New Mortgage Regulations Put Off Until October

Perhaps in a rare admission that what they are about to do will cause havoc, the Federal government has announced that the new proposed regulations affecting real estate closings will be postponed from August til October.  As far as we can tell,  most closings will be harder to schedule and more likely to be delayed, since any change at all to the documents will require a three-day waiting period, each time something is altered.  This means, in all practicality, that there will be no back-to-back closings, where people sell one house and buy another.  That means no moving from the old home to the new in many cases--a major glitch for lots of families. 


What does the delay mean for you?  You have two more months to get into the pipeline for a mortgage under the old rules.  So hurry up!

Rates Are Creeping Up

Here's a shout out to all those buyers out there who are waiting to be sure that real estate prices have hit bottom:  You may succeed in buying when prices have passed the bottom, but you may lose on rates.  Although the Fed has signaled that it won't be raising its rates any time soon, the mortgage rates are more creatures of supply and demand, as well as bank appetites for new loans.  Rates also tend to follow a seasonal pattern--lowest at election time (what a surprise!), and higher in the busiest spring buying season).

 I get rates sent to me on a weekly basis, and it's clear that they are headed up.  If you have waited this long to buy, don't make the mistake of continuing to wait.  They may go back down in the fall, but, by then, prices will have risen.  Buyers have increasingly begun to think of the cost of housing as the cost of the monthly payment, since that matters far more to them than the actual price of the home at any given time.  Not only are mortgage rates heading higher, but insurance and taxes have risen in most places as well.  Buy now, or regret it later!

An Idea to Move the Market

Much thought and discussion went into the enactment and extension of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and it clearly impacted the market, both while it was in effect, and after it expired. It moved sales for last year into the first half, and the immediate drop in activity and sales beginning last July proved that it motivated people to buy before it ran out.

Although I have my issues with that credit, both in terms of policy and in practice, there is no question that it made a difference while it was in effect, and that the market responded. It is also clear that the jump start that the government must have hoped that it would give to real estate did not occur, as sales fell off as soon as it was over. In retrospect, I think that the government was right in thinking that we needed that kind of stimulus, and I think we need to try again. After all, cash for clunkers helped the auto industry, the TARP money helped the financial industry, and real estate is still lagging. It is hard to imagine any real recovery taking place without our industry improving.

My problem with the first-time homebuyer credit was that it aimed at exactly the people who would buy in any type of market: those forming households; and renters with no homes to sell. One of the main problems with the current market is that it is stopped up, because sellers who can sell refuse to do so, because they feel that they are losing equity, even though that perceived equity may have been phantom gains.

In order to give an incentive for those who can to sell now, and to buy something else, I propose that the government offer a one-time tax credit for sellers who will lose equity when they sell, on the same terms and up to the same amount as the first-time credit. So, for example, someone who paid $200,000 for her house and now is selling for $180,000 could deduct up to $8000 on her tax bill this year. I believe that the market may now be ready for the jump start that such a program could provide, and that it would help even more than the last incentive, since it would both produce a supply of homes for others to buy, and sales for developers and other sellers when those people buy a new place to live. It's time for bold action, and helping the housing industry would be good for everyone.

Stimulus Needs Stimulating

Last year, when the first-time homebuyers incentive plan was introduced by the Federal government, there was a clear uptick in the number of buyers in the market. This year, the plan was reintroduced, along with a second incentive for existing homebuyers. It was obviously another, supposedly stronger, attempt to increase home sales.

Well, this time it doesn't seem to be working. Most brokers, including the one I spoke to this week in Phoenix, don't see the results. There could be more than one reason for this. First of all, most things like this--including big sales at stores--work better when people think that they are limited in time. If they think that deals will be offered again or extended, they are not as likely to move quickly. Secondly, it keeps getting harder for new buyers to get mortgages. This means that there may be buyers out there who want to buy, but who cannot qualify with the higher FICO scores now required. That last point is not necessarily a bad thing. If we can just stop and remember how we got into this mess, we will want banks to think twice before loaning to those who may not be able to repay.

I believe that there is also a fundamental flaw in the stimulus package, however. The government is trying to push demand from first-time buyers, who comprise the one group who will buy in almost any situation where they can. After all, they haven't bought homes at lower prices or with lower mortgage rates. They are generally buying because of changing life circumstances, and graduations, marriages, and babies happen regardless of the economy. Also, there are, in the end, only so many new households being formed. It might have made more sense to give the incentive to folks who didn't have the same motivation to move. After all, isn't it a little like giving a car price break only to teens?