 2013) speculates that bubbles may actually be an important part of a modern economic cycle that allows for growth in various sectors. He states “…bubbles can transform wealth that would otherwise be stashed in government bonds and other safe assets into income for those who work in the expanding parts of the economy.” However, many economists assert that eroding wealth and savings to artificially grow an economy is dangerous and unsustainable.
How will real estate economics play out? Getting back to the NAR press release, Yun credited the current sales and price trends to a lack of housing inventory and buyer demand. Unfortunately, housing inventory is at about a thirteen year low; and unless inventory increases we can expect an interesting year ahead.
If you’re like most home sellers and buyers – you want an edge over your competition. What better way to get the edge than having a way to predict the market. If you don’t have a working crystal ball, there are a few methods to forecast and measure housing (some of which have been used in empirical research).
Various studies demonstrate that you can assess and somewhat predict activity in a housing market; which, albeit in hindsight, can assist home sellers and buyers in determining whether it is a good time to sell or buy a home. For example, I recently wrote about gauging real estate through divorce and premarital agreements; which discussed the implications of these life events to the housing market. The increase in prenups could indicate an increased perception in the value of home ownership and possibly the overall housing market.
Another recent study indicated that it may be possible to determine home pricing through internet search data. Beracha and Wintoki (Forecasting Residential Real Estate Price Changes from Online Search Activity; The Journal of Real Estate Research 35.3 (2013): 283-312.) set out to find out if keyword search engine data from Google could determine price shifts in various cities. They concluded that this may be the first study that directly links “aggregated” search engine data to “abnormal crosssectional home price changes.”
Essentially, the research established that you can figure out metro housing market activity through Google Trends and Google Insights, which provide keyword volume measurement in internet searches. The study examined the keywords “real estate [city]” from 2004 through 2011, and concluded that “…cities associated with abnormally high real estate search intensity consistently outperform cities with abnormally low real estate search volume by as much as 8.5% over a two-year period.”
And although the study’s authors discussed prior research linking internet keyword searches and consumer behavior, they caution that there are a number of keywords related to real estate that may be more relevant than the keywords used in their study. Regardless, the authors assume that their results may be useful in home sales and purchases. More importantly, it may seem as if their results may strengthen the link between specific search engine keywords (e.g, “real estate Rockville” or “real estate Bethesda”) and the ability to predict a housing bubble, or possibly home price peaks.
Generalized, “global” data, such as those described in Beracha and Wintoki’s study, and their meaning may be interesting; however, limiting yourself to such indiscriminate analysis for your home sale or purchase could be disadvantageous. Global data does not distinguish the many factors that impact regional markets; nor can it sort out differences within a local market (neighborhood data within a region can vary significantly).
Using “global” tools may be useful; however, if you are planning a home sale or purchase – seek out the assistance of a local Realtor®. Your real estate agent has access to local specific data that is reported through the MLS. Using MLS data, your agent can prepare a market analysis that compares your home to recent neighborhood sales; the breakdown can put your home in perspective and can give you a price range to assist you in listing or purchasing the home. Additionally, your agent can provide a hyper-local trend analysis so as to help you understand what to expect from the local housing market.
There are no courthouse default notices, and it is unlikely for real estate investors to go knocking on the white house doors to try to purchase it as a short sale. Although a government default is not quite the same as a default on your mortgage, a government default will nonetheless have consequences in the housing market.
A U.S. default would be uncharted economic waters; there is no way to know exactly what will happen – but it will most certainly not be good. When speculating about the consequences of a government default, some talk about 1930’s Germany and 1990’s Russia; these defaults occurred for different reasons and had different outcomes.
Experts discuss a possible consequence of a government default to be an almost immediate economic recession, which could rapidly evolve into a depression. The resulting shock from a possible economic contraction would filter through the economy and would no doubt result in mass layoffs. And just like the most recent recession, mass unemployment had deleterious effects in the housing market and real estate industry resulting in waves of foreclosures and property devaluation.
Other possible outcomes of a default could be runaway inflation, sky high interest rates, and/or general economic calamity. In these scenarios, forget about a housing recovery; home buyers could find it exponentially difficult to obtain a mortgage to buy a home. Homeowners who have fixed rate mortgages should be safe from payment increases; however those with adjustable rate mortgages could possibly see interest rate increases hitting adjustment caps.
In an October 9th article, Morgan Housel wrote (“What Happens If the U.S. Defaults on Its Debt?”; fool.com); “…Those holding bad mortgage debt fared the worst in 2008, but financial pain spread throughout the entire financial system, and to areas that had nothing to do with real estate. The reason was fear. If the global financial system is built on credit, it is supported by trust. When you remove trust, people hide now and ask questions later. The system freezes. I don’t want to lend to you because you might hold something bad, or be lending to someone who is holding something bad, or be lending to someone who is lending to someone who is holding something bad. So people just wait. Credit stops flowing, and as we learned in 2008, that simply devastates the economy… But a credit crisis doesn’t need to last long to bring the house down. Lehman Brothers was well capitalized two days before it was bankrupt…”
Fear is a very powerful emotion that can be used to influence popular beliefs and behavior. As congressional budget talks have been at a standstill, talk of a government default seems to be on everyone’s mind as we approach the debt ceiling. And although we fear a government default, the distinction must be made between default and debt ceiling.
Put in a very simple way: raising the debt ceiling is akin to asking for an increase in your credit card limit. However, you don’t default just because your credit limit is not raised; you default when you fail to make payments on your debt. Even if there is no debt ceiling increase, many experts agree that a chance of a U.S. default is slim; it has been estimated that treasury revenue is much more than the amount needed for debt servicing. Regardless, the fear of a government default is enough to chill the housing market.
Disclaimer. This article is not intended to provide nor should it be relied upon for legal and financial advice. Readers should not rely solely on the information contained herein, as it does not purport to be comprehensive or render specific advice. Readers should consult with an attorney regarding local real estate laws and customs as they vary by state and jurisdiction. Using this article without permission is a violation of copyright laws.
As interest increases to use eminent domain to assist underwater homeowners, there is opposition in Maryland.
As interest increases to use eminent domain to assist underwater homeowners, there is opposition in Maryland.
