The red line was my attempt to create a predictor for sales but it hasn't been working out so well since May of this last year. IMHO, it appears that some pendings are being double counted, instead of falling out and going BOM (which would reduce my predictor), they are just switching buyers and updating the pending date which gets them counted in the current months pendings again. This is supposition on my part since I don't know how SRAR constructs their numbers but nothing much else makes sense. But the predictor is saying sales will rise slightly for April.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
San Fernando Valley home sales report - March 2010
The red line was my attempt to create a predictor for sales but it hasn't been working out so well since May of this last year. IMHO, it appears that some pendings are being double counted, instead of falling out and going BOM (which would reduce my predictor), they are just switching buyers and updating the pending date which gets them counted in the current months pendings again. This is supposition on my part since I don't know how SRAR constructs their numbers but nothing much else makes sense. But the predictor is saying sales will rise slightly for April.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Max FHA Debt to Income ratios.
One may ask why they have determined the maximum affordable payment for HAMP mods is 31% (front end) on one hand but on the other FHA allows up to 47%. The FHA says it requires "compensating factors" (a few months worth of savings or things like a higher than minimum down payment) to get those DTI ratios but some of the compensating factors appear that they can easily be gamed.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Half a percent down FHA in California
99.5% FHA Program
Regular 96.5% FHA first
3% Second for Down Payment
Only SFR and FHA Approved Condos, No multiunit
Ratios up to 43%
Income Limits vary per County. In LA $74,520, in RI & SB $77,400, in OC
$103,320.
No First Time Homebuyer Requirement
Gifts OK
This is a downpayment assistance grant (yes, some are still legal) from National Homebuyers Fund.
"Ratios up to 43%" means either the Total or back end ratio maxes at 43% of debt to income. If it is Total ratio then conceivably someone with no debt could get a housing payment of 43% of total income.
"Gifts OK" means someone can give the borrower the funds and they can come to the table with none of their own money.
There are income limits, they can be found here.
By the way, the underwriting, like the above terms is considered "conservative" for FHA. This is why the loan end is doing so well, they are giving out very risky loans to very marginal borrowers for very little down. I'll post a little bit more on FHA later on.
Why it happened and Why it wont be fixed
On the causes:
The first Rajan fault line lies in the U.S. As incomes at the top soared, politicians responded to middle-class angst about stagnant wages and insecurity over jobs and health insurance. Since they couldn't easily raise incomes—Mr. Rajan is in the camp that sees better education as the only cure and that takes time—politicians of both parties gave constituents more to spend by fostering an explosion of credit, especially for housing.Since politicians can't make companies pay more and have been horrible about fixing what ails our educational system they take the short term easy road and try to allow cheap and easy credit to replace their (and our) failings. We have made it where anyone who gets into college can get a loan and anyone who wants a house can get a house. But taking on a bunch of debt isn't the solution to stagnant and declining incomes. But you can't get voted in on telling the constituency to work harder and learn more.
A third Rajan fault line spread the crisis. The U.S. approach to recession-fighting—unemployment insurance and the like—and its social safety net are geared for fast, quick recoveries of the past, not for jobless recoveries now the norm. That puts pressure on Washington to do something: tax cuts, spending increases and very low interest rates. This leads big finance to assume, consciously or unconsciously, that the government will keep the money flowing and will step in if catastrophe occurs.
Compounded by hubris, envy, greed, short-sighted compensation schemes and follow-the-herd habits, these expectations that the government will save us all leads big finance to borrow cheaply and take ever bigger risks. No democratic government can let ordinary folk suffer when the harshness of the market brings the party to an end, as it inevitable does. Big finance exploits what Mr. Rajan calls this "government
decency" and bets accordingly.
I thought this part of the article was great. Our political & monetary system is geared to fight the last war. Even at this late of the bubble popping stage the politicians haven't correctly identified the cause and effects which means the solutions they are working on won't work. The capital system has adjusted to the blind spots just fine. There comes a point where very hard decision will have to be made and it will effect wealthy and poor alike. The politicians would like to put the burden on the top 1% or top 10% but the structural issues have gone on far too long for the burden to be borne by anyone but the whole of society.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
California Shadow Inventory Report - Q1 - 2010
This is a simple graph to show the accumulation (or lack thereof) of REO inventory. When the blue line is above the green line REO inventory could be accumulating. I say "could be" because the green line is merely the number of homes sold during the quarter that were foreclosed in the past 12 months, so investors trustee flips would be captured in the data as well. I think the blue line will elevate somewhat but the two lines will stay pretty close as it makes little sense to foreclose and not market the home.
I am very doubtful of the tsunami theory simply because the government has said it is not what they wish to happen and they have gone to great lengths for it not to happen. What we will have instead is stagnation in the market for a very very long time. I have been assured by people much smarter than I that this is "better". It very well could be better for some but it is worse for others and this choosing of who wins and who loses is fine if you win and a kick in the nuts if you lose. One can guess which side I am on.