The home-equity line of credit fueled thousands of extreme kitchen makeovers during the real estate boom. But the housing bust and the credit crisis stopped the HELOC party with a vengeance: Tens of thousands of homeowners had their lines cut or frozen, and most lenders stopped issuing new ones altogether.
But don't give up on the HELOC yet. As housing prices and the economy begin to stabilize, it's coming back. Many lenders are writing lines again, says MortgageBot, a company that processes real estate loans, albeit half as many as it did during the boom days. True, HELOCs are no longer the screaming deal they once were. Lenders used to offer the lines for half a percentage point below the prime rate (currently 3.25%), but now the cheapest you're likely to find is prime plus a point or so. Most lines also have a floor, or the lowest possible rate they can go, of about 4%.
That said, if you have more than 20% equity in your home, a line of credit can still be a relatively cheap way to borrow -- and it's a far better source of emergency cash than your credit card. "Think of a HELOC as a belt and suspenders," says Oakland money manager Marjorie Bennett. To make sure you get the most out of it, follow the rules below.
Don't borrow the max
The days when banks would lend you 100% or more of the value of your home are long gone, of course. Most lenders won't approve a line that brings your total housing debt to more than 80% of your home's value, and you'll need a minimum 740 credit score to get that much.
0:00 /2:06A rare case of mortgage reduction
But there are good reasons to borrow less. Depending where you live, you probably can't rely on a rising real estate market to knock down your housing debt. You should aim to keep your total monthly debt payments at no more than a third of your take-home pay. Keep in mind that as the economy recovers, HELOC rates will rise too, so borrow only what you could keep up with if rates jump, says financial adviser Don Whalen of Alpharetta, Ga. If you were to take out a $75,000 HELOC today, for example, you'd owe $344 a month in interest; if rates rise a couple of percentage points the monthly tab will jump to $469.
Use it the right way
By now you almost certainly know that using your home-equity line for frivolities like vacation packages and plasma screens is asking for trouble. Other traditional uses may or may not still make sense:
Home improvements. Tapping your HELOC to fund necessary projects like a roof replacement is still worthwhile: You can deduct interest on up to $1 million when you use HELOC funds to improve a first or second home, which in turn sharply lowers the real cost of the loan. Renovations that won't necessarily pay for themselves, like a media room or a deluxe kitchen? Take a pass.
Car loans. At a 7.3% rate, a three-year new-car loan costs a lot more than a line of credit. A HELOC can be a good substitute -- as long as you expect to pay it back within a few years. You may be able to write off the interest. Though the rules are complicated, in general you can deduct interest on a HELOC for up to $100,000 of non-home-related uses.
Student loans. Max out government-backed Stafford and PLUS loans first. The interest on these loans is usually tax deductible, and they often offer flexible repayment plans. But if you have to take a private loan, a HELOC can be a cheaper alternative.
Small business. Entrepreneurs have long used HELOCs as easy business lines of credit to smooth out bumpy income. Steer clear of that unless you're confident the business is solid, says Newtown, Pa., financial adviser Jonathan Heller.
Make sure you keep it
If you're going to use a HELOC as an emergency fund, you have to make sure your line isn't pulled out from under you. Most banks have stopped freezing existing HELOCs, but that could happen if real estate values drop in your neighborhood. Your best defense is to use your line regularly, even if you take out just $500 at a time. Even during the worst of the credit crisis, issuers weren't freezing or closing HELOCs that were in use as long as the homeowners weren't underwater, says financial adviser Kevin Reardon of Brookfield, Wis.
If you think you'll need to use your HELOC in a few months and are concerned that it could get chopped, borrow the funds now and park them in an FDIC-insured account to keep them safe. Then start paying the loan back ASAP.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
If You Don’t Buy a House Now, You’re Stupid or Broke
Well, you may not be stupid or broke. Maybe you already have a house and you don't want to move. Or maybe you're a Trappist monk and have forsworn all earthly possessions. Or whatever. But if you want to buy a house, now is the time, and if you don't act soon, you will regret it. Here's why: historically low interest rates.
As of today, the average 30-year fixed-rate loan with no points or fees is around 5%. That, as the graph above—which you can find on Mortgage-X.com—shows, is the lowest the rate has been in nearly 40 years.
In fact, rates are so well below historic averages that it should make all current and prospective homeowners take notice of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
And it is exactly that, based on what the graph shows us. Let's look at the point on the far left.
In 1970 the rate was approximately 7.25%. After hovering there for a couple of years, it began a trend upward, landing near 10% in late 1973. It settled at 8.5% to 9% from 1974 to the end of 1976. After the rise to 10%, that probably seemed O.K. to most home buyers.
But they weren't happy soon thereafter. From 1977 to 1981, a period of only 60 months, the 30-year fixed rate climbed to 18%. As I mentioned in one of my previous articles, my dad was one of those unluckily stuck needing a loan at that time.
Interest Rate Lessons
And when rates started to decline after that, they took a long time to recede to previous levels. They hit 9% for a brief time in 1986 and bounced around 10% to 11% until 1990. For the next 11 years through 2001, the rates slowly ebbed and flowed downward, ranging from 7% to 9%. We've since spent the last nine years, until very recently, at 6% to 7%. So you can see why 5% is so remarkable.
So, what can we learn from the historical trends and numbers?
First, rates have far further to move upward than downward; for more than 30 years, 7% was the low and 18% the high. The norm was 9% in the 1970s, 10% in the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, 7% to 8% for much of the 1990s, and 6% only over the last handful of years.
Second, the last time the long-term trends reversed from low to high, it took more than 20 years (1970 to 1992) for the rate to get back to where it was, and 30 years to actually start trending below the 1970 low.
Finally, the most important lesson is to understand the actual financial impact the rate has on the cost of purchasing and paying off a home.
Every quarter-point change in interest rates is equivalent to approximately $6,000 for every $100,000 borrowed over the course of a 30-year fixed. While different in each region, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the average person is putting $40,000 down and borrowing $200,000 to pay the price of a typical home nationwide. Thus, over the course of the life of the loan, each quarter-point move up in interest rates will cost that buyer $12,000.
Loan Costs
Stay with me now. We are at 5%. As you can see by the graph above, as the economy stabilizes, it is reasonable for us to see 30-year fixed rates climb to 6% within the foreseeable future and probably to a range of 7% to 8% when the economy is humming again. If every quarter of a point is worth $12,000 per $200,000 borrowed, then each point is worth almost $50,000.
Let's put that into perspective. You have a good stable job (yes, unemployment is at 10%, but another way of looking at that figure is that most of us have good stable jobs). You would like to own a $240,000 home. However, even though home prices have steadied, you may be thinking you can get another $5,000 or $10,000 discount if you wait (never mind the $8,500 or $6,500 tax credit due to run out next spring). Or you may be waiting for the news to tell you the economy is "more stable" and it's safe to get back in the pool. In exchange for what you may think is prudence, you will risk paying $50,000 more per point in interest rate changes between now and the time you decide you are ready to buy. And you are ignoring the fact that according to the Case-Shiller index, home prices in most regions have been trending back up for the last several months.
If you are someone who is looking to buy or upgrade in the $350,000-to-$800,000 home price range, and many people out there are, then you're borrowing $300,000 to $600,000. At 7%, the $300,000 loan will cost just under $150,000 more over the lifetime, and the $600,000 loan an additional $300,000, if rates move up just 2% before you pull the trigger.
What I'm trying to impress upon everyone is that if you are planning on being a homeowner now and/or in the foreseeable future, or if you are looking to move your family into a bigger home, then pay more attention to the interest rates than the price of the home. If you have a steady job, good credit, and the down payment, then you really are being offered the gift of a lifetime.
As of today, the average 30-year fixed-rate loan with no points or fees is around 5%. That, as the graph above—which you can find on Mortgage-X.com—shows, is the lowest the rate has been in nearly 40 years.
In fact, rates are so well below historic averages that it should make all current and prospective homeowners take notice of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
And it is exactly that, based on what the graph shows us. Let's look at the point on the far left.
In 1970 the rate was approximately 7.25%. After hovering there for a couple of years, it began a trend upward, landing near 10% in late 1973. It settled at 8.5% to 9% from 1974 to the end of 1976. After the rise to 10%, that probably seemed O.K. to most home buyers.
But they weren't happy soon thereafter. From 1977 to 1981, a period of only 60 months, the 30-year fixed rate climbed to 18%. As I mentioned in one of my previous articles, my dad was one of those unluckily stuck needing a loan at that time.
Interest Rate Lessons
And when rates started to decline after that, they took a long time to recede to previous levels. They hit 9% for a brief time in 1986 and bounced around 10% to 11% until 1990. For the next 11 years through 2001, the rates slowly ebbed and flowed downward, ranging from 7% to 9%. We've since spent the last nine years, until very recently, at 6% to 7%. So you can see why 5% is so remarkable.
So, what can we learn from the historical trends and numbers?
First, rates have far further to move upward than downward; for more than 30 years, 7% was the low and 18% the high. The norm was 9% in the 1970s, 10% in the mid-1980s through the early 1990s, 7% to 8% for much of the 1990s, and 6% only over the last handful of years.
Second, the last time the long-term trends reversed from low to high, it took more than 20 years (1970 to 1992) for the rate to get back to where it was, and 30 years to actually start trending below the 1970 low.
Finally, the most important lesson is to understand the actual financial impact the rate has on the cost of purchasing and paying off a home.
Every quarter-point change in interest rates is equivalent to approximately $6,000 for every $100,000 borrowed over the course of a 30-year fixed. While different in each region, for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the average person is putting $40,000 down and borrowing $200,000 to pay the price of a typical home nationwide. Thus, over the course of the life of the loan, each quarter-point move up in interest rates will cost that buyer $12,000.
Loan Costs
Stay with me now. We are at 5%. As you can see by the graph above, as the economy stabilizes, it is reasonable for us to see 30-year fixed rates climb to 6% within the foreseeable future and probably to a range of 7% to 8% when the economy is humming again. If every quarter of a point is worth $12,000 per $200,000 borrowed, then each point is worth almost $50,000.
Let's put that into perspective. You have a good stable job (yes, unemployment is at 10%, but another way of looking at that figure is that most of us have good stable jobs). You would like to own a $240,000 home. However, even though home prices have steadied, you may be thinking you can get another $5,000 or $10,000 discount if you wait (never mind the $8,500 or $6,500 tax credit due to run out next spring). Or you may be waiting for the news to tell you the economy is "more stable" and it's safe to get back in the pool. In exchange for what you may think is prudence, you will risk paying $50,000 more per point in interest rate changes between now and the time you decide you are ready to buy. And you are ignoring the fact that according to the Case-Shiller index, home prices in most regions have been trending back up for the last several months.
If you are someone who is looking to buy or upgrade in the $350,000-to-$800,000 home price range, and many people out there are, then you're borrowing $300,000 to $600,000. At 7%, the $300,000 loan will cost just under $150,000 more over the lifetime, and the $600,000 loan an additional $300,000, if rates move up just 2% before you pull the trigger.
What I'm trying to impress upon everyone is that if you are planning on being a homeowner now and/or in the foreseeable future, or if you are looking to move your family into a bigger home, then pay more attention to the interest rates than the price of the home. If you have a steady job, good credit, and the down payment, then you really are being offered the gift of a lifetime.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
How to invest cash set aside for a down payment, if your time horizon is two years or less.
NEW YORK (Money) -- Question: My wife and I have two small kids and we're saving for a house that we'd like to buy within the next two years. We've got a significant pot of cash (more than $100,000) that we almost invested before the market tanked, but thankfully did not. I'm now wondering, however, whether I should invest some or all of it to grow our house fund more quickly or whether I should just keep this money liquid. What do you think? -- Dave, Boston, Mass.
Answer: I'm almost at a loss about what to say, Dave. I mean, you've already dodged one bullet with this cash. But here you are just a year later ready to throw yourself into the line of fire.
Let me be clear about this: Any money you're absolutely, positively going to need within the next two years -- whether to buy a house, pay college tuition, start a business, serve as an emergency reserve, whatever -- should not be invested in the stock market. Period.
Liquidity isn't the issue. Stocks and stock mutual funds are plenty liquid. You can sell them any trading day and have cash in your hands in a matter of days.
The real issue is volatility. If you invest this money in stocks, you can't be sure how much of it you'll have when you're ready to head to the closing table. If the markets are kind, you could end up with a lot more than $100,000, which would be terrific. But if the markets turn against you, you could be left with a lot less, which could wreak havoc with your house-buying plans.
I can understand why you might be tempted to invest some of this money in the market. Maybe you're thinking, hey, stocks have already taken a big dive recently. What are the chances of the market swooning again within the next couple of years? Or perhaps you figure that since the market's been doing so well since March, it's clearly on the road to recovery. So why not jump on board for some real gains, as opposed to those minuscule interest rates that money-market funds and CDs are paying?
Well, such musings could be on target. Or not. The fact is that you just can't be sure what stock prices will do in the short-term. That's true during times when the economy is cruising along without major problems, and it's certainly the case when the economy is still digging out of the worst credit crisis and recession since the Great Depression.
By no means am I suggesting that no one should invest in stocks now. As I've noted before even despite today's heightened sense of uncertainty, I believe stocks deserve a place in a diversified portfolio when one is investing for the long-term.
But you're in a different position than someone investing for a goal that's many years off. A long-term investor has time to rebound from market setbacks. You don't.
Now, is it possible that you might find a combination of stocks and bonds that will give you a shot at a little extra return without unduly jeopardizing your chances of having enough money when you're ready to buy?
Sure, that's theoretically possible. You could go to a calculator like Morningstar's Asset Allocator, plug in how much money you have, how much you plan to save and how much you want to accumulate -- and then move the sliders around to see how different combinations of stocks, bonds and cash affect your odds of reaching your goal.
But, frankly, in a case like this, where you have a very short-time period and you really need to act within that time frame -- i.e., postponing your home purchase by a few years isn't a viable option -- why subject yourself to even a small chance of having your plans fall through? You're better off taking the more conservative route and avoiding stocks and bonds altogether. After all, your goal here isn't to boost your returns, but to be sure you'll have the money you need when you need it.
So if investing in stocks and bonds is out, where should your money go?
Basically, cash equivalents where your principal isn't at risk. That pretty much means money-market funds, money-market accounts (for the difference between the two, click here and short-term CDs (those with maturities of say, one-year or less). And with money-market fund yields barely in the positive range, you're really talking either money-market accounts or short-term CDs, if you want a decent return.
Alas, "decent" isn't much these days. You'll get 1% or a bit more on average with money-market accounts and maybe a little extra on six-month and one-year CDs (although you can beat the averages with a little shopping around). But, remember, it's security you're after here, not lofty returns.
One final note: I don't know how much flexibility you have in your two-year time frame. But if you have some wiggle room, you might want to consider having a contract in place before May 1 and closing before July 1 of next year. If do that, you may be able to qualify for a tax credit under the recently passed Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. This legislation, which extends and expands an earlier version of the tax credit, provides a tax credit of as much as $8,000 for first-time homebuyers or up to $6,500 for certain repeat buyers.
This being a federal program, all sorts of rules, regulations and eligibility standards apply, but you can get the rundown on those by clicking here and here.
Of course, you don't want to buy if you're not really ready just to get the tax credit. But if your finances are in order and you've found a home that you, your wife and those two kids like, a nice tax credit could take some of the sting out of having your house stash languish in those low-yielding accounts.
Answer: I'm almost at a loss about what to say, Dave. I mean, you've already dodged one bullet with this cash. But here you are just a year later ready to throw yourself into the line of fire.
Let me be clear about this: Any money you're absolutely, positively going to need within the next two years -- whether to buy a house, pay college tuition, start a business, serve as an emergency reserve, whatever -- should not be invested in the stock market. Period.
Liquidity isn't the issue. Stocks and stock mutual funds are plenty liquid. You can sell them any trading day and have cash in your hands in a matter of days.
The real issue is volatility. If you invest this money in stocks, you can't be sure how much of it you'll have when you're ready to head to the closing table. If the markets are kind, you could end up with a lot more than $100,000, which would be terrific. But if the markets turn against you, you could be left with a lot less, which could wreak havoc with your house-buying plans.
I can understand why you might be tempted to invest some of this money in the market. Maybe you're thinking, hey, stocks have already taken a big dive recently. What are the chances of the market swooning again within the next couple of years? Or perhaps you figure that since the market's been doing so well since March, it's clearly on the road to recovery. So why not jump on board for some real gains, as opposed to those minuscule interest rates that money-market funds and CDs are paying?
Well, such musings could be on target. Or not. The fact is that you just can't be sure what stock prices will do in the short-term. That's true during times when the economy is cruising along without major problems, and it's certainly the case when the economy is still digging out of the worst credit crisis and recession since the Great Depression.
By no means am I suggesting that no one should invest in stocks now. As I've noted before even despite today's heightened sense of uncertainty, I believe stocks deserve a place in a diversified portfolio when one is investing for the long-term.
But you're in a different position than someone investing for a goal that's many years off. A long-term investor has time to rebound from market setbacks. You don't.
Now, is it possible that you might find a combination of stocks and bonds that will give you a shot at a little extra return without unduly jeopardizing your chances of having enough money when you're ready to buy?
Sure, that's theoretically possible. You could go to a calculator like Morningstar's Asset Allocator, plug in how much money you have, how much you plan to save and how much you want to accumulate -- and then move the sliders around to see how different combinations of stocks, bonds and cash affect your odds of reaching your goal.
But, frankly, in a case like this, where you have a very short-time period and you really need to act within that time frame -- i.e., postponing your home purchase by a few years isn't a viable option -- why subject yourself to even a small chance of having your plans fall through? You're better off taking the more conservative route and avoiding stocks and bonds altogether. After all, your goal here isn't to boost your returns, but to be sure you'll have the money you need when you need it.
So if investing in stocks and bonds is out, where should your money go?
Basically, cash equivalents where your principal isn't at risk. That pretty much means money-market funds, money-market accounts (for the difference between the two, click here and short-term CDs (those with maturities of say, one-year or less). And with money-market fund yields barely in the positive range, you're really talking either money-market accounts or short-term CDs, if you want a decent return.
Alas, "decent" isn't much these days. You'll get 1% or a bit more on average with money-market accounts and maybe a little extra on six-month and one-year CDs (although you can beat the averages with a little shopping around). But, remember, it's security you're after here, not lofty returns.
One final note: I don't know how much flexibility you have in your two-year time frame. But if you have some wiggle room, you might want to consider having a contract in place before May 1 and closing before July 1 of next year. If do that, you may be able to qualify for a tax credit under the recently passed Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009. This legislation, which extends and expands an earlier version of the tax credit, provides a tax credit of as much as $8,000 for first-time homebuyers or up to $6,500 for certain repeat buyers.
This being a federal program, all sorts of rules, regulations and eligibility standards apply, but you can get the rundown on those by clicking here and here.
Of course, you don't want to buy if you're not really ready just to get the tax credit. But if your finances are in order and you've found a home that you, your wife and those two kids like, a nice tax credit could take some of the sting out of having your house stash languish in those low-yielding accounts.
Friday, December 4, 2009
In real estate, nesting is the new flipping
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If flippers were the poster children of the real estate boom, then nesters are becoming the icons of the new housing market.
"We saw a nesting reaction after 9/11, but we're seeing a stronger nesting reaction now," said Bob Peterson, president of ABD Design/Build in Ft. Collins Colo. People who have the money are fixing up what they have."
A proportionally bigger share of the home construction dollar -- 20% more during the first three quarters of 2009 compared with the same period last year -- now goes to home improvements, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In October, remodeling spending increased 8.7% compared with September to an annualized rate of $114 billion.
Jeff Hunt, vice president of Houston-based Brothers Strong remodelers, said that after a long slow period starting early last fall, his business took off. "About Aug. 1, all the stuff in our pipeline broke loose all at once, and since then we've been so busy we can't see straight."
Most of his projects are for nesters planning to stay. "Many people consider buying to get more space but when they look at all the costs they figure it makes sense to stay put," said Hunt. "They say, "I like my house, my neighbors, the schools.' Of course they do. That's why they bought the house in the first place."
Check home prices in your city
All many want is more space. Like Kim and Sandy Sobieski, clients of Hunt in Cat Spring, about 50 miles west of Houston.
The semi-retired title company exec and his wife have plenty of room to expand, and they love their land. "We have 65 acres and we didn't want to give that up just to buy a bigger house," said Kim Sobieski.
Hunt's company converted Sobieski's garage to an entertainment room and finished out its second floor. He also built a new garage and updated the kitchen, doubling its size. The job, which included a new roof, cost about $300,000 and added 1,500 square feet.
"It's very upscale, very nice," said Sobieski. "It's got a whole big room just dedicated to my wife's quilting."
Signs of life
Projects like the Sobieskis are happening all around the nation, helping to push the latest National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) Remodeling Market Index higher during the last quarter.
Perhaps even more significant, NAHB's future index also jumped, indicating that home re-modeler confidence has strengthened. "The phones are ringing more," said Rose Quint, an economist with the NAHB. "That's led to a nice increase in the future indicator."
Both indexes, however, still languish below the 50 mark, the dividing line between optimism and pessimism. Contractors are seeing things improving, but they haven't made the leap to optimism, yet, perhaps because it's been hard to convert increased inquiries into actual work.
"Some remodelers are receiving more calls for bids, but it's still extremely difficult to close a sale," said Greg Miedema, a Tucson, Ariz.-based remodeler.
The industry may be slack because most buyers remodel when they purchase their new home, and home sales are down about 30% from their peak.
And there are fewer people who can afford to upgrade their existing homes. But those who can, "They say, 'If I'm going to stay here another five or 10 years, I'm going to have it the way I want,'" said Miedema.
The long run
And, in many areas of the country, it's more cost efficient to remodel than trade up. In northern Colorado, for example, many people long ago settled into their 20- to 50-year-old houses on the kind of large lots that are hard to find these days.
"Many of these houses are just are not as reasonably available anymore," said Peterson. "Figure in land acquisition and development costs and fees and you can see the expenses are driving people to remodel."
An added incentive spurring remodeling is the $1,500 federal tax credit for home improvements that raise energy efficiency. Jobs involving replacement windows and doors, heating and air conditioning systems, new roofs and adding insulation all can qualify.
Susan Marvin, president of Marvin Windows and Doors, said that the proportion of replacement windows her company sells versus windows for new home construction has flip-flopped.
"Our replacement window line has outperformed our line meant for the new construction market," she said. "Replacement window sales are up by double digits, and the new construction windows are down by double digits the past few years."
Tight credit
Nester-remodeling might be even stronger, according to Peterson, if home improvement loans were easier to come by.
"Financing is still very tough," he said. "Nearly all my clients are paying cash."
Perhaps because of that, more people are remodeling their homes in phases. Instead of one big remodel covering the kitchen, both baths and opening up the living space all at once, for example, they opt to do just the kitchen at first. Then next year, they may finish the job.
As a result, Peterson is getting more jobs, but the average job is much smaller. "Instead of 50 projects this year, we'll do 70 or 80," he said. "But the average price is down to $40,000."
Slow progress
Most industry observers agree that remodeling activity probably bottomed this year. Kermit Baker, chief economist for the American Institute of Architects and Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies, doesn't think the home improvement industry will show substantially higher volume until early 2010.
Falling or weak home prices, near record levels of foreclosures, and other distressed sales are discouraging households from undertaking nonessential remodeling projects, he said.
"When home prices are declining, there's not as much opportunity -- or inclination -- to do that," said Baker.
He added that for remodeling to come fully back, home sales must come back strong.
"Nothing would help the industry more than a return to 6 to 7 million home sales a year," he said.
"We saw a nesting reaction after 9/11, but we're seeing a stronger nesting reaction now," said Bob Peterson, president of ABD Design/Build in Ft. Collins Colo. People who have the money are fixing up what they have."
A proportionally bigger share of the home construction dollar -- 20% more during the first three quarters of 2009 compared with the same period last year -- now goes to home improvements, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In October, remodeling spending increased 8.7% compared with September to an annualized rate of $114 billion.
Jeff Hunt, vice president of Houston-based Brothers Strong remodelers, said that after a long slow period starting early last fall, his business took off. "About Aug. 1, all the stuff in our pipeline broke loose all at once, and since then we've been so busy we can't see straight."
Most of his projects are for nesters planning to stay. "Many people consider buying to get more space but when they look at all the costs they figure it makes sense to stay put," said Hunt. "They say, "I like my house, my neighbors, the schools.' Of course they do. That's why they bought the house in the first place."
Check home prices in your city
All many want is more space. Like Kim and Sandy Sobieski, clients of Hunt in Cat Spring, about 50 miles west of Houston.
The semi-retired title company exec and his wife have plenty of room to expand, and they love their land. "We have 65 acres and we didn't want to give that up just to buy a bigger house," said Kim Sobieski.
Hunt's company converted Sobieski's garage to an entertainment room and finished out its second floor. He also built a new garage and updated the kitchen, doubling its size. The job, which included a new roof, cost about $300,000 and added 1,500 square feet.
"It's very upscale, very nice," said Sobieski. "It's got a whole big room just dedicated to my wife's quilting."
Signs of life
Projects like the Sobieskis are happening all around the nation, helping to push the latest National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) Remodeling Market Index higher during the last quarter.
Perhaps even more significant, NAHB's future index also jumped, indicating that home re-modeler confidence has strengthened. "The phones are ringing more," said Rose Quint, an economist with the NAHB. "That's led to a nice increase in the future indicator."
Both indexes, however, still languish below the 50 mark, the dividing line between optimism and pessimism. Contractors are seeing things improving, but they haven't made the leap to optimism, yet, perhaps because it's been hard to convert increased inquiries into actual work.
"Some remodelers are receiving more calls for bids, but it's still extremely difficult to close a sale," said Greg Miedema, a Tucson, Ariz.-based remodeler.
The industry may be slack because most buyers remodel when they purchase their new home, and home sales are down about 30% from their peak.
And there are fewer people who can afford to upgrade their existing homes. But those who can, "They say, 'If I'm going to stay here another five or 10 years, I'm going to have it the way I want,'" said Miedema.
The long run
And, in many areas of the country, it's more cost efficient to remodel than trade up. In northern Colorado, for example, many people long ago settled into their 20- to 50-year-old houses on the kind of large lots that are hard to find these days.
"Many of these houses are just are not as reasonably available anymore," said Peterson. "Figure in land acquisition and development costs and fees and you can see the expenses are driving people to remodel."
An added incentive spurring remodeling is the $1,500 federal tax credit for home improvements that raise energy efficiency. Jobs involving replacement windows and doors, heating and air conditioning systems, new roofs and adding insulation all can qualify.
Susan Marvin, president of Marvin Windows and Doors, said that the proportion of replacement windows her company sells versus windows for new home construction has flip-flopped.
"Our replacement window line has outperformed our line meant for the new construction market," she said. "Replacement window sales are up by double digits, and the new construction windows are down by double digits the past few years."
Tight credit
Nester-remodeling might be even stronger, according to Peterson, if home improvement loans were easier to come by.
"Financing is still very tough," he said. "Nearly all my clients are paying cash."
Perhaps because of that, more people are remodeling their homes in phases. Instead of one big remodel covering the kitchen, both baths and opening up the living space all at once, for example, they opt to do just the kitchen at first. Then next year, they may finish the job.
As a result, Peterson is getting more jobs, but the average job is much smaller. "Instead of 50 projects this year, we'll do 70 or 80," he said. "But the average price is down to $40,000."
Slow progress
Most industry observers agree that remodeling activity probably bottomed this year. Kermit Baker, chief economist for the American Institute of Architects and Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies, doesn't think the home improvement industry will show substantially higher volume until early 2010.
Falling or weak home prices, near record levels of foreclosures, and other distressed sales are discouraging households from undertaking nonessential remodeling projects, he said.
"When home prices are declining, there's not as much opportunity -- or inclination -- to do that," said Baker.
He added that for remodeling to come fully back, home sales must come back strong.
"Nothing would help the industry more than a return to 6 to 7 million home sales a year," he said.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Should FHA home loans be more expensive?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Should it be more expensive to get a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration?
That is the question the House Financial Services Committee examined on Wednesday afternoon.
Currently, FHA loans comprise more than 30% of the entire home-loan market. But as some of those insured loans have defaulted, the FHA loan-guarantee fund has slipped below the Congressionally mandated 2% level. As a result, some lawmakers are suggesting that FHA loans need to be more expensive to obtain.
In fact, a House bill, the FHA Taxpayer Protection Act of 2009, would increase the minimum down payment required to obtain an FHA loan to 5% from 3.5%. That, sponsor Rep. Scott Garrett, R, N.J., believes, would make borrowers more committed to maintaining their mortgages.
Foreclosure crisis: Check your state
Almost 90% of FHA purchase loans issued between January and August 2009 had loan-to-value (LTV) ratios of 96 or higher, according to written testimony from Robert Story, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. That amounts to a very small commitment on the parts of buyers.
Housing and Urban Development secretary Shaun Donovan's testimony said he is committed to raising the expense of borrowing, though the agency is still exploring the best options and doesn't necessarily support raising the down payment requirement.
"We have made the decision to exercise our authority to increase the up-front cash that a borrower has to bring to the table in an FHA-backed loan -- to make sure that FHA borrowers have more 'skin in the game' and a stronger equity position in their loans," he said.
Still, he added, "FHA is not 'the next subprime' as some have suggested."
He disputed Garrett's statistics that tried to make the case for increasing down payments. Garrett said that FHA mortgages with loan-to-value ratios of 100 were twice as likely to fail as those with LTVs of 95.
Donovan responded that many of those failed 100 LTV loans involved seller-supported down payment programs, which contributed disproportionately to delinquencies. Last year Congress prohibited those programs.
How much do homes cost in your city?
Donovan outlined three options for raising borrowers' skin in the game: Increase the down payment requirement, currently at a minimum of 3.5%; raise the up front premium insurance premium from 1.75% to as much as 3%, which the FHA already has the authority to do; and decrease the allowable seller concessions for closing costs, which are now 6%, to 3%.
Critics of increasing the up front borrowing costs claim it's both unnecessary and could imperil the weak housing market recovery.
"While the program is experiencing shortfalls in its excess reserves due to our economic crisis, FHA remains financially strong and a critical part of our nation's economic recovery," said Vicki Cox Colder, president of the National Association of Realtors, in her written testimony before the committee.
Besides, she added, "It is important to recognize that this is not FHA's only reserve fund. FHA also has a Financing Account separate from the Capital Reserve. FHA's actual total reserves are higher than they have ever been with combined assets of $30.4 billion. This is an increase of 13% over the previous year."
Outlined problems
Donovan acknowledged problems at FHA, including antiquated systems and equipment and inadequate personnel numbers.
"Little of this may have been obvious when FHA's market share was 3% as recently as 2006," he said in his statement. "But when our mortgage markets collapsed last fall, and homebuyers increasingly turned to the FHA for help, the potential consequences of these lapses in risk management became very clear."
The agency has acted to lower risk over the past several months. It hired a chief risk officer to improve risk assessment; increased enforcement efforts that resulted in suspending some lenders and withdrawing FHA-approval for many others; and strengthened underwriting, including instituting procedures that should improve appraisal accuracy.
One measure Donovan seems loath to take is to establish risk-based pricing. He politely debated Representative Randy Neugebauer, R, TX, on the issue. Neugebauer questioned why FHA doesn't charge borrowers with low FICO scores higher rates, since they are at higher risk of default.
"Charging more [for those with lower FICO scores] is not necessarily the answer," said the HUD secretary. "It could even work against it by making it harder for the borrowers to pay off their loans."
Besides that, Donovan expressed a real reluctance for the idea of FHA becoming an even bigger player in the mortgage market than it is now. Raising prices for borrowers with low FICO scores and lowering them for those with high scores could put the FHA in direct competition with private lenders for the lower risk borrowers.
FHA -loan risk has also declined, some industry analysts believe, thanks to the drastic improvement in the quality of borrowers it services. According to Keith Gumbinger of HSH Associates, a publisher of mortgage industry information, their average credit score has jumped to 693 from the low 600s two years ago.
Janis Bowdler, a director for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization, said, "According to the FHA, had loans not been made using seller down payment assistance programs, known for being a haven for fraud and abuse, its capital reserve ratio would still be at the recommended 2%."
She emphasized how important affordable FHA loans are to the minority community, which accounts for a much larger share of these mortgages than the greater mortgage market.
More prudent approach
Ann Schnare, a partner with Empiris, an economic consulting firm and a veteran mortgage industry figure, said she thinks the agency could take a few small steps, like increasing the down payment requirement, to ensure the account's viability.
"While FHA borrowers are required to put 3.5% down, they are also allowed to finance the up-front premium and a portion of their closing costs," she said. "The net result is that many FHA borrowers are in a zero or even negative equity position the moment they move into their homes. This dramatically increases the risk of foreclosure, particularly in a bad economic environment and a weak or declining housing market."
She also recommends an slight increase in monthly insurance premiums to build up the reserve fund.
Donovan said stepped up enforcement itself could help restore the Capital Reserve Account. Most of the projected losses over the next five years, 71%, will come from loans already on the books. Many of those loans were of poor quality due to negligence on the part of lenders.
He wants to go after those lenders to make them responsible for the losses the FHA suffered
That is the question the House Financial Services Committee examined on Wednesday afternoon.
Currently, FHA loans comprise more than 30% of the entire home-loan market. But as some of those insured loans have defaulted, the FHA loan-guarantee fund has slipped below the Congressionally mandated 2% level. As a result, some lawmakers are suggesting that FHA loans need to be more expensive to obtain.
In fact, a House bill, the FHA Taxpayer Protection Act of 2009, would increase the minimum down payment required to obtain an FHA loan to 5% from 3.5%. That, sponsor Rep. Scott Garrett, R, N.J., believes, would make borrowers more committed to maintaining their mortgages.
Foreclosure crisis: Check your state
Almost 90% of FHA purchase loans issued between January and August 2009 had loan-to-value (LTV) ratios of 96 or higher, according to written testimony from Robert Story, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. That amounts to a very small commitment on the parts of buyers.
Housing and Urban Development secretary Shaun Donovan's testimony said he is committed to raising the expense of borrowing, though the agency is still exploring the best options and doesn't necessarily support raising the down payment requirement.
"We have made the decision to exercise our authority to increase the up-front cash that a borrower has to bring to the table in an FHA-backed loan -- to make sure that FHA borrowers have more 'skin in the game' and a stronger equity position in their loans," he said.
Still, he added, "FHA is not 'the next subprime' as some have suggested."
He disputed Garrett's statistics that tried to make the case for increasing down payments. Garrett said that FHA mortgages with loan-to-value ratios of 100 were twice as likely to fail as those with LTVs of 95.
Donovan responded that many of those failed 100 LTV loans involved seller-supported down payment programs, which contributed disproportionately to delinquencies. Last year Congress prohibited those programs.
How much do homes cost in your city?
Donovan outlined three options for raising borrowers' skin in the game: Increase the down payment requirement, currently at a minimum of 3.5%; raise the up front premium insurance premium from 1.75% to as much as 3%, which the FHA already has the authority to do; and decrease the allowable seller concessions for closing costs, which are now 6%, to 3%.
Critics of increasing the up front borrowing costs claim it's both unnecessary and could imperil the weak housing market recovery.
"While the program is experiencing shortfalls in its excess reserves due to our economic crisis, FHA remains financially strong and a critical part of our nation's economic recovery," said Vicki Cox Colder, president of the National Association of Realtors, in her written testimony before the committee.
Besides, she added, "It is important to recognize that this is not FHA's only reserve fund. FHA also has a Financing Account separate from the Capital Reserve. FHA's actual total reserves are higher than they have ever been with combined assets of $30.4 billion. This is an increase of 13% over the previous year."
Outlined problems
Donovan acknowledged problems at FHA, including antiquated systems and equipment and inadequate personnel numbers.
"Little of this may have been obvious when FHA's market share was 3% as recently as 2006," he said in his statement. "But when our mortgage markets collapsed last fall, and homebuyers increasingly turned to the FHA for help, the potential consequences of these lapses in risk management became very clear."
The agency has acted to lower risk over the past several months. It hired a chief risk officer to improve risk assessment; increased enforcement efforts that resulted in suspending some lenders and withdrawing FHA-approval for many others; and strengthened underwriting, including instituting procedures that should improve appraisal accuracy.
One measure Donovan seems loath to take is to establish risk-based pricing. He politely debated Representative Randy Neugebauer, R, TX, on the issue. Neugebauer questioned why FHA doesn't charge borrowers with low FICO scores higher rates, since they are at higher risk of default.
"Charging more [for those with lower FICO scores] is not necessarily the answer," said the HUD secretary. "It could even work against it by making it harder for the borrowers to pay off their loans."
Besides that, Donovan expressed a real reluctance for the idea of FHA becoming an even bigger player in the mortgage market than it is now. Raising prices for borrowers with low FICO scores and lowering them for those with high scores could put the FHA in direct competition with private lenders for the lower risk borrowers.
FHA -loan risk has also declined, some industry analysts believe, thanks to the drastic improvement in the quality of borrowers it services. According to Keith Gumbinger of HSH Associates, a publisher of mortgage industry information, their average credit score has jumped to 693 from the low 600s two years ago.
Janis Bowdler, a director for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization, said, "According to the FHA, had loans not been made using seller down payment assistance programs, known for being a haven for fraud and abuse, its capital reserve ratio would still be at the recommended 2%."
She emphasized how important affordable FHA loans are to the minority community, which accounts for a much larger share of these mortgages than the greater mortgage market.
More prudent approach
Ann Schnare, a partner with Empiris, an economic consulting firm and a veteran mortgage industry figure, said she thinks the agency could take a few small steps, like increasing the down payment requirement, to ensure the account's viability.
"While FHA borrowers are required to put 3.5% down, they are also allowed to finance the up-front premium and a portion of their closing costs," she said. "The net result is that many FHA borrowers are in a zero or even negative equity position the moment they move into their homes. This dramatically increases the risk of foreclosure, particularly in a bad economic environment and a weak or declining housing market."
She also recommends an slight increase in monthly insurance premiums to build up the reserve fund.
Donovan said stepped up enforcement itself could help restore the Capital Reserve Account. Most of the projected losses over the next five years, 71%, will come from loans already on the books. Many of those loans were of poor quality due to negligence on the part of lenders.
He wants to go after those lenders to make them responsible for the losses the FHA suffered
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Home sales contracts soar in October
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Americans are inking a lot of deals to buy homes.
In October the National Association of Realtors recorded an unprecedented ninth consecutive month of increases in the number of signed contracts.
Although these are not closed sales, and some deals can fall through, signed contracts are a good indicator of where the housing market is headed.
Between September and October NAR's Pending Home Sales Index rose 3.7% to 114.1 from 110 in October. But the index is 31.8% higher than a year ago, when it was 86.6. That's the biggest year-over-year gain in the history of the index.
The PHSI is also at its highest level since March 2006, and the rise confounded expert expectations. A panel of industry analysts put together by Briefing.com had forecast a 1% drop in new contracts.
NAR's chief economist, Lawrence Yun, gives much of the credit for increased sales to the homebuyer's tax credit, which first-time homebuyers could claim to reduce their taxes by up to $8,000.
"The tax credit is helping unleash a pent-up demand from a large pool of financially qualified renters, much more than borrowing sales from the future," Yun said in a prepared statement.
The credit had been due to lapse on Dec. 1, so many October buyers may have acted to get in under the wire.
However, the credit has been extended through the middle of 2010 and expanded to include many move-up buyers. The housing industry hopes that will keep sales perking until the economy picks up and markets return to a more normal condition.
In a related story, the Census Bureau reported that private residential construction spending surged 3.9% during October.
Yun cautioned, however, that housing market indicators, such as pending sales, may weaken over the next few months.
"The expanded tax credit has only been available for the past three weeks, but the time between when buyers start looking at homes until they close on a sale can take anywhere from three to five months," he said.
"Given the lag time, we could see a temporary decline in closed existing home sales from December until early spring when we get another surge," he added. "But the weak job market remains a major concern and could slow the recovery process."
The good news is that number of homes on the market has declined, removing some of the bloat that has depressed prices. There is now a seven month supply of homes on the market at the current rate of sale. which is down from 10.2 months a year ago. Yun predicted that housing conditions could return to near normal and home prices firm up by mid-2010.
"That would mean broad wealth stabilization for the vast number of middle-class families," he said
In October the National Association of Realtors recorded an unprecedented ninth consecutive month of increases in the number of signed contracts.
Although these are not closed sales, and some deals can fall through, signed contracts are a good indicator of where the housing market is headed.
Between September and October NAR's Pending Home Sales Index rose 3.7% to 114.1 from 110 in October. But the index is 31.8% higher than a year ago, when it was 86.6. That's the biggest year-over-year gain in the history of the index.
The PHSI is also at its highest level since March 2006, and the rise confounded expert expectations. A panel of industry analysts put together by Briefing.com had forecast a 1% drop in new contracts.
NAR's chief economist, Lawrence Yun, gives much of the credit for increased sales to the homebuyer's tax credit, which first-time homebuyers could claim to reduce their taxes by up to $8,000.
"The tax credit is helping unleash a pent-up demand from a large pool of financially qualified renters, much more than borrowing sales from the future," Yun said in a prepared statement.
The credit had been due to lapse on Dec. 1, so many October buyers may have acted to get in under the wire.
However, the credit has been extended through the middle of 2010 and expanded to include many move-up buyers. The housing industry hopes that will keep sales perking until the economy picks up and markets return to a more normal condition.
In a related story, the Census Bureau reported that private residential construction spending surged 3.9% during October.
Yun cautioned, however, that housing market indicators, such as pending sales, may weaken over the next few months.
"The expanded tax credit has only been available for the past three weeks, but the time between when buyers start looking at homes until they close on a sale can take anywhere from three to five months," he said.
"Given the lag time, we could see a temporary decline in closed existing home sales from December until early spring when we get another surge," he added. "But the weak job market remains a major concern and could slow the recovery process."
The good news is that number of homes on the market has declined, removing some of the bloat that has depressed prices. There is now a seven month supply of homes on the market at the current rate of sale. which is down from 10.2 months a year ago. Yun predicted that housing conditions could return to near normal and home prices firm up by mid-2010.
"That would mean broad wealth stabilization for the vast number of middle-class families," he said
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
More than 70% of homes sold during the third quarter were deemed affordable. Now is a good time to buy.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney..com) -- The Great Recession has ravaged savings and boosted unemployment rates, forcing people become more conservative with their cash. It has also made homes a lot more affordable -- at least for those people still working.
The typical American family, making the nation's median income of $64,000 a year, could afford to buy 70.1% of all homes sold in the United States during the third quarter, according a quarterly report from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500).
That's down slightly from the previous quarter, when 72.3% were considered affordable, but way up from the third quarter of 2008 when only 56.1% qualified.
The NAHB judges a home to be affordable if a family making the metro area's median income could buy it if they devote no more than 28% of their gross pay toward housing costs.
The affordability pushed many buyers into the market last quarter. Plus, they wanted to take advantage of the $8,000 homebuyer's tax credit that was scheduled to expire on Nov. 30.
Those that procrastinated, however, got lucky: The credit was recently extended and expanded to include more buyers.
"At a time when housing is at its most affordable, we applaud the recent actions taken by Congress and President Obama to stimulate housing by extending the federal tax credit beyond its Nov. 30 deadline and expanding it to a wider group of eligible home buyers," said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson, a home builder from Tulsa, Okla.
"With interest rates now lower than last quarter, the tax credit will encourage even more home buyers to enter the market and help stabilize housing and the economy by creating new jobs, stimulating home sales, reducing foreclosures, cutting excess inventories and stabilizing home prices."
Extremes of affordability
All real estate is local, of course; it doesn't matter much to someone buying in Peoria what homes sell for in Pawtucket. The fact is, though, that housing markets across much of the nation have been and remain quite affordable for most working households.
In Indianapolis, for example, the median household income is $68,100 a year. Figuring conservatively that no more than 28% of household income should go to pay for housing expenses, buyers could afford a house costing well over $250,000.
Although, they could do much better: The median home price in the Indiana capital -- which has been the nation's most affordable town for 17 consecutive quarters -- was a mere $105,000.
Affordability is highest in the industrial Midwest, where home prices have been kept down by slow population growth -- even population loss -- and wages that remain relatively high.
The second most affordable metro area found by NAHB and Wells Fargo was the Youngstown, Ohio, area. The median home price there came in at just $72,000 last quarter and the median income was $54,300. That meant some 93.9% of homes sold were affordable.
At 92.2%, Detroit was the third most affordable metro area with household income averaging $57,100 and the median home selling for $84,000.
The least affordable metro area was New York, where prices are high (a median of $425,000) and income is moderate ($64,800). Only 19.2% of homes sold there were affordable to households earning the median income.
Second least affordable was San Francisco, followed by Honolulu and Santa Ana, Calif.
One man's meat . . .
What's good for buyers is pure poison for sellers, who are the big losers as affordability improves. Prices have fallen more than 30% from their peaks, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index and many people selling their homes these days are taking losses.
According to data from Zillow.com, the real estate information Web site, 27% of all sellers during the quarter received less than what they paid for their homes.
The losses were especially common in erstwhile bubble markets. Nearly two-thirds of sellers in the Orlando, Fla., metro area took losses; as did 60% of Lakeland, Fla. sellers; and 57% of those in Stockton, Calif.
Less than 5% of Fayetteville, N.C., sellers took less than what they paid; and slightly more than 5% of those in Yakima, Wash., sold for less.
The typical American family, making the nation's median income of $64,000 a year, could afford to buy 70.1% of all homes sold in the United States during the third quarter, according a quarterly report from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500).
That's down slightly from the previous quarter, when 72.3% were considered affordable, but way up from the third quarter of 2008 when only 56.1% qualified.
The NAHB judges a home to be affordable if a family making the metro area's median income could buy it if they devote no more than 28% of their gross pay toward housing costs.
The affordability pushed many buyers into the market last quarter. Plus, they wanted to take advantage of the $8,000 homebuyer's tax credit that was scheduled to expire on Nov. 30.
Those that procrastinated, however, got lucky: The credit was recently extended and expanded to include more buyers.
"At a time when housing is at its most affordable, we applaud the recent actions taken by Congress and President Obama to stimulate housing by extending the federal tax credit beyond its Nov. 30 deadline and expanding it to a wider group of eligible home buyers," said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson, a home builder from Tulsa, Okla.
"With interest rates now lower than last quarter, the tax credit will encourage even more home buyers to enter the market and help stabilize housing and the economy by creating new jobs, stimulating home sales, reducing foreclosures, cutting excess inventories and stabilizing home prices."
Extremes of affordability
All real estate is local, of course; it doesn't matter much to someone buying in Peoria what homes sell for in Pawtucket. The fact is, though, that housing markets across much of the nation have been and remain quite affordable for most working households.
In Indianapolis, for example, the median household income is $68,100 a year. Figuring conservatively that no more than 28% of household income should go to pay for housing expenses, buyers could afford a house costing well over $250,000.
Although, they could do much better: The median home price in the Indiana capital -- which has been the nation's most affordable town for 17 consecutive quarters -- was a mere $105,000.
Affordability is highest in the industrial Midwest, where home prices have been kept down by slow population growth -- even population loss -- and wages that remain relatively high.
The second most affordable metro area found by NAHB and Wells Fargo was the Youngstown, Ohio, area. The median home price there came in at just $72,000 last quarter and the median income was $54,300. That meant some 93.9% of homes sold were affordable.
At 92.2%, Detroit was the third most affordable metro area with household income averaging $57,100 and the median home selling for $84,000.
The least affordable metro area was New York, where prices are high (a median of $425,000) and income is moderate ($64,800). Only 19.2% of homes sold there were affordable to households earning the median income.
Second least affordable was San Francisco, followed by Honolulu and Santa Ana, Calif.
One man's meat . . .
What's good for buyers is pure poison for sellers, who are the big losers as affordability improves. Prices have fallen more than 30% from their peaks, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index and many people selling their homes these days are taking losses.
According to data from Zillow.com, the real estate information Web site, 27% of all sellers during the quarter received less than what they paid for their homes.
The losses were especially common in erstwhile bubble markets. Nearly two-thirds of sellers in the Orlando, Fla., metro area took losses; as did 60% of Lakeland, Fla. sellers; and 57% of those in Stockton, Calif.
Less than 5% of Fayetteville, N.C., sellers took less than what they paid; and slightly more than 5% of those in Yakima, Wash., sold for less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
