HousingStorm.com

Turn on any financial news program and at some point you’ll hear the experts extolling the virtues of diversification. Real estate, even through the market downturn, has long been considered a conservative, long-term strategy to growing wealth.

In fact, that very downturn has created a historic buying opportunity for potential homebuyers and investors alike. The combination of lower home prices across America and historically low mortgage rates, two essential factors that usually don’t trend in the same direction, have triggered a buyer’s market in many areas of the country. For real estate investors who want to rent their properties, this can make the difference in achieving positive cash flow sooner or right off the bat.

While some seasoned real estate investors make it look easy, to be successful, beginners should follow some basic principles.

Learn all you can. Before committing your cash, you should have a fundamental understanding of real estate. For example, be aware that, in general, investment properties are not liquid investments. Barring exceptional circumstances, real estate does not sell at a moment’s notice. It could take days or months to sell a property, depending on the strength of the market in a particular region.

Consider cash flow. You’ll need to have enough capital on hand to cover any short-term losses due to vacancies between tenants.

Start small. Look into buying a condominium, single-family home or a duplex. Leave large apartment buildings and commercial properties to the pros.

Inquire at the local Chamber of Commerce about companies relocating into or out of the area. Company movement is one indicator of demand for rental and/or office space.

Find a property that will be in demand. Look for a moderately priced home with three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a garage that sits on a quiet street.

Research the property. The most common way first-time investors lose is by failing to investigate a property thoroughly. Look beyond the front door. Investigate the reputation of the school district, the crime rate, and plans for expanding a nearby highway or developing vacant land. Ask a local real estate professional about the area, its history, and how fast (or slow) properties are moving.

Inspect the home you’re considering for signs of water damage, such as stains on the ceiling and crinkling or gathering wallpaper; open and close every door and window; and check all electrical sockets by plugging in an appliance. Get an independent home inspection, roof inspection and termite inspection. Unexpected repair costs can eat away your cash flow. Because even the best inspection can’t always predict problems, try to set aside some of the rental income for unexpected repairs.

Spend time driving the streets of the neighborhood noting the condition of other properties. Are lawns maintained? Are roofs in good shape? Are homes kept up?
Be ready to make fixes quickly and respond to the renter’s needs. If you’re not prepared to be a hands-on landlord, consider hiring a property management firm.

See your tax advisor for related planning and laws that can affect your investment decisions.

Remember, investing in a property is much different than living in one, and while emotion and attachment can be prime motivators when it comes to homes, it is return on investment that counts when investing in real estate.

clear skies,

_doug reynolds

California is doomed for two simple but profound reasons: the cost structure is too high for most businesses to survive, and a boom-dependent economy.

The dysfunctions crippling California would easily fill a volume: a dysfunctional Legislature that has been gerrymandered to protect virtually every seat; a dysfunctional proposition system which enables special interests to craft Protected Fiefdoms via the ballot box; recalcitrant public unions who don’t see anything wrong with public servants getting 90% of top-pay in pensions while still earning big bucks as “contract employees,” an enormous population of undocumented workers who pay only sales taxes, and whose employers pay no payroll taxes, either– and that just scratches the surface. I want to highlight two systemic, structural causes for California’s impending bankruptcy as a state and as an “economy”: a crushingly high costs structure and an economy entirely dependent on the next boom.

I know this sounds too simplistic to be meaningful, but I think there is much truth in this statement: Costs are too high because the guy before you paid too much.

In other words, you can’t afford the $500,000 mortgage on the $625,000 house you bought in 2008 because the guy before you paid $550,000 for a house which sold for $140,000 in 1997.

These numbers are drawn from reality: our friends bought a small home in a desirable suburb in the San Francisco Bay Area for $140,000 in 1997. Yes, it was a fixer-upper and yes, our friends completely remodeled it. The fair value of the house after renovation was probably in the $175,000 to $190,000 range, tops.

They sold the house in 2005 for $550,000, and that buyer unloaded the house in 2008 for $625,000.

This represents approximately $235,000 of actual value (the $175,000 adjusted for inflation from 1997 to 2010 as per the BLS inflation calculator) and $390,000 of “credit-bubble” excess.

Yet that “bubble valuation” is an actual cost now that somebody borrowed money to pay that grossly inflated price. This mechanism is absolutely key to understanding the California economy’s fundamental insolvency: the apartment rent is high because the landlord overpaid, the office rent is high because the landlord overpaid, the house is too high because the previous owner overpaid and his/her lender ponied up the mortgage based on bubble valuations.

You can see the bubble in this chart of median home prices in Califonia:

It even explains why Napa Valley is going bust, as this story submitted by frequent contributor U. Doran reveals: Vineyard Defaults Surge as Bargain Wines Hurt Napa Valley.

Wine costs are partly driven by the fact that the last guy grossly overpaid for vineyard land. Now the lenders are scrambling, but it’s all too late; bubbles burst, and sadly for the lenders and those who bought at the top of the bubble, there will be no boom to save them.

Hunkering down and awaiting the next boom is a strategy as old as the state itself. When the easily plucked gold in the Sierra Nevada ran out, the economy based on supplying distant mining camps died right along with hundreds of those camps.

But then the Comstock Lode of silver was discovered in Nevada, and California–especially San Francisco–was bailed out by a veritable flood of fresh wealth pouring out of the mines.

More recently, the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s gutted the defense industry which had been a mainstay of the California economy since World War II. That “depression” lowered real estate values and caused many bankrupcties, personal and business alike.

But then the biotech and personal computer/software revolution took hold (the Macintosh took off as the laserprinter revolutionized desktop publishing, etc.) and the next boom was under way. Tax revenues skyrocketed and Silicon Valley was the envy of the world, sparking wannabe “incubators of wealth” from New York (Silicon Alley) to Malaysia and beyond.

While no boom runs white-hot forever, the residents of California have come to expect a new bubble/boom to arise to fuel rising tax revenues and real estate valuations. Just as the PC revolution peaked (1995’s “Start Me Up” Windows launch (as the bumper sticker had it, “Mac 1985, Windows 1995″), then the Internet boom started, triggering a frenzy of overinvestment and bubblicious valuations.

After that bubble burst in 2001, hot-spots in San Francisco and the valley lost some luster, and about 120,000 workers lost their jobs and left Northern California. But once again, a new wave of web-enabled businesses arose: Netflix, the Google juggernaut, Apple reclaimed the crown of global device/software integration innovation, Twitter, etc. etc.

But the current Web 2.0 boom is not generating a flood of new wealth which spreads over the landscape. Twitter has about 100 employees and might double to 200. Apple employs a few thousand people in Cupertino but all its manufacturing is done elsewhere.

What nobody seems to notice is that Web 2.0 is all about leveraging automated software. You don’t need 10,000 people to run Twitter or Facebook.

And as I noted yesterday, these Web 2.0 businesses based on advertising revenues are inherently limited to the pool of available advertisers whose adverts are actually generating revenues. You can’t reinflate a trillion dollars of real estate with 200 employees.

California is now the world capital of Denial. Everyone from the State legislature to union officials to realtors to small business owners are hanging on, refusing to face the fact that there will be no boom to save them and the state, To survive one more year, they’re borrowing money, hiding debts and real valuations, monkeying with the books and playing accounting tricks, borrowing from next year’s revenues, selling bonds–anything to maintain the artifice of solvency for 2010 so the next boom (conveniently scheduled for 2011) will lift real estate values, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and launch entire new industries.

Welcome to the Golden State of Denial. Without another global bubble–for California is a global economy–then California is doomed to insolvency at every level, public and private.

A return to historical levels of real estate valuations will bankrupt every lender and every owner with debts based on bubble valuations. State and local governments are thus doubly doomed, as their property tax revenues dry up and payroll taxes dwindle along with the job count.

I have covered the pernicious effects of a high cost structure before: Lowering the Cost Structure of the U.S. Economy (August 29, 2008)

California’s entire cost structure is based on bubble/boom valuations and the vast tax revenues generated by those bubbles/booms.

The problem in California is everything costs too much: auto insurance costs more, gasoline costs more, taxes are near the top, especially on those households who make more than $100,000 a year, sales taxes are basically 10%, workers compensation insurance, business licenses, vehicle taxes, State Park admission/parking fees, rent, housing, and on and on.

The state and all its local governments have grown fat on endless bubbles and booms, and are now refusing to face the long lean years ahead. California is like the pilgrim who gets saved by a miracle at every turn. The economic miracles can’t run out, because we’ve always been saved before.

As the disclaimer puts it: past performance is not a guide to future performance.

In some ways, California’s dependence on bubbles and booms mirrors the nation as a whole; as with so many things, California has just extended the fantasy further.

When a homeowner sells their property “short,”  that amount of money that was forgiven by the lender is considered income and typically taxed.   Well, currently the Federal Government is not taxing that money to the short seller but the state of California is.  On Monday, Legislation to prevent the state from taxing forgiven mortgage debt cleared the state Assembly.  The legislation could potentially offer tax relief to thousands of Californians who sold their home through short sale in 2009.  The measure passed 47-27 and is now being sent to Governor Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger’s office signaled later that he may veto the measure. 

Currently, the fed’s tax relief is in place through 2012.  California was forgiving the “income” in 2007 and 2008 but since falling on major budget deficits, the state has since been taxing the amount of money the seller/homeowner was forgiven.

Doug’s take: I can definitely see both sides of this one.  It is a huge help for struggling homeowners that have to sell short to get the tax break.  I know, i have many short sale clients currently and in the past.  They all tell me how tough it is going to be to pay that tax on the forgiven amount.  It would be a much needed break for those in the difficult position of losing their home and have to do a short sale.

On the other hand, the state is in financial ruin as well.  The state needs all the tax money it can get.  We’ve all been effected by the deficit.

My suggestion is meeting in the middle and only taxing half as much as would normally be taxed.  It would be a win-win in my opinion but then again politics are not that easy.  We’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out.  I know my past short sale clients will be anxiously waiting.

If you have any questions about selling your home as a short sale, i’m here to help.  Give me a call or email and i’ll put my short sale experience to work for you.

clear skies,

doug reynolds

Economically-speaking, inexpensive housing is a wonderful thing.  Economically-speaking, a large percentage of our population would be much better off renting.

Government programs like FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HAMP, Tax-Credits, etc, were all designed with the goal of making homeownership more attainable…meaning that more people can now attain a limited supply of homes.  Increased demand leads to higher prices…meaning these programs just made housing less attainable. Economically-speaking, we’d be better off if they never existed in the first place.

It sounds almost un-American to say such things…and that’s a big part of the problem.

Even while acknowledging that high home prices actually harm the economy, Yale economics professor Robert Shiller wrote a piece in The New York Times, making a case that the Government should continue supporting the programs that cause them.  He specifically mentions the F.H.A., Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, but all supporting programs were implied.

His reasons for supporting Government actions were basically:

1. Home prices would fall more if the programs ended
2. “The American Dream” is essential to our “sense of national identity”

The Emperor’s clothes are beautiful indeed.

From the article:

…But what is the long-term justification for putting taxpayers on the line to subsidize homeownership? Is this nothing more than a sacred cow in American society — a political necessity because so many voters own homes and are mindful of their resale value?

In fact, there is much more to the history of subsidizing housing. While the crisis in the housing market shows that our current approach is far from perfect, there is a certain wisdom behind it, related not only to economic stimulus but also to the preservation of a sense of national identity. It’s important to remember this as we consider re-engineering our institutions as the crisis ebbs.

…

This time, the best answer isn’t found in traditional economics but rather in American culture: a long-standing feeling that owning homes in healthy communities is connected to individual liberties that embody our national identity. Historically, homeownership has been associated with freedom, while renting — often in tenements or mill villages — has been linked to the oppression of a landlord.

In his classic 1985 book, “Crabgrass Frontier,” Kenneth T. Jackson of Columbia University delineated the complex train of thought that over the last two centuries has produced the American belief that homeownership encourages pride and good citizenship and, ultimately, preservation of liberty. These attitudes are enduring.

Back in 1899, in “The Theory of the Leisure Class,” Thorstein Veblen described homeownership, particularly of large and expensive dwellings, as “conspicuous consumption.” By that, he meant that it was undertaken substantially for the purpose of impressing others by showing the amount of money one can afford to waste on space one doesn’t need.

What is specifically American here — though it’s increasingly seen in other countries, too — may be the modern sense of equal citizenship, engendered by the illusion that we can sustain conspicuous housing consumption even among a majority of the people.

In short, this all has a great deal to do with culture, and little to do with financial wisdom.

On home prices, Shiller writes:

If many of these homes needed to be converted to rental units, home prices might well drop.

Though the policies are economically insane, they are worth the cost in order to perpetuate “a long-standing feeling that owning homes in healthy communities is connected to individual liberties that embody our national identity.”

In other words, the concept of “The American Dream of Homeownership” is worth defending at any cost because it is a central to our culture.

Really?  Is our National Identity really defined by lust for a material good?

Consider the alternatives…

Americans: Smart and Hard-Working

Americans: Gracious and Strong

Americans: Helping Each Other

Americans: Character and Perserverance

No, we’re Americans: People who want to Buy Houses

How twisted and materialistic have we become as a culture to openly define ourselves by something we own?

As a renter, I am offended.  As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am outraged.

Shiller suggests that The American Dream is too sacred…that our fragile national ego would collapse if its credibility were threatened.  But, he’s wrong.  The jig is up and the public knows it.  In fact, they are asking for it, desperately wanting to find some spiritual purity after a decade of decadence. Social mood is shifting.

Shiller mistakenly suggests that home prices are worth propping up.  But the problem isn’t that home prices are falling, it’s that home prices are still too high. Falling prices and foreclosures aren’t the problems, but the solutions, not the illness, but the cure.

The time has come to shout out that the Emperor has no clothes: The American Dream is simply a marketing campaign, a gimmick, perpetuated by industry groups and their lobbyists.  That a home can define one’s success or national identity is simply a symbollic, mutually-shared illusion.

Consider the actual, original American Dream by James Truslow Adams:

“that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Somewhere along the line, corporate marketing departments changed The American Dream to exactly “high wages and motor cars (houses)”.

Somewhere, our heros changed from men-of-character to men-with-credit-cards.

Now, the false American Dream is becoming an American Nightmare.  Many of our friends, neighbors, and family members are in their darkest hours and being forced to re-examine their paths and priorities.  One-by-one, they are emerging from the darkness and rebuilding lives to be recognized by what they are, not what they have.  Their stories are spreading, giving hope and courage to others who are struggling financially.

Social movements are born from crisis such as this. The opportunity is here to redefine American Culture.

It’s time to take back The American Dream.

This post first appeared in the March edition of: Cirios Trends: In Search of Real Estate Opportunities.

As the infamous “Summer Buying Season” looms a few months out, it remains to be seen whether or not recent market strength can continue. In a way, the housing market has been turned on its head in the past year: The weakest markets are now the strongest, while some of the most well-to-do areas remain shaky and illiquid. The bifurcation in today’s housing market is persistent, and we believe will continue to be the dominant trend in 2010. Taking a look around the Bay Area, data support this theory, as can be seen the charts on the following pages.

Alameda is truly an island unto itself. It is after all, an island. And in some ways a whole different world. The western half of the island is dominated by the quasi-vacant Alameda Naval Complex, which is part maritime ghost-town, part industrial development opportunity in the making: Years of potential development deals have hung over the area, which remains one of the choicest pieces of undeveloped land in the Bay Area. Meanwhile, strong schools, a bustling downtown and a unique sense of community draw middle class families from around the Bay to call Alameda home. As the chart above illustrates, Alameda has seen its share of price declines, but this decidedly middle class town has experienced decidedly middle of the road housing troubles. With prices off “just” 24% from the peak and stabilizing of late, homeowners couldn’t have asked for a much better outcome from the worst housing slump since the Great Depression.

———————————————————————————————————————-

We at Cirios have shown chart upon chart, graph upon graph, data upon data to illustrate that low end housing markets have been the first to recover, while high end markets have remained troubled. At first, we were called loony, since conventional wisdom knows that when housing starts to recover, it’s the strong markets that bounce back first. Not so this time. It has now been well documented that luxury real estate is still under pressure even as distressed markets start to stabilize. In case you weren’t convinced, we offer you yet another fascinating example of why buying in the high end can still be a risky proposition if not done smartly. The graph above shows condo prices in Burlingame, one of the most desirable locales on the Peninsula. There aren’t a ton of condos in the town in the first place, as evidenced by the spotty dots, but the trend is clear: Prices have come down, but not by much, and if the cluster of dots below the trend line in 2009 are any indication, stability isn’t likely in the cards in the immediate future. Flip the page to see the polar opposite situation across the Bay in Concord.

———————————————————————————————————————-

Wow, now that is a chart. (Commodity-watchers of recent years will recognize this pattern, to be sure). The price correction above was nothing short of spectacular. Unless, of course, you owned a condo in Concord. In addition to all the other factors pushing down prices, as condo buildings got into financial trouble, they were crossed off the FHA and Fannie Mae Approved list, effectively locking buyers out of financial options. When your only buyer is an all-cash investor, prices really crater. Dig into the data above at the complex-by-complex level and you can literally identify the point at which the complex got removed from the Approved list. But as rental yields once again started to make sense, investors returned to the market. With prices having tumbled all the way back to 2000 levels, even though Concord doesn’t have the caché of Burlingame (nor the schools, of course), where would you rather put your money?

———————————————————————————————————————-

Just like the statement “the housing market has bottomed” is meaningless to anyone but the most macro-focused economists, trying to look at even city-wide home price trends is often a fruitless endeavor. And while sometimes even zip codes hide the true trends (as we saw last month with Menlo Park, CA), zip codes are the only way to even begin to examine home price trends effectively, especially within large cities. For example, the question “How far off the peak are home prices in San Jose?” is impossible to answer. The chart above shows the zip of 95127, which lies to the east of Highway 680. From the peak, prices are down more than 50%, all the way back to levels not seen since 1999. Note also that there was nary a pop during the dotcom bubble, which means this area isn’t chalk full of technology execs, to say the least. Flip to the next page for a very different perspective from a very different part of town.

———————————————————————————————————————-

The zip code of 95120 is home to the Almaden Valley, one of the most desirable parts of San Jose, and, by extension, Silicon Valley. All one needs to do to is look at the spike in expensive homes sold in this area during the peak of the dotcom craze to get a sense of the area’s demographics. Prices in 95120 are off a mere 20% from the peak, which occurred a full year after that of our previous area of 95127. Interestingly, Almaden has seen a touch of stabilization since the beginning of last year, and even a small rise in prices. But, with prices only back to 2004 levels, during the height of the housing boom, we would caution that it’s more than likely that 2010 could bring some pricing pressure, as a weak job market begin to stress Silicon Valley’s more well-to-do residents.

This post first appeared in the March edition of: Cirios Trends: In Search of Real Estate Opportunities.

Opportunity Overview:2730 Sherwood Dr., San Bruno, CA 94066
For many people familiar with the Bay Area, the Peninsula is a place where only the wealthy can afford to live. And while this holds true for most areas, there remain some desirable areas that still afford first-time buyers a place to call home. One of these towns is San Bruno. Known more for its poor weather than affordable homes, San Bruno often gets a bad rap: There are plenty of neighborhoods that aren’t buried within the fog belt. San Francisco International airport is close (although in some cases too close), and job centers are a short drive North or South. Homes frequently sell for less than $600,000 which, on the Peninsula, is downright cheap.

Property Details
Bedrooms: 3
Bathrooms: 2
Living Area: 1,140 square feet
Lot Size: 5,432 square feet
List Price: $549,000
Sale Price: IN ESCROW (8 days on market)
List Date: 2/12/2010

This property was purchased at Trustee Sale on January 4, 2010 for $444,000. In just over 30 days, the buyer was able to relist the property for more than $100,000 above acquisition cost. The quick turnaround indicates that improvements were more than likely cosmetic in nature. Given the lack of equivalent homes on the market, it ‘s safe to assume this property will sell at or above its asking price.

Here is one potential scenario of how an investor would make out:

(Note that the cost figures below are estimates)

$444,000: Purchase price
$30,000: Repairs and remodel
$1,520: Taxes
$3,500: Insurance
$5,000: Escrow costs
$484,020 Total Investment

Although a $30,000 budget is not especially large, given the small size of the home, many high quality improvements could have been made. The final numbers in our scenario look like this:

$570,000: Sale price (estimated)
$28,500: Less Real Estate Commissions
$484,020: Less Total Investment
$57,480: Profit
11.9% ROI

A return of 11.9% is not as high as other deals we have seen come across the steps, but escrow is scheduled to close on March 11th, so the deal took just under 70 days from purchase to eventual resale. The annualized return on this deal was meaningful, indeed.

This post first appeared in the March edition of: Cirios Trends: In Search of Real Estate Opportunities.

This month’s zip code spotlight moves to what can truly be called the heart of the San Francisco Peninsula. Nestled between South San Francisco and Burlingame, San Bruno is a suburban haven only minutes from the city.

Homes in the area range widely in cost, from $1.3 Million dollar mansions on the hill to affordable, $300,000 row homes closer to the bay. In the midst of all this, a solid core of reasonably priced (by peninsula standards) homes provides an excellent alternative to more expensive south peninsula locales. The median listing price currently rests at around $650,000. For this price, homebuyers can get a reasonably large 3 bedroom home with a good sized lot.

With a housing stock largely consisting of homes built in the 1950’s and 60’s, opportunities abound for rehab investments. Foreclosure activity has been on the rise in the area of late, while prices seem to have leveled off somewhat. As you can see from the graph below, the moving average sale price for homes has actually increased slightly over the last 6 months. During that time, supply has come down from its spike in 2008 but is still slightly elevated from traditional levels, likely due to the increase in foreclosure activity.

What this means is that home values in the area are increasing despite downward pressure from increased supply. This is a good indicator for the medium term prospects of San Bruno real estate, as it indicates that demand is higher (relative to supply) than it has been traditionally in this area. If supply does taper off, prices should go even higher. In the meantime, we feel that price stability for this area is very likely, making rehab investments in the area quite attractive.

This post first appeared in the March edition of: Cirios Trends: In Search of Real Estate Opportunities.

San Francisco Building Owners Sell Winners, Keep Sinners
(San Francisco Business Times)
There’s an old saying on Wall Street that you shouldn’t sell your winners to finance your sinners. Landlords in San Francisco, apparently, didn’t get the message. 303 Second St., just blocks from the freshly constructed One Rincon Tower, was just listed and is expected to fetch north of $200 million. Along with another new listing at 333 Market St., which is a few blocks from the Embarcadero and 100% leased to Wells Fargo, the activity supports the view that building owners are looking to raise capital by selling strong performing assets. SF landlords are likely hoping they don’t end up like former brokerages like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, which shed high quality assets to stave off a cash crunch. Oops.

(Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/ciriostrendsmar1)

Bay Area Home Sales Slip in January
(San Francisco Chronicle)
It’s not unusual for home sales to fall from December to January; the holidays are a notoriously sleepy time in the housing market. But this January was abnormally slow, as transactions in the Bay Area fell 4% from a year ago, marking the first year-over-year drop in sales in 17 months. Some chalked up the slowdown to the dearth of listings on the market, while others raised the possibility of a hiccup in the housing market’s recent strength. At least within the San Francisco city limits, we at Cirios have noticed a meaningful pickup in new listings in the past month (supported by the data presented on the first page). Opportunistic buyers should be licking their chops, but, as always, picking their spots.

(Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/ciriostrendsmar2)

Hotels Slash Prices to Keep Occupancy Up
(San Francisco Business Times)
Sure, you’re broke, but it’s never been a better time to visit San Francisco. Hotels, smarting from an excessively weak tourism market, are slashing rates to keep their rooms full. Northern California as a whole saw room rates slip 13.2% from last year, while San Francisco’s decline approached 16%. Meanwhile, occupancy in San Francisco held relatively steady, off only 4.3% from 2009. Contrast this with apartment buildings, where landlords let units sit vacant rather than dropping rents. This is especially true in San Francisco, where tenant-friendly rent control laws means it can take years for landlords to recoup lost rental income.

(Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/ciriostrendsmar3)

Santa Clara Residents Undecided on 49ers Fate
(San Jose Business Journal)
Less than a month after the Santa Clara city council paved the way for a June vote on a nearly $1 billion stadium for the San Francisco 49ers, voters aren’t so sure. In a recent poll, Santa Clara voters are split right down the middle on the subject, with 45% favoring the plans and an equal portion opposed. This contrasts another poll done last month which shows just 40% of Santa Clara voters in favor of the stadium, with 54% opposed. San Francisco is still holding out hope that they’ll get a shot at keeping the team, but only time, and votes, will tell.

(Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/ciriostrendsmar4 )

This post first appeared in the March edition of: Cirios Trends: In Search of Real Estate Opportunities.

Given the historic home price declines seen in the past four years, few investors have been focused on deferring taxes on real estate gains because, let’s face it, there just haven’t been many gains. However, as investors begin to wade back into the real estate market (cash investors accounted for more than 25% of existing home sales in January), they should be well-versed in State and Federal laws and tax codes that allow investors to minimize the pain of taxes.

One useful tool is the like-kind exchange created by 26 U.S.C. Section 1031 of the United States Internal Revenue Code. Or, as is more commonly known, the 1031 Exchange.

A 1031 Exchange allows an investor to sell an income, investment or business property and soon thereafter purchase, or “replace” it with a like-kind property, ie, another income, investment or business property of equal or greater value. All gains from the resale of the first property are deferred, so long as the IRS rules governing 1031 Exchanges are closely adhered to.

Several types of real estate properties can qualify for a 1031 Exchange. Real estate held for income, business purposes or investment can qualify, whereas personal residences and, for the most part, fix-and-flip properties do not qualify. Vacation homes and second homes that are not held as rentals also do not qualify, unless specific tests for “usage” set out in the IRS Code are met (consult a CPA or other expert before attempting a 1031 Exchange with a vacation home).

Today, most 1031 Exchanges are facilitated by what is known as a “Qualified Intermediary,” or QI. IRS rules are very strict about what can be done with sales proceeds that are to be rolled into another property in order to qualify for the 1031 Exchange, so QIs were designed to ensure all regulations are met for an approved exchange. The QI facilitates the transaction by acting as the investor’s agent when he or she sells the original property and buys the replacment. This is all above board, as regulators created this type of entity to try and standardize the process by which 1031 Exchanges could take place.

Upon the earlier of the deed recording or possession transferring to the new buyer, an investor seeking to do a 1031 Exchange has a non-extendable 45 days to close on or identify in writing a potential “Replacement Property.” After identifying this Replacement Property, the investor has a maximum of 180 days from the date the first property was transferred to the new owner to close the purchase of the Replacement Property. An important caveat: If the due date on the investor’s tax return for the tax year in which the original property was sold is earlier than the 180 day deadline, then the due date for the tax return is the final deadline for the closing of the new property.

If an investor fails to meet either the 45 day identification or 180 day closing deadlines, the 1031 Exchange is disqualified and taxes will be due on the capital gains from the sale of the property.

Once a Replacement Property is identified, the QI – not the investor – acquires the Replacement Property from the seller at closing. Once closed, the QI transfers the Replacement Property to the investor. This is done to ensure that 100% of the sales proceeds are rolled into the new investment and not used for any other purpose, which would disqualify the exchange.

Sound complicated? A bit. But 1031 Exchanges are a critical tool to building wealth in real estate by deferring tax obligations and using the savings to build more wealth. And, as always, investors should consult a CPA, attorney or other tax expert before attempting to perform a 1031 Exchange with your valuable investments.

DISCLAIMER: Cirios Real Estate is not a tax, financial or investment advisor. All investments carry risk. Before considering any investment options, including 1031 Exchanges, consult your investment advisor and tax professional.