The punishment lenders inflict on strategic defaulters are lighter than most realize, and likely to lessen as lenders need customers in the future.

Trust me,
Believe me,
It’s all in the art of stopping

Wire — In the Art of Stopping

There is an art to strategic default. There are many options, and some have stronger consequences than others. Does the borrower want to maintain some lines of credit? Will selectively defaulting on certain debts hurt their credit score more than others? Will strategic defaulters need to declare bankruptcy?

Now that millions have defaulted on their mortgage, we have anecdotal data and research studies on what really happens to those who quit paying. The results will surprise some and inspire many.

Eroding the Fear of Foreclosure: New Research Shows Strategic Defaulters Experience With Post-Foreclosure Credit

Posted on May 12th, 2011

One of the most cited deterrents of deciding whether or not to foreclose or strategically default is the fear of a catastrophic and irreversible hit to one’s credit score, leading to an inability to rent, purchase a new car or home, or open a new credit card.  After polling some of our 5,000 clients nationwide, YouWalkAway.comhas discovered it’s a fear that may be blown way out of proportion.

Susan Edwards is a client of YouWalkAway.com, a company that walks defaulting homeowners through the foreclosure process.  Edwards recently walked away from a property in Southern California.  “Prior to missing our first payment, my credit score was 805,” Edwards stated “I checked it again in June after we missed the 5th payment and it was 680.  At the time, it was commonly reported that the average foreclosure would lower your credit score about 150 points.  I had assumed it would stay in that range for up to 7 years.  I was wrong.”

So, what is Edwards credit score now?  According to Edwards, after only 3 months following the foreclosure auction of her property, her credit is back up to 734 and climbing. Fortunately, the hit taken to her credit was not nearly as bad as most people, including those who claim to be experts, might have depicted.

If this woman’s credit score gets back above 740, there will be no real ramifications for her default. Most lenders don’t have a super-duper category for those with FICO scores over 740, so the borrower with a 745 is getting the same rate and the same treatment as someone with an 805.

Edwards is not the only YouWalkAway.com client to see her credit rebound so quickly.  New York resident and YouWalkAway.comclient Jodi Romanello has walked away from two investment properties in Florida.  While she has never closely monitored her credit score, Romanello has yet to see any negative repercussions of a credit drop.  “When I first skipped payments on my first foreclosure, CitiBank Diners Club abruptly canceled my card due to ‘undesirable changes in my credit rating,’” Romanello explained.  “I got very upset because I hadn’t thought this would happen, but to my enormous relief none of my other cards did this.  I have a high limit with American Express Gold, Visa, MasterCard and a lot of store cards, and Amex just renewed my card with an invitation to go Platinum.” Romanello continued to explain how she staved off the negative credit effects of two foreclosures, “I am careful to pay all other bills instantly when I receive them, I run no balances on any cards month over month.”

The key to keeping a high credit score is to selectively default. Some people who strategically default stop paying on all their debts, often as a precursor to bankruptcy. Anyone hopelessly overloaded with debt is probably wise to follow that path. However, for those who can afford to maintain other credit lines, and feel the need to do so, can simply stop paying their mortgage and keep paying everything else.

When I first reported that borrowers were defaulting on their first mortgage and keeping their second mortgages current, I was shocked. I conjectured most borrowers would default on their second mortgage and keep the first mortgage current to prevent a foreclosure because it’s unlikely an underwater second would foreclose. That isn’t what people are doing.

Most borrowers are defaulting on their first mortgage and keeping other debts current which is helping their credit scores.

According to the study, credit cards, car payments and student loans are the most common forms of additional debt, with personal loans and medical loans rounding out the bottom.  Surprisingly, only 23% of those surveyed have ever defaulted on any other debts.  Many YouWalkAway.com clients have never even had a late payment on their record prior to strategically defaulting from a property.  Although, 91% of underwater homeowners surveyed are facing other debts in addition to their mortgage, YouWalkAway.comhas seen these recurring trends amongst many clients.  Those who have handled the foreclosure strategically by closely monitoring their credit and other debt are fairing much better financially after the foreclosure.

Lenders should be thrilled that borrowers can’t seem to kick the habit. People want signatory debt, and they would rather walk away from their underwater house than default on their other debts. Personally, I think people should get rid of all their debts and live on the positive side of the financial ledger, but that isn’t what most borrowers are doing.

Even borrowers who opt for a short sale have seen quick restoration of their credit.  San Diego Real Estate Broker, Jeff Grant can attest to his credit recovering after a short sale of his investment home which was upside down by more than $200K.  “After my own short sale, missing a total of 8 mortgage payments, my credit went from 729 to 679. But it quickly recovered to 728 a year and four months later!”

Less than 18 months after a short sale, and his credit score is basically unchanged. Why would anyone fear the credit implications of a short sale?

Following in suite, Wynn Bloch’s house in Palm Springs, CA sold at foreclosure auction in March 2010.  As a result of the foreclosure, her credit score fell just 45 points – from 780 to 735.  “It didn’t hurt me really at all,” Bloch stated, “In fact, I was foreclosed upon last March and just bought a new house in December!”  While it may be unlikely for all defaulting homeowners to purchase a home so quickly, 51% of YouWalkAway.com clients polled do wish to purchase a new home within 5 years.

From foreclosure to homeowner in less than a year. Perhaps lenders should be tougher on these people, but the need for warm bodies to sign a loan document is prompting lenders to forgive and forget.

In reality, many YouWalkAway.com clients are more than happy to shed the excess baggage of their underwater homes and downsize to a rental.  Nearly, 100% of clients report saving money by renting, and 52% chose to rent a house smaller than their previous one.   Jon Maddux, CEO of YouWalkAway.com explains, “Eighty-one percent of our clients have experienced no issues renting after a foreclosure or short sale.  Only, 18% were asked to provide a slightly larger deposit.”

As Susan Edwards shares, “I love being at our new house.  I can imagine my dogs in the yard and our family sitting at the table for Thanksgiving.  Funny,” she continues, “but I’m more excited for [my new rental] than I was when we bought this house.  It really is a new beginning for us.”

Renting is a huge relief to people escaping a huge mortgage payment. Home is where the heart is, it doesn’t require a big loan.

Edwards, Romanello and Bloch are not exceptions to the rule or lucky strategic defaulters who have fallen through the credit reporting cracks.  They are living proof that if homeowners continue to keep on top of other debts and their credit scores, they can rebound much faster than initially predicted.

Maddux continues, “There has been a lot of misinformation regarding the effects foreclosure has on one’s credit.  More often than not, it is those who have an agenda to deter homeowners from walking away who use scare tactic phrases such as, ‘Foreclosure will destroy or decimate your credit.’

That is exactly why lenders try to foster the perception that default will be harmful. It’s only harmful to those who want to use credit, and apparently it isn’t very harmful to those who want to get another home loan.

Due to the nature of how credit scoring works, I prefer to describe the effects of foreclosure as wounding one’s credit.  Blemishes will heal on their own as long as one continues to keep other lines of credit current.  Seeing it first hand with our own YouWalkAway.com clients, a homeowner’s credit will improve over time as the delinquent payments move further into the past.” …

Lenders want to keep the millions who would benefit from strategic default in a state of fear and confusion to compel the borrowers to keep paying. They would prefer to publicly endorse borrowers most macabre fantasies of strategic default while quietly soliciting new customers behind the scenes. Prior to the blog era, they might have been successful.

Study: Mortgage-only defaulters may be safe credit risks

By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY

People who default on their mortgages — but no other debts — are not as risky as expected, according to a new study from credit monitor TransUnion.

TransUnion’s research shows that those who only default on mortgages are less likely to then default later on new car loans or credit cards than are people who default on mortgages and at least one other debt at the same time.

The study results, to be released Tuesday, also show that mortgage-only defaulters saw credit scores rebound faster than people who defaulted on multiple loans, which could include people who went bankrupt.The mortgage-only defaulters “are less risky than they appear,” says Steve Chaouki, TransUnion vice president. “Lenders will want to lend to these people in the future.”

There you have it. The already light punishments for strategic default will be lessened even more in the future, provided the strategic defaulter is calculated and selective in their default.

TransUnion, like other credit-management firms, is seeking insight into mortgage-only defaulters, who could prove to be a big market for lenders. In the past five years, almost 4 million U.S. homes have been lost to foreclosure, says market researcher RealtyTrac. A chunk of those were “strategic defaults,” in which homeowners who could afford to pay their mortgages walked because home values had tanked so much.FICO, keeper of the widely used FICO credit score, last month released one of the first credit studies on strategic defaulters and found them to be savvy about credit, with better credit histories than other mortgage defaulters.

As with FICO, TransUnion did its study — “Life After Foreclosure” — after enough people had defaulted and results could be considered valid.TransUnion’s research should diminish expectations that mortgage-only defaulters will join the ranks of habitual defaulters, Chaouki says.

Fear of being lumped in with the riff-raff is largely what prevents many with good credit for defaulting. Information like this will likely push many off the fence and into a new rental.

For instance, 5.8% of mortgage-only defaulters examined in the study were at least 60 days delinquent on new car loans which were opened after they defaulted on their mortgages. But 13.1% of the multiple defaulters were at least 60 days delinquent. The mortgage-only defaulters also had lower 60-day delinquency rates for credit cards, 11.4% vs. 27.1%. Both measures were taken at least 120 days after mortgage defaults.Credit scores for mortgage-only defaulters bounced back quicker, TransUnion also found. For instance, consumers with Vantage credit scores — a competitor to FICO scores — in the 631 to 650 range saw their scores rise a median 8 points 12 to 17 months after defaulting on mortgages. People in the same credit score range with multiple defaults saw their credit score drop by 2 points. Vantage scores range from 501 to 990. …

People considering strategic default who wish to maintain their credit use should default only on their primary mortgage. The punishments aren’t that bad, and they are likely to be lessened as time goes on.

Although, there are some consequences….

Fannie Mae noted in a recent press release that “Nearly Twice as Many Underwater Borrowers Think It Is Okay to Default Due to Financial Distress.” Has strategic default reached a tipping point in America?

It’s these changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes
Nothing remains quite the same
With all of our running and all of our cunning
If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane

Jimmy Buffett — Changes in Latitudes, Changes in Attitudes

Attitudes toward strategic default are changing. Last December I flatly stated, Strategic mortgage default will become common and accepted in 2011.

Many of those who chose not to strategically default make this choice because they believe making the payment is a moral obligation — an obligation above and beyond what is written in the contract. Banks are relying on those borrowers motivated by their perceived morality to keep making payments. Unfortunately, there is no longer a moral stigma associated with strategic default (accelerated default is a more accurate term).

Banks need a moral stigma to be associated with loan repayment. If the transaction were viewed by borrowers as a simple business transaction — which it is — then issues of morality are not effective at cajoling debtors into repayment, particularly when default is in the best interest of the debtor. Banks have long relied on borrower morality to get repaid.

Due to the events of the Great Housing Bubble, borrowers no longer feel a moral obligation to repay their mortgage debts. Borrowers view the system as corrupt. Many borrowers believe greedy lenders inflated prices with oversized loans to pad their own profit margins. Those borrowers are correct in their views and beliefs, and based on that view, many borrowers no longer feel compelled by morality to repay their mortgage debt.

Fannie Mae in it’s most recent press release confirmed my prediction. Strategic default is rapidly becoming accepted by Americans.

May 11, 2011

Fannie Mae’s National Housing Survey Shows Uptick in Consumer Attitudes Since December, But Rising Household Expenses May Be Cause for Concern

Though Perceptions of Investment Safety Have Been Declining, 57 Percent of Americans Believe That Homeownership Has a Lot of Potential as an Investment, Ranking Higher Than Other Investments

Feeling Less Financially Secure, Nearly Twice as Many Underwater Borrowers Think It Is Okay to Default Due to Financial Distress

One of my former co-workers is a deeply moral man. He views life rather simply, and most issues to him are either black or white. I watched him deal with the struggles of our declining incomes as the real estate bust dragged on, yet he remained committed to paying his mortgage on a house in Riverside County that declined about 50% in value. He was paying $3,200 per month for a property he could rent for $1,800.

Late in 2008, the pain became unbearable, and in a sudden change of heart, he moved out of his house to a rental in the same neighborhood and stopped paying his mortgage. In fact, he simply stopped everything. He left the house, stopped communicating with the bank, and moved on with his life. His was a purchase-money, non-recourse loan, so there wasn’t much the bank could do.

I never questioned him about his decision. It was none of my business. But knowing the kind of man he is, it must have pained him deeply. I know he was concerned about the standard of behavior he was setting for his children, and he was worried his family and his community would lose respect for him.

As it turned out, he was one of the last on his street to strategically default. All his neighbors he was worrying about had already bailed on their homes. He was the last holdout who fought acceptance of strategic default as an option. It cost him $20,000 more than it would have if he had made his move a year earlier when the situation was already hopeless.

WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae’s latest national housing survey finds that Americans expressed more cautious optimism during the first quarter of 2011 than in the fourth quarter of 2010, but they continue to lack confidence in the overall strength of the housing market and economic recovery. The First-Quarter 2011 Fannie Mae National Housing Survey polled homeowners and renters between January 2011 and March 2011. Findings were compared to similar surveys conducted throughout 2010 and December 2003.

Survey results show that Americans’ newfound optimism about home prices, the economy, and personal finances is balanced by concerns about rising household expenses, which may require Americans to remain cautions about the recovery. Despite consumer caution, 57 percent of Americans still believe that buying a home has a lot of potential as an investment – ranking higher than other investments, such as buying stocks and putting money into and IRA or 401(k) plan.

Since March of 2009, real estate has been one of the poorest performing asset classes in the country. The stock market has more than doubled. Ben Bernanke’s printing press is causing commodities to rise, and most other asset classes have been going up as well. The real estate kool aid is more powerful than reality.

“Despite moderate signs of improvement in the housing market and the overall economy, consumer attitudes continue to be shaped by ongoing concerns about the recovery and their own financial situations,” said Doug Duncan, Vice President and Chief Economist of Fannie Mae. “Uncertainty regarding the improving labor market, expectations of little home price and interest rate movement, and rising household expenses has left consumers feeling less financially secure and translates into weak mortgage demand. While we have seen indications of improving economic activity in recent months, especially the strengthening of private sector employment, consumers’ attitudes improved only marginally, and in some areas not at all, from a year ago, reflecting the continued unevenness and uncertainty of this recovery.”

• Only 33 percent of Americans said they believe the economy is on the right track, up four percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2010, but virtually unchanged from January 2010 (31%).
• Forty-two percent of respondents said they expect their personal finances to improve over the next year (up by 2 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2010), compared with 44 percent in January 2010.
• Forty percent say that their current monthly household expenses are significantly higher than twelve months ago, up from 34 percent in the previous quarter and 31 percent in January 2010.

Does anyone believe the government statistics on inflation? The cost of everything is going up — except real estate.

• While the number of Americans who perceive homeownership as a safe investment has been declining (from 83% in 2003 to 66% in first quarter of 2011), 57 percent still believe that buying a home has a lot of potential as an investment, more than any other investment tested.
• Nearly twice as many Underwater Borrowers (27%) think it is okay to walk away from a mortgage if they face financial distress than in January 2010.

They don’t devote much text to what is really the only important finding in their study. Of course, this particular fact doesn’t bode well for their massive underwater loan portfolio, so they probably aren’t going to make it a headline like I did.

Consumer attitudes don’t change that fast or that often. For twice as many borrowers to accept strategic default as acceptable behavior is an alarming trend for banks.

As is the case with any change in attitude, it takes a few pioneers to take a bold step forward. When the timid see the success of the bold, they emulate them. If their are significant rewards for the behavior — which there are for strategic default — then the behavior spreads rapidly, and all resistance to the idea is washed away.

Strategic default is part of the downward spiral that crushes house prices. The cycle above can only be broken if negative equity does not prompt strategic default. Since the debt relief is so substantial, the benefits quickly outweigh the negatives. Without a compunction against strategic default, the cycle continues unabated until house price graph looks like Las Vegas’s.

That is what strategic default does to a housing market. Lenders are rightfully frightened this outcome will repeat in every housing market in America.

The Fannie Mae First-Quarter 2011 National Housing Survey polled homeowners and renters to assess their attitudes toward owning and renting a home, confidence in homeownership as an investment, the current state of their household finances, views on the U.S. housing finance system, and overall confidence in the economy.

The cognitive dissonance revealed in some of these survey results is truly remarkable. Read on.

Other Survey Highlights

Forty-four percent of homeowners believe that the value of their home today is worth 20 percent or more than what they originally paid for it, declining from 46 percent in June 2010 and 51 percent in January 2010.

One in three Americans (30%) expect home prices to strengthen over the next year, up four percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2010, but virtually unchanged from a year ago.

Most people live in a house seven years or less. Since every market in the county is trading below its 2004 price levels, it is highly unlikely that 44% of homeowners have homes worth 20% more than they paid for it.

Most people don’t have a clue about what makes house prices go up and down, so perhaps it isn’t too surprising that 30% believe house prices will go up. House prices in nearly every market will decline this year.

Fifty-nine percent of Generation Y Americans (ages 18-34) expect their personal financial situation to improve over the next year, compared to 49 percent among Generation X (ages 35-44) and 37 percent among Baby Boomers (ages 45-64).

Fewer African-Americans think the economy is on the right track (44% in the first quarter of 2011 versus 51% in the previous quarter), and they are less optimistic about their personal finances (61% expect their finances to get better over the next year compared to 67% in the fourth quarter of 2010).

Only 13 percent of Pre-Baby Boomers (age 65+) think it will be easier for the next generation to purchase a home than it was for them, compared with 28 percent of Generation Y Americans.

Does the generation that manages to price-out the subsequent generation feel guilty about their actions? If buyers really are priced out forever, how would homeowners feel about that?

Nearly one in four (23%) Mortgage Borrowers say they are underwater, compared with 30 percent in January 2010.

Only 31 percent of Underwater Borrowers think they have sufficient savings (compared to 42% in June 2010, and 43% of all Mortgage Borrowers).

Forty-six percent of Underwater Borrowers say they are stressed about their ability to make payments on their debt (versus 35% in June 2010, and 33% of all Mortgage Borrowers).

For more detailed findings from the survey, clickhere.

If nearly half of borrowers are feeling mortgage distress, strategic default will continue to grow in popularity.

From FICO.com:

Through the use of custom analytic models, FICO Labs researchers have demonstrated the ability to identify borrowers who are over 100 times more likely to default strategically than others.

In addition, FICO Labs researchers have found that, as a group, strategic defaulters tend to be more savvy managers of their credit than the general population, with higher FICO® Scores, lower revolving balances, fewer instances of exceeding limits on their credit cards and lower retail credit card usage. This indicates that strategic defaulters display a different type of credit behavior than distressed consumers who miss payments.

…

The FICO Labs team built strategic default analytics to test the ability to rank-order both current and delinquent borrowers by their likelihood of strategically defaulting on their mortgage. Their custom models achieved excellent separation of borrowers into high versus low strategic default risk bands. Among current borrowers (i.e., those not delinquent on any loans):

• The riskiest borrowers were found to be 110 times more likely to commit a strategic default than the least risky borrowers.
• The riskiest 20 percent of borrowers included 67 percent of those who later committed strategic default. In other words, a servicer could reach two-thirds of those who would commit strategic default by targeting just 20 percent of its borrowers.

“The ability to spot likely strategic defaulters before delinquency enables servicers to intervene early,” said Dr. Jennings. “Strategic defaults are bad for lenders and investors, they’re bad for the homeowners who elect to default and they’re bad for neighborhoods and cities. Preventing them is in the interests of everyone involved.”

The right-to-rent proposal floating around Washington would crash house prices as loan owners everywhere strategically default to lower their monthly payments and stay in their houses.

Man, living at home is such a drag
Now your mom threw away your best porno mag (Bust it!)
You gotta fight for your right to party

Beastie Boys — (You Gotta) Fight Your Right (To Party)

The idea of a right to rent has been floated by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. His proposal is to give every loan owner the right to stay on in their foreclosure for five years paying market rents.

I first covered this issue in The Right to Rent Would Flatten the California Housing Market. I noted the following:

Dean Baker of the CEPR was one of the early public voices who called the housing bubble. He accurately noted the disparity between rent and payments and concluded housing prices were not sustainable. Like me, he was a renter looking to buy as prices were ramping up, and like me, he noted that since it didn’t make sense for him personally to buy, it didn’t make sense for anyone else either. Being an economist at an influential think tank, he was in a position to research and write about the issue and be heard.

I really like Mr. Baker’s proposal, but I have been afraid to write about it because I don’t think lawmakers fully understand what passing his legislation would do to the housing market. I would very much like to see it become law, but if it does, every inflated housing market in the country would crash very hard as loan owners accelerate their defaults.

My position on this issue hasn’t changed. I would like to see it be made a policy because of the impact it would have on the housing market and the economy in the long term. Short term, it will crush the banks as the remaining inflated markets crash under waves of strategic default.

Commentary: Right-to-Rent Would Ease Foreclosure Mess

By Dean Baker — April 11, 2011, 1:14 PM ET

Developments asked Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., to weigh in on the housing market. Mr. Baker first proposed the right-to-rent idea in 2007.

While the rate of foreclosures may have finally peaked, it is not going to come down quickly. We are virtually certain to see at least a million foreclosures in 2011 and comparable numbers in 2012 and 2013. Many more homeowners will lose their homes through distressed sales.

This is a crisis for both the homeowners themselves and also for the communities where these foreclosures are concentrated. There is considerable research showing that foreclosed properties are a blight on neighborhoods, bringing down property values and creating eyesores and safety risks. For these reasons, there is a strong argument for taking measures to reduce the pace of foreclosures.

I think some of those arguments are spurious. In my opinion, foreclosure is the best form of principal reduction, and foreclosures are essential to the economic recovery. But assuming Dean Baker is right and
I am wrong, the impact of his proposal on the housing market would be catastrophic for lenders.

However, few would argue for yet another round of the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. HAMP has proven bureaucratic and ineffective. Only a small share of threatened homeowners have received permanent modifications and a large portion of this select group is expected to re-default.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: There is a simple alternative that involves no government money and no new bureaucracy. We could temporarily change the rules on foreclosure to allow homeowners the right to stay in their home as renters for a substantial period of time (e.g., 5 years) following a foreclosure.

During this period, they would pay the market rent as determined by an independent appraiser. They would have the same rights and responsibilities as other tenants, with the exception that they could not be evicted without cause. The lender would own the property and would be free to sell it, although the former homeowner would still have the right to remain as a tenant even if the home is sold.

If every loan owner in America had the right to stay in their current house and pay only market rents rather than an inflated house payment, then every underwater loan owner with a loan payment exceeding rent would have less of a dis-incentive to strategically default. The only thing stopping most loan owners from defaulting is the fact that they have to leave their houses when they do. If you take away that punishment, many more people will strategically default.

This policy accomplishes several important goals. First and foremost it provides housing security for homeowners who got caught up in the middle of the bubble. These people can be blamed for having made a mistake by buying homes at bubble-inflated prices. But this mistake is small compared with the mistakes made by the banks that made hundreds of billions of dollars of bad and often deceptive loans.

I agree with his assessment that banks made the bigger mistake and lenders are more culpable than borrowerswhen it comes to lending issues. However, borrowers can’t be given a free pass if our system of lending is to function.

We were willing to give these banks trillions of dollars of loans at below market rates. Allowing foreclosed homeowners to stay in their homes as renters seems a rather small concession in comparison. This right-to-rent provision can also be narrowly structured so that it only applies to owner-occupied homes of less than the median value that were bought during the bubble years. This will ensure that it is not exploited by wealthy homeowners or investors.

I like that provision, but those just above the median won’t feel quite as good about it. I am delighted that his proposal would not help HELOC abusers stay in their homes.

By changing the balance of power between lenders and homeowners, the right to rent provision would give lenders more incentive to voluntarily arrange modifications that allow homeowners to stay in their house as owners. This would be the best possible outcome.

The fact that foreclosed homes remain occupied will prevent the sort of neighborhood blight that has devastated many communities across the country. Tenants with security in their home will have an incentive to keep the property looking respectable.

I don’t think that is true. Holdover owner tenants will not spend anything to maintain the property during the period of bank ownership. In fact, the tenant demands on the landlord for routine maintenance will undoubtedly get out of control. Loan owners will quickly realize they can have the benefits of renting (owner pays for maintenance) at a lower cost, and they will likely be given a chance to repurchase again in the future. Does anyone really think strategic default would not become the norm?

Finally, the right to rent could free up money that is currently going to mortgage payments on homes where owners never accrue any equity.In some of the former bubble markets the difference between mortgage payments on a house purchased near the peak of the bubble and the market rent can be more than $1,000 a month. The money saved by former homeowners is money they will spend in the communities where they live.

I argued the same in foreclosures are essential to the economic recovery. Californian’s gain no long term benefit from making oversized mortgage payments. The money they currently send to a lender is a drain on the local economy. Only fresh borrowing and a return to Ponzi living can make the old system work.

So there you have it: A simple policy that requires no taxpayer dollars and no new bureaucracy.

I love his idea, but realistically, it will never happen because the resulting strategic default would make the foreclosure problem much worse for the banks. It would be a great thing for society because every inflated market would immediately crash down to cashflow levels and stay there. Lenders would be forced to limit house payments to comparable rents because that is all they can recover if the borrower defaults. The days of payments exceeding comparable rents would be over. I think that would be great.

The average time a defaulting loan owner gets to stay for free in the house has ballooned to over 500 days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4yT0KAMyo

She sits by the fireside,
The room is so warm.
Her children are sleeping,
She waits in their home.

Passing the time.
Passing the time.
Everything fine.
Passing the time, drinking red wine.

Cream – Passing The Time

I really don’t get that worked up about the squatters and HELOC abusers anymore. I remember back in 2008 or 2009, when I would see someone who was given half a milion dollars for doing nothing — and spending it — I was shocked and angered that I would pay for that all with everyone else in a banking industry bailout — an ongoing bailout if you consider the inevitable inflation that will finish the process.

Now that I have seen several hundred HELOC abusers and squatters, they are a curiosity, nothing more. Sometimes the details are amusing, and imagining how they blew the money goes through everyone’s mind. We’re all watching the market, passing the time.

Wait until I tell you some of my eviction stories from Las Vegas… Another time…

Before the market improves, lenders must reach a point where loans are not going delinquent faster than they can cure them or foreclose on the squatters. Until the delinquency rates drops or the foreclosure rate rises, lenders will continue to build shadow inventory.

Then they must liquidate visible and shadow inventory at a rate faster than they are adding to it. Right now, shadow inventory is growing, visible inventory is growing, and liquidation rates are at a seasonal low. Liquidation must outpace additions before the inventory problem goes away.

The amount of inventory in visible and shadow inventory will take many years to clear out. The price levels after the liquidation will be determined by incomes and loan terms at the time. The weight of inventory will squeeze any remaining air out of the housing bubble.

LPS: Overall mortgage delinquencies declined in 2010

by CalculatedRisk on 2/07/2011 11:48:00 AM

LPS Applied Analytics released their December Mortgage Performance data. According to LPS:

• The average loan in foreclosure has been delinquent a record 507 days. This is up from 406 days at the end of 2009, and up from 499 days at the end of November.
• Overall, mortgage delinquencies dropped nearly 18% in 2010.
• On the other hand, foreclosure inventories were up almost 10% in 2010, and are now at nearly 8x historical averages
• “First-time” foreclosures are on the decline, with over 30% of new foreclosure starts having been in foreclosure before

Click on graph for larger image in graph gallery.

This graph provided by LPS Applied Analytics shows the percent delinquent, percent in foreclosure, and total non-current mortgages.

The percent in the foreclosure process is trending up because of the foreclosure moratoriums.

According to LPS, 8.83% of mortgages are delinquent (down from 9.02% in November), and another 4.15% are in the foreclosure process (up from 4.08% in November) for a total of 12.98%. It breaks down as:

• 2.56 million loans less than 90 days delinquent.
• 2.12 million loans 90+ days delinquent.
• 2.2 million loans in foreclosure process.

For a total of 6.87 million loans delinquent or in foreclosure.

The second graph shows the break down of serious delinquencies.

LPS reported “the share of seriously delinquent loans that have not made payments in over a year continues to increase.”.

Note: I’ve seen some people include these 7 million delinquent loans as “shadow inventory”. This is not correct because 1) some of these loans will cure, and 2) some of these homes are already listed for sale (so they are included in the visible inventory).

This data is not shadow inventory, but most shadow inventory resides there. CalculatedRisk is correct in pointing out that not all of these loans will become future for-sale inventory, and if you take this data as a direct measure of shadow inventory, there would be double counting with visible inventory. I would also note this data does not capture the number of loan owners with toxic financing that will give up over the next several years as prices grind lower and strategic default becomes more common.

Shadow inventory is continuing to grow larger. We aren’t adding to it quite as quickly as the past, but we are still not over the hump and actually reducing shadow inventory. That may come this year if the foreclosure rates pick up.

The bottom line for struggling loan owners is that if they decide to quit paying their mortgage today, there is a good chance they will not get booted out of the property for nearly two years. Even then, they won’t have to wait long to get a new GSE loan. It shouldn’t be surprising that strategic default is on the rise.

Strategic default has become common and accepted in Las Vegas.

It’s not right, but it’s okay
I’m gonna make it anyway
Close the door behind you
Leave your key

Whitney Houston — It’s Not Right, But It’s Okay

I am emotionally conflicted about strategic default. It’s not right, but it’s okay. Do you know what I mean?

I understand the argument that says borrowers should be responsible to keep their word and pay their debts. They should. However, I also believe that families should not be burdened for decades by one poor financial decision.

There are times when our values and beliefs are in conflict, and to avoid hypocrisy, each person must evaluate which of their conflicting values they hold in higher regard. I side with the family. I can’t condemn a family for relieving themselves of a financial burden they cannot handle, particularly when lenders abdicated their responsibility of making sure the family could handle the debt.

Strategic default the norm in Las Vegas

Unless you have spent time talking with Las Vegas residents, you can’t fully appreciate how common and accepted strategic default is in that town.

First, there is no class distinction when it comes to walking away. I know a business owner who walked away from his $1.1M mortgage. He said when he saw a few comps in his neighborhood go for less than $500,000, he said continuing to pay seemed pointless, so he walked.

I know a mortgage broker who walked away from three properties. She had a condo she bought in the mid 90s and two properties she bought when the market “corrected” in 2007. In early 2009, she saw a comp for her condo go for less than its 1996 purchase price. She calculated that she had almost $400,000 in mortgages on about $175,000 in real estate, and prices were still headed straight down.

Basically, anyone who bought in the 00s is underwater or nearly so, and there is little hope of price recover while the rest of the city strategically defaults because they too are underwater. The excess debt will be purged in Las Vegas, and the excessive debt service payments will not serve as a drag on the local economy as it will here. That being said, the purging process is not pretty.

Nearly one in four people in Nevada who lost their homes to foreclosure have admitting to walking away even though they could afford their monthly payments, according to a study released today by the Nevada Association of Realtors.

The study said 23 percent of those surveyed described their own situation as a strategic default, meaning they decided to stop making payments on their debt despite having the financial ability to pay. Many of those who walked away from their homes said trusted confidants advised them that a strategic default was their best option, the study said.

Keep in mind that many of these borrowers probably could not really afford the payment long term. Those borrowers are merely accelerating the inevitable rather than truly walking away from an obligation they could comfortably cover.

The authors of the study said strategic defaults are a much greater problem in Nevada than the rest of the nation. It has less of a stigma here that it’s a shameful decision, and it’s becoming more popular as part of a snowball effect, they said.

“I believe the current trend upward. It could get worse,” said Joel Searby, SGS’s director of marketing and business development. “The cultural stigma is dropping, and it’s becoming more acceptable.”

The survey was conducted by SGS, a national research firm that has done similar studies in Florida and Pennsylvania. It held two focus groups in Las Vegas and interviewed more than 1,000 Nevadans by phone.

“It was striking to see that nearly one in four Nevadans who lost their homes to foreclosure admitted they simply walked away from their mortgage,” said outgoing Nevada Association of Realtors President Linda Rheinberger.

Nevada has ranked No. 1 in the nation in terms of its rate of foreclosure filings since January 2007.

A report released today by California-based CoreLogic said foreclosure rates in Nevada increased in November to 9.49 percent of mortgage loans, up 1.71 percentage points from November 2009. The national rate was 3.48 percent in November.

In November, 19.65 percent of Las Vegas mortgages were 90 days or more delinquent, down from 19.70 percent in October. The statewide delinquency rate is 17.35 percent, CoreLogic reported.

It’s difficult to imagine nearly 10% of mortgages in foreclosure and another 10% delinquent. It is difficult to keep a rate that high because after enough time goes by with a 20% delinquency rate, every mortgage in the area will turn over. The 20% in the pool from last year is a different 20% that is in the foreclosure queue now.

University studies in the past two years have suggested that between 17 and 25 percent of Las Vegas residents have considered or would consider walking away from their mortgage even though they could afford their payments.

Nevada had nearly 8,000 homes foreclosed upon in the fourth quarter of 2010, according to California-based RealtyTrac. If the survey is correct, that means more than 1,800 of those are people who did so strategically.

Searby said he was surprised with the findings of so many people walking away in Nevada. Anecdotal evidence in surveys in other states suggests the problem is “significantly worse” in Nevada, he said.

Nevada homes have taken one of the biggest price drops in the nation, and in Las Vegas prices have fallen about 60 percent from their peak in June 2006.

Cause and effect. Low prices are creating the circumstances leading to more strategic default. It is a classic downward spiral. The Las Vegas experience inspired the amend-extend-pretend dance to avoid a repeat in every housing market in the country. 

Searby said a culture is developing in Las Vegas and the rest of Nevada that strategic defaults are OK, and there isn’t the stigma once associated with it. That’s creating a snowball effect that increases its popularity, he said.

Some websites are dedicated to encouraging people to walk away from their homes. The Las Vegas Sun and its sister publication, In Business Las Vegas, has written on the subject, and one prominent home builder, Richard Plaster, president of Signature Homes, has encouraged people to do a strategic default to spare their finances.

“It is about how they’re perceived by their peers,” Searby said. “One man in a focus group said growing up this would have been an act of shame. It’s not seen as something that brings shame on him now. There’s a subculture arising who don’t believe walking away from a mortgage is necessarily bad. This has become a financial decision for most of the families first and foremost.”

This is the argument I have been making for months. The needs and interests of the family outweigh paying the mortgage on an underwater property when it’s cheaper to rent.

This dilemma is not new. If your family were starving to death, would you steal food? Most would. Anyone who valued survival more than personal property law would. In fact, many wars have been fought because one group lacked resources to survive, so they go to war to take those resources from another.

Searby said what surprised him in the survey is that those who are walking away tend to be older, mostly 40 and over, rather than younger generations that might be perceived to be less financially responsible.

“They are looking at the last 30 to 40 years of their life and feel it doesn’t make sense to have that kind of debt hanging over their heads,” Searby said. “It’s about their quality of life and that all they are going to pass on to their kids is debt.”

That scenario describes one Las Vegas resident who took part in the survey.

Lee, who didn’t want to use her last name, said she plans to walk away from her $1,700 a month mortgage even though she can afford the payment. Lee said the value of her home that she refinanced about six years ago for $235,000 plummeted from $270,000 to $80,000 today. Since then, she has retired from her federal job and had her husband leave her.

Interesting sob story, but at least she admitted to the HELOC abuse.

Lee said the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has taken over the bank that once held her loan and the lender now servicing the loan has been unwilling to work with her to reduce her payments. She said it’s prudent to keep the money for taking care of herself during her retirement.

“Why should I pay on something when it’s like losing $150,000 in the stock market,” Lee said. “The way I look at it is I’m 73 and never going to see this market come back. I don’t feel bad at all. They had a chance to work with me.”

Lee said she plans to rent a home from her girlfriend and isn’t worried that the lender will come after her for the first mortgage six months after foreclosing or for the second and third mortgages on the homes over the next six year as allowed under state law.

If that happens, she said, she will file bankruptcy.

In all likelihood, either the lender or a zombie debt collector will come after her, and she will have to declare bankruptcy to make the problem go away.

Most borrowers who walk away should declare bankruptcy. It’s the only way to be sure the debt will never be a problem again. I can foresee many borrowers who walked away getting blind-sided by lenders several years from now when the borrowers have assets again.

Searby said those who walk away aren’t concerned that it would take them three to seven years to get another mortgage or that their credit might make it difficult to buy a car for a while.

That’s because people don’t have much reason to worry. The powers-that-be are determined to give everyone a pass.

The survey said most Nevada homeowners facing foreclosure weren’t aware of the federal and nonprofit programs designed to help them. Some 61 percent said they weren’t aware of foreclosure aid programs and only 3 percent said they used the state’s foreclosure mediation program or were helped by it in any way.

Many Nevadans experiencing foreclosure faced two or more life-altering events that increased their risk of defaulting on their mortgage, the study said. The report said the loss of a job and unexpected medical bills were the most common events triggering a foreclosure.

Homeowners statewide were far more likely to blame banks and lenders, at 46 percent, than the government, which polled 20 percent, for the foreclosure problem. Homebuyers got 13 percent of the blame, the study said.

Interesting. Lenders are getting their oversized share of the blame.

Short sales proved to be moderately helpful in avoiding foreclosures with the report saying 10 percent of those surveyed said it helped them.

NVAR President Mike Young said the study would be used as a basis with the state’s lawmakers to help address the problems with foreclosures. Besides advocacy and counseling, streamlining short sales could help stabilize the housing market, he said.

Short sales are those in which lenders allow the homes to be sold for less than is owed on the mortgage. Homeowners have faced hurdles in getting banks to approve that option.

Short sales are not the answer, and neither are loan modifications. More foreclosures are on the way.

The published figures for negative equity doesn’t account for necessary sales discounts, sales costs, and realtor commissions. The true negative equity rate is much worse.

Well I know, I miss more than hit
With a face that was launched to sink
An’ I seldom feel, the bright relief
It’s been the Worst Day Since Yesterday

If there’s one thing I have said
Is that the dreams I once had, now lay in bed
As the four winds blow, my wits through the door
It’s been the Worst Day Since Yesterday

Fallin’ down to you sweet ground
Where the flowers they bloom
It’s there I’ll be found
Hurry back to me, my wild calling
It’s been the Worst Day Since Yesterday

Flogging Molly — The Worst Day Since Yesterday

Almost a quarter of all homeowners with a mortgage are underwater. It’s a staggering number. But the effective home equity is worse than the officially reported figures would suggest. Since selling a house has a cost paid by the seller, 6% to 10% of home equity is pulverized to grease the wheels of commerce. That being the case, a prolonged period of stagnant home prices immobilizes the population. With no equity to pay the transaction costs of leaving, homeowners with less than 10% equity are effectively underwater.

IMO, the actions taken by lenders, the Federal Reserve and our government to create an artificial bottom in house prices is going to drag this problem out for years. Ultimately, not letting home prices fall will be viewed as a mistake.

When a market bottoms and prices start moving up slowly but consistently, the buyers during the bottoming phase begin to have equity in their properties. Once prices rise off the bottom, sellers with newfound equity raise their bids on prime properties, and the move-up market adds to the sales volumes. It is the additional demand of move-up buyers with equity that lifts the market out of the doldrums.

By creating the false bottom at a price higher than what the market would have, the powers-that-be prevented the formation of a true and durable bottom, and none of the buyers during the period of the false bottom will have the equity to get out. We trapped several more years worth of buyers in their homes and delayed their move-up purchase.

Buyers who are selling their current house to obtain another — move-up buyers — usually form 25% of the market activity. Today it is effectively zero. Thanks to the manipulations of the market, it will be effectively zero for several more years. In a market suffering from sales rates 30+% below historic norms, the move-up buyer segment is urgently needed. Unfortunately, these buyers cannot be manufactured.

Negative Home Equity Is Worse Than You Think

By: Diana Olick — Wednesday, 15 Dec 2010

There was a lot of talk last week about how negative equity, now at 22.5 percent of all homes with mortgages, according to CoreLogic [CLGX 18.20 -0.06 (-0.33%) ], will affect the housing recovery. Then mortgage rates popped up to 5 percent overnight, thanks to the 10-year Treasury, and more folks voiced concern over today’s potential home buyer and his or her ability to take advantage of this low-priced housing market.

Owing more on your mortgage than your home is currently worth doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t afford your monthly mortgage payment or that you’re going to go about your day any differently, other than feeling a little financially depressed. While it may make some more likely to walk away or “strategically default,” most won’t.

It does mean that you can’t use your home to pay for anything, like a new car or your kids’ college tuition, and it does mean that you can’t move up to a nicer home without having to take a hit by paying off your mortgage with whatever stash of cash you have. Now here’s the issue: The move-up buyer (which is the market we’re counting on now to get us out of this mess, given that the home buyer tax credit pulled a lot of first-time buyer demand forward to the beginning of 2010). A significant number of move-up buyers, even if not underwater on their mortgages now, may be in a negative equity position when it comes to buying a new home.

Let me just preface that if you happen to be wealthy independent of your home, or a relative just died and left you a sizeable chunk of cash, this doesn’t apply to you. Now here goes. Mortgage expert Mark Hanson makes an excellent point and did some math, which I want to share:

“In order to sell and re-buy, a homeowner must receive enough proceeds from the sale to 1) pay off the mortgage(s), 2) pay a Realtor 5-6 percent and 3) put a 3.5-20 percent down payment on a new vintage loan,” begins Hanson, and those alone may be too financially off-putting in today’s economy for many potential buyers.

“Effective negative-equity is the big weight on housing that has no easy or quick cure,” continues Hanson.

His math:

* Real effective negative-equity as it pertains to house selling and buying starts at:
* <9.5% positive equity for FHA repeat buyers (6% Realtor fee + 3.5% down payment)
* <16% positive equity for Fannie/Freddie repeat buyers (6% Realtor fee + 10% down payment)
* <26% for Jumbo repeat buyers (6% Realtor fee + 20% down payment)

When lowering Corelogic’s negative equity threshold to 75% on CA mortgages, 53% are effectively underwater.

And I would add to Hanson’s logic, that CoreLogic also noted that an additional 2.4 million borrowers are in a “near-negative equity” position, with less than 5 percent equity in their homes. That puts them out of the move-up market as well.

With rising mortgage rates, even if they don’t go much higher, the “effective” negative equity rate of the move-up buyer will impact recovery, slowing sales as more buyers/demand are priced out of the market.

The negative equity situation is a lead weight on the mid to high end of the local housing market. Most of the people who can afford to buy these houses already have, and they are locked up in that 53% of California mortgages effectively underwater (for 20% down buyers). The effect of so much mortgage equity withdrawal is to leave so many potential buyers are hopelessly underwater on their existing mortgages that they are removed from the buyer pool. It is only a matter of time before many of these people become supply when they sell, but they will create no demand as they move to the rental pool.

clear skies,   Doug Reynolds

www.SellWithDoug.com

Treasure hunting, demolition, forgery–even a telethon. Our picks for the top five most bizarre foreclosure rescue attempts. 

5. I pimped my yard to PETA.

This past March, “Octomom” Nadya Suleman was reportedly approached by PETA when word got out about her mortgage woes. The offer: A billboard sign urging pet owners not to let their dog or cat become an “Octomom” in a campaign to raise awareness about controlling the pet population. Suleman ended up letting PETA advertise on her front yard for $5,000. In April, Suleman reached an agreement with the mortgage holder for a sixth-month extension to pay off the $450,000 debt. 

4. God made me do it.

Earlier this month, a Montana man, Brent Arthur Wilson, was convicted for removing For Sale signs and forging ownership papers on a foreclosed home in a bizarre effort to keep a roof over his head. During his trial, Wilson claimed that “Yaweh,” or “the creator,” gave him the home. The jury was out for less than an hour before finding Wilson guilty. He now faces up to 30 years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced August 19. 

3. Buy my T-shirt, save my house.

To raise the $250,000 he needed to avoid foreclosure on his Port Washington, Wis., pad, former Saved by the Bell star Dustin Diamond sold T-shirts with his photo and a caption reading, “I paid $15 to save Screeech’s house.” (The extra “e” in “Screeech” was to get around copyright laws.)

The down-on-his-luck comedian turned his money problems into a publicity ploy, telling his story on The Howard Stern Show and even scheduling an online telethon to raise more money. The appearance was canceled moments before it went on the air. Despite all that, it looks like Diamond is still going to lose his home. Wells Fargo started foreclosure proceedings in April. 

2. If I can’t live here, no one can.

This past February, Ohio carpet business owner Terry Hoskins decided that he’d rather bulldoze his $350,000 house to the ground than let the bank have it. Hoskins also basically confirmed that he’d do the same to his carpet store if he had to. Thankfully, it didn’t come to that. Although Hoskins didn’t technically break any laws, the bank did hold a sheriff’s auction of his business property to pay off the $600,000 debt he owed. 

1. Superman saved our house.

On a more positive note, a rare comic book (an Action Comic #1—the issue that introduced Superman to the world) was recently found in the basement of a couple facing foreclosure. Although it hasn’t been valued yet, Stephen Fishler, co-owner of ComicConnect.com, guarantees that the comic will bring in more than enough to pay off the mortgage at auction time. Other rare finds like this have been valued at more than $1 million.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® is dedicated to providing resources that help families facing foreclosure take every step they can to keep their home. To find out how to (legitimately) fight foreclosure, visit the HouseLogic Foreclosure Resource Guide.

clear skies,

Doug Reynolds

www.SellWithDoug.com

G. M. Filisko, March 19, 2010

Have to sell your home for less than it’s worth? Our seven tips will help you get the best price.

1. Know who you owe

A short sale has to be approved by any company that has a mortgage or lien against your home. That includes your first, second, or even third mortgage lender, your home equity line lender; your homeowners or condominium association; and any contractors who’ve placed a lien on your home. Make a list and start talking to everyone early in the process. Ask what documents they’ll need from you.

2. Pick your short sale team

You’ll need to work with a team of short sale experts, including a real estate agent, real estate attorney, and your accountant. Look for agents and attorneys who advertise themselves as short sale experts. Interview at least three, and listen carefully for signs that they understand the complexities of the short sale process.

Agents should explain how they’ll arrive at a suggested price for your home. Ask them to show you a sample short-sale package or for an example of a prior short-sale success.

3. Get your documents ready

Gather the paperwork your creditors and mortgage lenders asked to see, like your listing agreement and a hardship letter explaining why you need to do a short sale. You’ll also need proof of what you earn and what you owe as well as copies of your federal income tax returns for the past two years.

4. Expect delays

Despite a federal rule saying banks participating in the federal government’s Making Home Affordable loan modification programmust respond to short-sale offers within 10 days, it may take weeks or months for your lender to decide whether to allow you to sell your home in a short sale–and even longer if you must negotiate with more than one lender or lienholder.

Your lender and lienholders don’t have to agree to your proposed short sale. They can reject your terms or make a counteroffer, which can create further delays.

5. Anticipate demands

Discuss with your short-sale team how you should respond to common short-sale demands from lenders. For example, are you willing to sign a promissory note agreeing to pay outstanding amounts after the sale is complete?

6. Know the tax implications

Any unpaid amount of your mortgage “forgiven” by your lender through a short sale may be considered income to you under federal tax rules. Ask your attorney or accountant whether you qualify to exclude that amount as income on your tax returns under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act and Debt Cancellation Act. Also ask if you’ll be required to report amounts “forgiven” by other lienholders, if applicable.

7. Consider how the short sale will affect your credit and what you must pay

Ask whether your lender will report the short sale to credit-reporting agencies. Having a portion of your debt forgiven may negatively affect your credit score, but a short sale typically damages your score less than a foreclosure or bankruptcy.

Ask you lawyer whether you’ll be responsible for paying back the lenders’ loss. If the lender says it will forgive any losses on the sale of your home, get that promise in writing.

Here’s a good article on deciding if buying a fixer is for you.  If so, it explains steps to take in assessing the right purchase.  Enjoy.

clear skies,

Doug Reynolds

www.BuyWithDoug.com

G. M. Filisko,  August 24, 2010

1. Decide what you can do yourself

TV remodeling shows make home improvement work look like a snap. In the real world, attempting a difficult remodeling job that you don’t know how to do will take longer than you think and can lead to less-than-professional results that won’t increase the value of your fixer-upper house. 

• Do you really have the skills to do it? Some tasks, like stripping wallpaper and painting, are relatively easy. Others, like electrical work, can be dangerous when done by amateurs.

• Do you really have the time and desire to do it? Can you take time off work to renovate your fixer-upper house? If not, will you be stressed out by living in a work zone for months while you complete projects on the weekends?

2. Price the cost of repairs and remodeling before you make an offer

• Get your contractor into the house to do a walk-through, so he can give you a written cost estimate on the tasks he’s going to do.

• If you’re doing the work yourself, price the supplies.

• Either way, tack on 10% to 20% to cover unforeseen problems that often arise with a fixer-upper house.

3. Check permit costs

• Ask local officials if the work you’re going to do requires a permit and how much that permit costs. Doing work without a permit may save money, but it’ll cause problems when you resell your home.

• Decide if you want to get the permits yourself or have the contractor arrange for them. Getting permits can be time-consuming and frustrating. Inspectors may force you to do additional work, or change the way you want to do a project, before they give you the permit.

• Factor the time and aggravation of permits into your plans.

4. Doublecheck pricing on structural work

If your fixer-upper home needs major structural work, hire a structural engineer for $500 to $700 to inspect the home before you put in an offer so you can be confident you’ve uncovered and conservatively budgeted for the full extent of the problems.

Get written estimates for repairs before you commit to buying a home with structural issues.

Don’t purchase a home that needs major structural work unless:

• You’re getting it at a steep discount

• You’re sure you’ve uncovered the extent of the problem

• You know the problem can be fixed

• You have a binding written estimate for the repairs

5. Check the cost of financing

Be sure you have enough money for a downpayment, closing costs, and repairs without draining your savings.

If you’re planning to fund the repairs with a home equity or home improvement loan:

• Get yourself pre-approved for both loans before you make an offer.

• Make the deal contingent on getting both the purchase money loan and the renovation money loan, so you’re not forced to close the sale when you have no loan to fix the house.

• Consider the Federal Housing Administration’s Section 203(k) program, which lets qualified purchasers wrap up to $35,000 into their mortgages to upgrade their home before they move in.

6. Include inspection contingencies in your offer

Don’t rely on your friends or your contractor to eyeball your fixer-upper house. Hire pros to do common inspections like:

• Home inspection. This is key in a fixer-upper assessment. The home inspector will uncover hidden issues in need of replacement or repair. You may know you want to replace those 1970s kitchen cabinets, but the home inspector has a meter that will detect the water leak behind them.

• Radon, mold, lead-based paint

• Septic and well

• Pest

Most home inspection contingencies let you go back to the sellers and ask them to do the repairs, or give you cash at closing to pay for the repairs. The seller can also opt to simply back out of the deal, as can you, if the inspection turns up something you don’t want to deal with.

If that happens, this isn’t the right fixer-upper house for you. Go back to the top of this list and start again.