Grabham & Associates
Displaying blog entries 1-10 of 21
It is amazing when someone has a dream what can happen! Please help one man achieve his dream while helping another amazing young lady, Katie Wagner fight for her life. Mark your calendars for February 1st.
What security features are you looking for in your new home? Can we help?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/01/19/house-of-the-day-the-worlds-safest-house/?
Would you like a feature like this in your new home?
Let us help you find it!
http://xaxor.com/bizarre/19711-glass-door-with-a-surprise.html
In a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees on Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Beranke said "Restoring the health of the housing market is a necessary part of a broader strategy for recovery." The letter accompanied a white paper developed by the Fed which Beranke called a "framework for thinking about certain issues and tradeoffs that policymakers might consider."
In its opening pages the white paper titled The U.S. Housing Market: Current Conditions and Policy Considerations acknowledges that much of the weakness in the housing market is related to poor labor market conditions and will take time to be resolved but outlines three dimensions along which policymakers could take action to ease some of the pressures on the housing market:
1. Moderating the inflow of properties into the large inventory of unsold homes
The large inventory of foreclosed or surrendered properties (REO), perhaps representing one-quarter of the 2 million vacant homes for sale in the second quarter of 2011, is putting downward pressure on house prices, and exacerbating the loss in household wealth. The continued influx of new REO, perhaps as many as 1 million properties per year in 2012 and 2013, will continue to weigh on house prices for some time. To the extent that REO holders discount properties in order to sell them quickly, the near-term pressure on home prices might be even greater.
At the same time, strengthening rental markets in some areas are reflecting the decline in homeownership with vacancy rates falling and rents rising in many markets. The price signals in the markets, that is the decline in house prices and the rise in rents, suggest that it might be appropriate in some cases to convert foreclosed homes into rental properties and, at this time, with no indication that the downturn in homeownership being likely to reverse in the immediate future, there are indications of a longer-term need for expanded rental housing stock.
Although small investors are currently buying and converting foreclosed properties to rentals, this is a limited solution and larger-scale conversions have not occurred for at least three interrelated reasons. First, it can be difficult for an investor to assemble enough properties within a sensible geographic area to achieve efficiencies of scale. Second, attracting investors to bulk sales has typically required REO holders to offer significantly higher discounts relative to those given owner occupants, in part because it can be difficult to investors to obtain financing for such sales, and third, the supervisory policy of GSE and banking regulators has generally encouraged sales of REO properties as early as practicable.
Intertwined in these issues is the unresolved role of the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which, because of their outsized presences, affect not only their own holdings but the larger market with their actions. Despite the mandate of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) as conservator of the GSEs to minimize taxpayer losses, some actions that cause greater losses to the GSEs in the near term might be advantageous if they lead to a quicker and more vigorous recovery. The paper presents a number of suggestions for dealing with inventory held by the three principal government related agencies while suggesting it will discuss properties held by federally regulated banks at a later date.
An REO to rental program that relies on sales to third-party investors will be more viable if the cost-pricing differential can be narrowed which might be done by (a) structuring sales as competitive auctions; (b) making sales packages more attractive to a variety of investors, or (c) providing investors with the debt financing. In the latter case REO holders could probably increase sales prices by providing financing but this may be at the cost of reducing their future income stream.
The paper also suggests some innovations for reducing the amount of time that a vacant property remains in inventory such as auctioning the rights to acquire a future stream of properties that might be foreclosed in a given neighborhood rather than auctioning existing REO holdings or to encourage deed-for-lease programs which circumvent the REO process entirely by exchanging a deed-in-lieu for a rent-back arrangement.
Another solution might be for the REO holder to convert the properties to rentals themselves. The value of this suggestion may become more apparent as the inventories increase. The paper also suggests that land-banking, perhaps with the assistance of federal subsidies, could be an option for low-value properties.
2. Remove some of the obstacles preventing creditworthy borrowers from accessing mortgage credit.
The paper touches only lightly on this topic, saying that the regulators have been in consultation with the GSEs and originators about the sources of the apparent tightness in lending standards and that balance is needed between prudent lending and appropriate consumer protection on one hand and not unduly restricting credit on the other.
3. Limit the number of homeowners who are pushed into an inefficient and overburdened foreclosure pipeline.
Beyond the personal suffering, foreclosures can be a costly and inefficient way to resolve mortgage payment obligations because they can result in "deadweight losses", i.e. costs that do not benefit anyone such as neglect and deterioration of properties and neighborhoods and the impact of that in putting additional downward pressure on prices. Some foreclosures might be avoided if loan modifications are pursued more aggressively and servicers given greater incentives to do so. Where modifications are not feasible there should be more expedient ways to exit from homeownership.
Many homeowners who could benefit from refinancing are unable to do so, and the paper credits recent changes in HARP with helping in this area but suggests possible further expansion to borrowers whose existing mortgages are not guaranteed by the GSEs even though this raises a host of risk management issues.
The Fed suggests changes to the HAMP loan modification program as well. One would be to eliminate the 31 percent debt-to-income (DTI) floor that currently exists in the program. Another is eliminating the focus on modifications for borrowers who have become unemployed, concentrating instead on payment deferment through the period of unemployment which might avoid permanent foreclosures arising out of a temporary situation.
The paper also suggests that the focus of HAMP on net present value to the lender is short sighted and there may be other types of modifications which may be socially beneficial even if not in the best interests of the lender. This, they concede, may be a tough sell to lenders and likely to involve more taxpayer funds.
Large scale modifications involving principal reduction may be too costly to consider. The paper calculates that the 12 million underwater mortgages in the country represent about $425 billion in negative equity and targeting underwater borrowers who are likely to default raises issues of fairness in addition to expenses. An alternative would be aggressively facilitating refinancing for underwater borrowers who are current on their loans, expanding modifications for borrowers who are struggling with payments, and providing a streamlined exit from homeownership for borrowers who want to sell their homes.
Expanding short-sale and deed-in-lieu opportunities have many advantages but the barriers to short sales include willing buyers at prices acceptable to the REO holder and a timeline that allows the transaction to close before the foreclosure. Deeds-in lieu are often not pursued because of complications such as junior liens, dealing with deficiency claims, and the burden of additional REO. On the other hand, borrowers may not even realize the existence of such an alternative and instead remain in their homes through the entire drawn-out foreclosure process. Figuring out ways to surmount these obstacles is crucial.
The paper also addresses the shortfalls in loan servicing that have been widely discussed and some of the solutions that have been proposed such as changing the compensation structure, making changes to the MERS registry, and better monitoring the servicers.
It is clear from the conclusion to the paper that the Fed is not just searching for short-term solutions to the current market disruptions, but a fundamental restructuring of the system so that these problems are better packaged for management in the future. "The challenge for policymakers is to find ways to help reconcile the existing size and mix of the housing stock and the current environment for housing finance. Fundamentally, such measures involve adapting the existing housing stock to the prevailing tight mortgage lending conditions or supporting a housing finance regime that is less restricting than today's while steering clear of the lax standards that emerged during the last decade."
Education Problem? Try Values Problem
In the news recently, there have been a number of stories foreshadowing the fact that extended school years, and longer school days, will be upon us sooner than later. These various stories refer to the fact that American school children are lagging behind their foreign counterparts, and specifically Asian kids, when it comes to educational prowess, and that this is drastically impacting our ability as a country to compete in this global marketplace.
The reason why our kids lag those in parts of Asia is due to the fact that the Asian children, according to those who “study” the issue, is simple; the Asian kids spend more time in school. So the solution to this problem, as proposed by many, is just as simple; extend the school year, and school days in order to get more knowledge in our kids’ heads. And the people behind this movement have some pretty influential allies such as President Obama. The President has recently begun outlining his intentions to extend the school year with the simple underlying logic that, "...if the Asians can do it, so can we." However, the logic applied to extending the school year, no matter how well intentioned, is a fallacy at best, and shameful naiveté at the worst. To recognize that our society's problems regarding inadequately prepared students lies in the fact that the school year isn't long enough to learn, requires a willingness to take the easy way out.
It would be safe to assume that The President is acknowledging the accurate generalization that Asian students excel at a pace academically that is leaving their American counterparts in the dust. But to attribute that chasm to a longer school year will create solutions that will never fix the problem. The fundamental difference between our culture and theirs is VALUES. They value discipline, structure, they have a reverence for teachers and authority figures, and most importantly, they value the lessons learned from failure. And I'm sad to say that our country does not value those things equally. We have created a culture that refuses to let our kids fail preventing them from truly learning. And the byproduct of that ideology is a destructive sense of entitlement. There are teachers in our country who are instructed to NOT hand out failing grades to students for fear of hurting self-esteem; only D- and above is acceptable, regardless of performance. Do you think that happens in Asia?
We reside in the greatest country on Earth, and by the grace of God, we enjoy freedoms and lifestyles afforded to few others on this planet. But America didn't become great by accident. It did so by building a culture on a foundational set of values, typically referred to as Judeo-Christian values, even though not all of our founders were religious. But unfortunately, those values have been replaced by another set of religious values called Secularism. Where only the individual matters; where children have rights and can sue their parents, where good intentions justify disastrous results; where there are no privileges, only rights; and where life is manipulated to ensure equal results, regardless of performance and despite equal opportunity.
We spend more money per capita on education than any other country on Earth, but yet we still have people arguing that our kids are inferior because we don't spend enough! When are we going to scream UNCLE! We have a Values problem, plain and simple, and that is most influenced by the home environment. You can keep those kids in school all year, but as long as we, as a country, continue to focus on symptoms, our problems will persist.
But dealing with the root of the problem is extremely difficult and complicated as morality and values are next to impossible to legislate, and most likely immoral to legislate certain values. Because we live in the freest country in the world, sometimes the price we pay is that we have a broad range of interpretations of that freedom and an even broader spectrum of values. But if one really wants to get to the root of the issue, we have to look at how values are derived.
In most cases, if not all, there is a direct correlation between a person’s religion, and/or world-view, and the type of values they have. Meaning, if someone is an Atheist, they will have a different set of values than a Christ-Follower. And a Christ-Follower will have a different set of values than a Muslim, or Secularist and so on and so on. And the ways these values manifest themselves is through behavior. An even simpler way to look it is: Theology=Values=Behavior. And this equation is the most impacted by what takes place inside of the home.
Children don’t just magically turn out a certain way but rather, they develop values and behavioral traits by what they learn from their environment. And despite what some may think, parents have the greatest impact over these things. But it starts at a very early age and parents need to have the ability, understanding, and most importantly the courage to create a loving environment at home that does not waver about how the family’s value system is carried out. Because sometimes, this will create tension between child and parent and the parent needs to be strong enough to stand their ground as they recognize the future consequences of decisions made today. But then again, even our parental values have changed through the years. Parents today would rather be liked by their kids and be their friends than to fill the appropriate role as a parent. The desire to be liked by their children will always trump the parent’s ability to be effective.
So in order to alter the educational course that our children are on, we really need to start addressing some things in our own homes. Some of the best-educated and wealthiest people in this world have turned out to be some of the most evil, detestable, and violent people in this world. And conversely, some of the brightest, most innovative, and creative people in history were school-system dropouts. None of this to say that a good education doesn’t matter; clearly it does. But it’s hard to believe that these people, or anyone for that matter would have turned out differently if they would have just spent more time in the classroom. Education alone can’t change a person, but values can.
Grabham & Associates will often have one of our preferred lenders, home inspectors, escrow & title officers, etc... contribute a piece to our Blog. We hope you will find this information useful and interesting. Please feel free to comment or contact us directly with feedback.
This week's contribution comes from one of our preferred lenders. He has a new program that will allow you to "short" refinance your home if needed if you meet all the guidelines. Although this might not be for everyone maybe you know of someone who this information might be helpful.
SHORT REFINANCE
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved a new loan program to refinance your home at market value!
Refinancing at current market value is the better option than loan modification. It is a transaction, where the current lender agrees to accept less than the full amount owed on your property. It results in reduction of principal on your loan. A Short Payoff is when your current lender reduces the principal balance on your mortgage and allows you to refinance or sale your home at current value.
Key differences:
Loan modification negotiates change in rates and terms leaving principal unchanged.
Short Refinance negotiates reduction in principal.
The process is similar to a short sale but, instead of the property being sold, it is refinanced with a new lender. The short-refinance allows the homeowner to retain ownership of the property.
In many cases, short refinance requires approval and consent from a new lender and will require better credit score along with a reasonable debt-to-income ratio. We are working with the largest pools of lenders, which are available to help with short refinance.
Refinancing at Market Value
Many lenders are now cooperating with a principal reduction to refinance your home. The first step is to contact your existing lender and verify that they will cooperate with a short payoff/settlement to refinance. The next step is to apply. We will request your employment, income, and asset documentation to verify that you will qualify for a new FHA loan at current market value and issue a loan approval. We will then negotiate with your current Lender to achieve the desired principal reduction for your refinance.
EXAMPLE: Short Refinance (Refinancing At Current Market Value)
Current mortgage: $300,000
Current value: $220,000
New loan(97.75% of current value): $215,050
Closing cost for new loan: $5,000
Current lender approves short payoff for: $210,050
For more information and all inquires please contact Troy Schuricht below:
Troy Schuricht
CFS Mortgage Corporation
7720 N 16th st Suite 325
Phoenix, AZ 85020
602-354-0537- office
602-241-9912 - fax
Banker #0905178
We've been in business here at Grabham and Associates for a number of years now, and none of us have ever seen such a drastic downturn in home values that is comparable to what we have seen over the past several months. Those of us who dwell daily in the realm of residential housing have been exposed to a number of different scenarios that until recently have been extremely rare. One of those scenarios being the reality of home owners voluntarily "walking away" from their homes, and letting the bank take possession of it. We understand the full gamut of issues that a homeowner will deal with, some factual, and some emotional. But we thought we'd shed some light on this phenomenon in an effort to help some of our clients make the best decision for their family.
Let's first make a distinction between "walking away" and "losing" a house. This article is strictly addressing homeowners who are current with their mortgage and voluntarily give their house back to the bank. We are not addressing the homeowner who loses their home because they can no longer pay the mortgage for whatever reason. With that being said, the number one concern that gets owners thinking about walking away is the fact that the value of their home has gone down drastically over the past 24 months. And the chronology of questions usually goes something like this; How much is our home worth today? How much do we owe on it? When will we get back to even? The answer to any of these questions could sway a homeowner one way or another, but the critical answer is the one to the last question posed.
If you experienced a significant financial loss on paper, but had confidence that you would be made whole again in a couple of years; would you consider making drastic changes? What if the recovery would take 10 or more years? Would you do anything then? That's the dilemma.
Despite the behavior of the masses, no one expected the appreciation trends of in 2005 and 2006 to continue forever, but now moving forward, what is a realistic expectation for housing appreciation? Truth is, no one knows! The percentage of appreciation in Arizona between 2005 and 2006 was about 20%*. The total appreciation from 1990 to 2004 was 10%*, averaging between 1% and 4%* each year, with a few dips in between. But let's assume that moving forward, at least in the foreseeable future, we are generous and average 5% appreciation each year, and apply that to a typical home situation that many owners find themselves in.
Let's say you bought a house in '06 or '07 for $400k; that house today is probably worth around $250k today, give or take. At 5% annual appreciation, how long will it take to get back to $400k? I'll save you some time; it will take 10 years. At a more modest and probably more realistic 3% rate, it will take 16 years. That's 16 years just to get back to your purchase price! Those numbers can seem rather ominous when writing out your mortgage check every month, which is why many credit worthy, responsible people are considering letting their house go back to the bank. Because the next 2 questions asked are, Does it make sense to keep paying on a house that is worth almost half of what we bought it for? And, What's the impact to my credit if we walk away? Many people are answering the first question with a resounding, NO! If it will take 16 years to get the value back in your house, you could walk away from your house today, re-purchase it for the current value, (theoretically) put it on a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage keeping roughly the same payment you have now, and have the house PAID OFF before it gets back to it's original value in 16 years! It's tough to keep writing that monthly check when you look at the numbers that way. But what would happen to your credit if you did this?
Having a foreclosure or a short sale on your record is not a productive way to improve your credit rating. But is it the end of the world? We have a client who had a failed business and had to file for personal bankruptcy, leading to the short sale of their house. When they filed for bankruptcy, they were told by seemingly everyone that their life was over, and they would be relegated to being renters for at least the next 10 years. Long story short, one year after their bankruptcy filing, they owned a new home with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. Now their rate is 7%, but hardly the 15% you might expect with a bankruptcy and a short sale. All that to say, the overall impact to your credit life, may not be as bad as one would think. Of course each situation has variables, and just because it works for one person, doesn't mean it will work for everyone.
Now let's assume that the owner gets past the initial shock of the numbers, and decides that giving the home back to the bank is what they want to do. Especially since Deficiency Judgments are illegal in Arizona, and there is no way that the bank can sue the owner for them coming up short at the Trustee Auction of your house. But what about the moral considerations of that decision? Is it morally wrong to do this? After all, you did sign a contract stating that you will pay the money back to the bank. These are the same exact questions that were asked of a prominent, local, and very well respected theologian recently at a conference that one of our agents attended.
Dr. Wayne Grudem is a Professor of Theology at Phoenix Seminary who travels the globe teaching the Bible in its original Ancient Greek and Hebrew languages. Dr. Grudem is also the General Editor of the English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible. All of that to say that he is well qualified to offer a moral opinion on this subject. So when these questions of ethics were posed to him his, rather succinct answer was this- paraphrased:
"I am familiar with people doing this (walking away from their house) but I haven't studied the issue too much. However, just like the owner signed a contract to repay the bank, the bank made a deal as well. And the deal was that the owner gets to live in the house as long as they pay the monthly mortgage. If they don't pay the mortgage, the owner can't live in the house and the bank gets the house back; seems like a pretty fair deal to me. So, in a nutshell, I think the homeowner is fine morally, to walk away from the house and give it back to the bank."
Grabham and Associates is not offering this article as an encouragement or even a justification to walk away from your house and give it back to the bank. And conversely, we are not suggesting that it is wrong to that either. What we are trying to do is offer some additional information for our clients who may or may not be privy to all of the information out there regarding their situation. And again, every situation is different and the decisions need to be made based on the uniqueness of the deal along with your trusted advisors. In our efforts to stay relevant and effective, it is our hope that the information and perspective offered here will assist our clients in making informed decisions.
*Historical Data regarding home appreciation provided by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. www.FHFA.gov
At Grabham and Associates, we pride ourselves on being relevant and well informed regarding the current state of the housing market in Arizona. And it is a goal of ours that our clients are equally as savvy, in order to make the best decisions in relation to their respective situations. A few days ago, we were asked to negotiate an agreement between two of our clients with regards to a lease to own contract on a rental property. And as we've been preparing for our clients, we started the morning yesterday opening the paper to a very pertinent article regarding lease to own options in Arizona. The article was published this week in the Business section of the Arizona Republic, on July 29th, written by J. Craig Anderson. The article brings up a lot of good points, so we thought we'd chime in on the conversation as well, in an effort to provide all of our clients with information that will better equip them when making decisions. We've included the article below for you to peruse, and then follow our subsequent comments.
************************
With thousands of single-family rentals spilling onto the metro Phoenix housing market each month, a growing number of investment owners and brokers now market their properties as rent-to-own deals. Local experts say rent-to-own agreements, also called lease options, are a way for prospective buyers with cash shortages or credit problems to build up a down payment while repairing their credit.
With a glut of investor-owned homes available for rent, offering lease options is another way to stand out in the crowd while appealing to credit-impaired residents who may have gone through a recent foreclosure, short sale or bankruptcy. Advocates say an increase in lease options could help ease the looming problem of investment homes flooding the market when today's investors decide to sell.
But others argue that lease-option agreements rarely result in sales because buyers back out or fail to qualify when the lease expires. Those renters generally lose their down payments and end up back at Square 1, critics say. "My guess is that less than 10 percent ever exercise that option," said Kammrath & Associates owner Bob Kammrath, a Phoenix real-estate analyst who follows the rental market.
"It's a good way to do a test-drive on a house," said Jason Grandon, who operates Scottsdale-based InstantRenters.com with his sister, Stacey Grandon. Jason said lease options have found a relatively new audience at the high end of the market, with wealthy buyers staking their claim on recently foreclosed-on luxury homes at a time when jumbo mortgage loans are expensive and nearly impossible to get.
Even prospective buyers who intend to pay cash are leasing to own, Stacey said, because luxury-home prices are on the decline and desperate sellers are willing to negotiate attractive terms. Kammrath said he sees the logic in using a lease option to wait out "the worst environment for jumbo lending in the last 20 years," but he said there is no guarantee the situation will improve in a year or two.
Phoenix real-estate broker and agent Bill Brandt agreed, adding that lease options generally work better in theory than in practice. "The big thing is the price," said Brandt of AZ Paradise Realty. "When are we going to determine the price, and who's going to determine it?" Most lease-option deals involve a two-year lease that can be extended to three or four years if a buyer's credit isn't expected to be good enough to obtain a mortgage after only two years, Stacey Grandon said. Brandt said the current real-estate market could be particularly treacherous for lease-purchase buyers who agree months ahead of time on a sale price. "If the house doesn't appraise for the agreed-upon amount, then the buyer won't be able to get a loan and they won't be able to buy it," he said.
************************
Obviously, Bill Brandt hit the nail on the head, that the most important thing to consider, on both sides of this deal, is when is the price set, and who sets it. Everything else is in the equation is based upon the purchase price that the renter and owner agree upon; i.e. the rental price, lease term, etc. As the owner, if the price is set today, what happens if the home appreciates significantly during the lease term? If the price is set at the end of the term, what happens if the appreciation prices the renter out of the purchase? Either one of these situations can be worked out, but the devil is in the details of the agreement. So what's the benefit to the owner to do a lease to own option with a tenant?
Right now, the home rental market in Phoenix is inundated with investors trying to fill empty homes with prospective tenants, and there doesn't appear to be enough tenants to go around because houses are so affordable, even though lending is tighter. And those that are looking to rent, are being very selective with where they live. But a growing number of investors are looking at setting themselves apart by offering a lease to own option to their tenants. So by offering the option, the investor is increasing the likelihood that they will get a tenant in their property. And depending on the particulars of the agreement, the lease to own option could have other benefits as well for the investor.
If the purchase price were set at the beginning of the lease term, than it would be ideal for the investor to receive a premium inside of the rent payment to account for any anticipated appreciation between the time of setting the price and the actual purchase. But this scenario is unlikely as the renter theoretically is already paying an above market rent rate with a percentage of that payment going towards their down payment. However, another option to consider, if setting the price early, would be to have the renter pay a rent premium and have none of it go towards a down payment, with their benefit being a below market purchase price, assuming the home appreciates during the lease term.
If the purchase price were set at the end of the term, then there's really no benefit to the renter to enter into a lease to own agreement, unless a significant portion of their rent payment is going towards a down payment; and that is assuming that the lease is a market rate lease. And that is also assuming that the house is one that the renter really wants to live in. Because after all, this agreement is basically saying that the renter is so sure that they want this house, that they want to take it off of the market until they can afford it, for fear of it not being available when they can. But what happens if the renter chooses not to purchase the home at the end of the term? What happens to the money that they were paying towards the down payment? Does the investor get to keep that money? If so, how much? If not, why?
If the renter decides not to purchase the home, then there is a good chance that the only benefit to the investor was the fact that they had a paying tenant for a period of time, which is certainly something to be appreciated. But if that was the only benefit to the investor, what's the point of doing these deals in the first place? The incentive for the investor has to lie within the rent premium as well as being the beneficiary to the escrow account holding the down payment funds in case any issues arise.
Unless these lease to own deals are structured with acute attention to detail, they may be more trouble than they're worth. And with the uncertainty and volatility of the housing market, there is an elevated element of risk for the investor. Because let's not forget, the overwhelming majority of prospective tenants who are doing these deals are people who don't have the ability to qualify for a mortgage on their own! So what are the odds that they will be able to qualify for a mortgage in a year or two? Who knows, which is why the investor needs to be protected financially. A lease to own option can very quickly turn into a one sided deal if it isn't structured right, or many of the details are "assumed" by either party.
Now, there are plenty exceptions, and these deals have worked out great for some. The point is to make sure that the due diligence is done before entering into these deals, and it probably wouldn't hurt to have a real estate attorney finalize the agreement to make sure nothing is missed.
Last night, our day concluded with a meeting of our two clients, to go through many of the aforementioned details. Now the deal isn't done yet, but it has been a tremendous benefit to both sides to take our time and go through every painful detail to ensure that this is a win-win for all involved.
Many people here in the Valley are starting to ask about the “New FHA loan program with only a 1% down payment”.
The good news is that there is a new program that is available that new home buyers can advantage of that will allow only a 1% down payment for an FHA loan. The FHA loan requirements haven’t changed – they still require a 3.5% down payment, but this new program allows people to use government money to pay for 2.5% of the 3.5% down payment requirement – effectively leaving only 1% that a new home buyer must put down.
The new program is called the Neighborhood Stabilization Program – and it even gets better than just having to put 1% down!
Here are just a few of the important details regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Highlights:
Neighborhood Stabilization Eligible Property Types:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Purchase Price Limits:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Income Limits:
In order to qualify for the program, you must have a gross income (the total income before taxes, health care costs, social security, etc.) of no more than 120 percent of the average median income for the county they want to purchase a foreclosed house in.
Income Limits For Maricopa County:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program: Too Good To Be True?
My Thoughts On The Neighborhood Stabilization Program
This program is very new (I think there have been a total of 6 of these transactions done in Arizona so far) but from everything that I can tell, it is a very “real” program. There is money available, the steps to getting the money are fairly clear and there is plenty of housing inventory right now. Unlike some (many?) of the government programs announced in the last few years, the NSP program actually will help people get into homes and in my best estimation, will actually help *stabilize* neighborhoods.
So for anyone out there who gets excited about the 8000 tax credit , just wait until they find out about the fact that they could get up to 22% of the purchase price of their home given to them as an incentive to move in and live in a home… it almost gets us back to the “good times”!
By Harvey Mackay
No firm came to symbolize the opulence of the economic boom better than Google. With some "workplaces that feature pool tables and volleyball courts," this Internet giant has bent over backwards to woo top performers. Tough times are upon us all, including this mega-search engine. "Google has also begun chipping away at perks," the Wall Street Journal reported recently. "In recent months, it reduced the hours of its free cafeteria service and suspended the traditional afternoon tea in its New York office."
Just months ago, you could get your foot in the door of many an employment office sporting a tattered sneaker. Talent was king. According to the Department of Labor, more than 10 million people were unemployed in December. Of these, more than 1.2 million lost their jobs between September and November. Overnight, job hunting has become a buyer's market, and employers have turned downright picky about who will be offered a coveted spot on the payroll.
A crisp and businesslike appearance is back as an expectation on the part of many prospective employers. A recent New York Times article announced "The Return of the Interview Suit." It quotes Gloria Mirrione, a managing director of a financial services placement firm: "We are back to a time when every company expected both women and men to wear suits and we didn't have a Casual Friday. . . . They are looking for a sharper style. I recommend a strong suit that says you are collected and ready to work."
The article highlights some critical appearance details. For example, a solid black suit screams attention to dandruff flecks or gray hairs. White shirts should be "pristine" and preferably new. Ladies' tote bags need to provide a professional-looking home for one's BlackBerry. In other words, don't look like you're going camping.
The clothes you wear—and they don't need to be expensive—say a lot about your discipline, taste and social poise. That accepted, the most important thing you need to dress for an interview remains your mind.
Learn everything you can about the company and its immediate needs. Any company hiring in this economy is banking on their new employee making a key contribution immediately. Find out what that is.
Times author Eric Wilson suggests scouting a prospective employer's tastes and expectations before an interview. "The key is to research the corporate culture to learn what a potential boss might expect." I like that research to go well beyond appearance preferences. If your prospective boss is a golf nut or is crazy about symphony music, be prepared to say something sensible about these topics.
Sometimes standing out can win the day. One reader, who was no hockey wizard, got a job as a hockey announcer by suiting up as a goalie in everything from mask to skates.
Rob Donkers, a Canadian educator, recently emailed me that a young woman sewed up a job as a "software programming ninja" when she appeared for the interview in a Japanese warrior costume. For most jobs, though, the button-down look is the better bet.
When you enter an interviewer's office, zero in on memorabilia and personal touches:
A job interview is fundamentally a sales encounter. People buy from people they like. And people hire people they like. It's that simple. People like people who are genuine, pleasant, sincere, easy to talk with and friendly.
Have a clever story, quote, or anecdote or two in mind that you can slip into the conversation. Something positive and memorable. Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, for example, uses an unforgettable trademark line: "I still have my feet on the ground, I just wear better shoes."
Follow-up a job interview with a handwritten thank-you note. They are essential, especially when they mention how you will fit into the company's culture or help meet its immediate business needs.
Paying attention to how you look can help you get a job. For that matter, it can also help you keep one. With companies trimming right and left, they want to retain people who best present their firm's image.
Mackay's Moral: Dress like a mess and you won't see success.
Displaying blog entries 1-10 of 21
