The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has admitted to grossly overstating its numbers of reported home sales over the first years of this Lesser Depression. After the trusted real estate data firm CoreLogic questioned the accuracy of NAR’s numbers, the real estate trade union took a second look and revised its reported home sales data down by nearly 3.5 million homes.

Original NAR reports claimed 24.8 million homes were sold nationwide from January 2007 to October 2011. Revised data shows this figure to be off by 14% from readily available recorded data, with a total of only 21.3 million homes sold nationwide over the course of the Great Recession

(From: first tuesday)

The New York Times recently reported that “high value” homes are going to lose government support in the secondary mortgage market – and that that loss will likely further deteriorate the real estate recovery. It was right.

“By summer’s end,” it reported “buyers and sellers in some of the country’s most upscale housing markets are slated to lose their biggest benefactor of the economic downturn: the deep pockets of the federal government. In [Monterrey, CA, a] seaside community of pricey homes, the dread of yet another housing shock is already spreading.

‘We’re looking at more price drops, more foreclosures,’ said Rick Del Pozzo, a loan broker. ‘This snowball that’s been rolling downhill is going to pick up some speed.’

For the past three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods in high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans. With the economy in free fall, Congress broadened its traditionally generous support of housing to an unprecedented degree.

But Democrats and Republicans agree that the taxpayer should no longer be responsible for homes valued well above the national average and are about to turn a top slice of the housing market into a testing ground for whether the private mortgage market can once again go it alone. Michael Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities.

‘There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it, it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,’ said Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. ‘But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.’

As the housing market braces for the trouble, homeowners everywhere have been reduced to hoping things will some day stop getting worse. In some areas, foreclosures are the only thing selling. New-home construction is nearly nonexistent. And CoreLogic, a data company, said Tuesday that house prices fell 7.5 percent over the past year. Each month, the number of faltering cities rises.

Federal agencies last year backed nine out of 10 new mortgages nationwide, and losses from soured loans are still mounting. Fannie Mae, which buys mortgages from lenders and packages them for investors, said last week that it needed an additional $6.2 billion in aid, bringing the cost of its rescue to nearly $100 billion.

Getting the government out of the mortgage business, however, is proving much more difficult than doling out new benefits. As regulators prepare to drop the level at which they will guarantee loans — here in Monterey County, the level will drop by a third, to $483,000 — buyers and sellers are wondering why they should be punished simply for living in an expensive region. Sellers worry that the pool of potential buyers will shrink. ‘I’m glad to see they’re trying to rein in Fannie Mae, but I think I’m being disproportionately penalized,’ said Rayn Random, who is trying to sell her house in the hills for $849,000 so she can move to Florida.

The National Association of Realtors is making an extension of the loan guarantees a top lobbying priority.

‘Reducing the limits will put more downward pressure on prices,’ said president Ron Phipps. ‘I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense.’ But he said that in contrast to last year, when a one-year extension of the higher limits sailed through Congress, ‘there’s more resistance.’
Federal regulators acknowledge that mortgages will get more expensive in upscale neighborhoods but say the effect of the smaller guarantees on the overall housing market will be muted.”

Really? No “entitlement” to live in an expensive house? Let Wall Street come up with a private secondary market for expensive (i.e. anything over $500,000?) homes? Who are they kidding? Especially in CA, CT, NT, VT.

This “sock it to the ‘rich’” business is a bunch of baloney.

You may have heard? The future of FNMA and Freddie Mac is in jeopardy.

These Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) were originally created to provide a funding source for socially desireable but higher risk loans. When started, GSE’s provided funds for 30% of all loans. Today, that number is 90% — and steps are being taken in Congress to get government out of the lending business or at least scale it back.

Freddie Mac recently published a Memo that starting June 1st, they will no longer purchase loans with loan-to-value ratios of less than 5%. As these GSE’s retract from the marketplace, interest rates and down-payment requirements are likely to rise making home ownership less achievable.

But that’s OK (I guess). I’m sure some smart banker or government type will come up with the new ‘best thing ever’ and create a program to let people who can’t afford a house to buy one anyway. That is, after all, how we got into this mess in the first place.

“There is no consistency,” says Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of Realtors.   “In one quarter, a market may see a price increase and the next quarter a price decrease.”

I guess what you’ve been feeling in California is being felt all over the Nation.

Foreclosure is worse than death – at least when it comes to home values, according to a new MIT study.

The study done by an MIT economist and researchers from Harvard says that foreclosures reduce home values by an average of 27 percent. Comparatively, a home sold because of an owner’s death only reduces the value by 5-7 percent and a home sold as the result of bankruptcy only drops the value by about 3 percent.

The researchers used data garnered from homes sales in Massachusetts over the past two decades. Their study also showed that the value of homes within 250 feet of a foreclosure sale also drop by about one percent. And, not surprisingly, lower priced neighborhoods experience greater discounts for foreclosure properties – primarily because, researchers said, lenders are incentivized by higher fixed costs of owning the property due to vandalism.

Single women accounted for more 2009 home purchases than single men at a rate of more than 2 to 1, according to a recent National Association of REALTORS report.

Unmarried women accounted for 21 percent of home purchases in 2009, compared with unmarried men who were 10% of the buyers. The predominant markets for single women home buyers were in California, Texas and Washington, D.C.

From a MarketWatch article:

Still, some industry professionals have been slow to take note of females’ robust activity. Single women have held steady at the 20 % mark for more than five years, yet when the Urban Land Institute hosted its annual real-estate conference in late April, analysts had to remind the audience to expect big numbers from young, single female buyers.

“I’ve given some of my [home-building] clients lessons on how to be gender friendly,” said Brooke Warrick, president of the market research firm American Lives. He reminded sellers to treat young women as viable buyers, not bystanders, by doing something as simple as handing them a brochure when they enter a for-sale home.

Sara Barger, 26, plays with her tenant’s dog outside of the Columbia Heights home she purchased in January, her third buy in three years.

His advice to real-estate developers: “Make sure to pay enough attention to these women. You want these women.”

These women tend to stake their claim on homes in the 1,700-square-foot range predominantly in the Washington, D.C., California and Texas markets, Warrick said.

After segmenting the market, Warrick noticed that young women, especially those rooted in secure industries like health care, make more money than their male peers.

“I think it’s the fact that more and more women realize that a man is no longer the financial plan.”

According to Housing in America: The Next Decade, a new research report authored by John K. McIlwain, senior resident fellow, Urban Land Institute/J. Ronald Terwilliger Chair for Housing, there are four major “demographic waves” that will affect the U.S. housing market in the next decade:

Aging baby boomers (55 to 64 years old)- Although they are nearing retirement age, many will keep working out of necessity or by choice. Some will be forced to stay in their suburban homes until values recover. Those who are able to move will not choose traditional retirement locations or senior housing, opting instead for more mixed-age living environments that cater to their active lifestyles. Suburban town centers with a walkable urban “feel” will appeal to this group.

Younger baby boomers (46 to 54 years old) –Now in or entering their prime earning years, this group will also face a tough time selling suburban homes, hampering the ability of these boomers to move. Because the recession has left many younger boomers with flat incomes and less home equity, their ability to purchase second homes will be greatly diminished, curbing prospects in general for the second home market. However, like their older counterparts, they will be drawn to more connected, compactly designed communities when they are able to switch houses.

Generation Y- This tech-savvy generation has a population of about 86 million, more than the baby boomers. Gen Yers place high value on community; on places (either virtual or actual) to gather and share information, ideas and opinions. As they enter the housing market, they will be far less interested in home ownership than their parents were when they were young adults. (The recession, said McIlwain, has “tempered the interest of Gen Yers in buying their own homes and they will be renters by necessity or choice for years ahead”). Despite having small incomes, Gen Y will gravitate toward walkable, close-in communities, choosing isolated housing on outer edges only as a last resort because it is the most affordable. Green, “net zero” homes powered exclusively by alternative energy will have strong appeal to this group.

Immigrants- Already 40 million strong, the total population of legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. has an even greater impact when the children and grandchildren are included as a factor. The tendency of immigrants to cluster, and to live in multi-generational households, suggests that they would prefer larger homes if they could afford them and if the homes were in neighborhoods with a strong sense of community.