Posts tagged ‘Reno’

Good news!

28 April, 2010 | Shauna Morris | No Comment

The Reno/Sparks Association of Realtors came out with some good news about our market Tuesday morning. They analyzed median home price, number of units sold, percentage of original price received at sale among other key statistics from our area that help gauge the health of our market.

Click here for the Reno March 2010 Monthly Market Report

In short, things are looking up! The median home price is $175,500, which is an increase over both January and February of this year. The number of homes sold also had a big spike in March of this year which is a great indicator to help determine the absorption rate of properties and if the available inventory is headed back to a healthy level, which it is.

Possibly one of the most interesting statistics is the Sold-to-Asking Price-Ratio. This ratio shows how much of the original list price was achieved in the final sale. Even as far back as March of 2009, this ratio has not been lower than 96%. As of March 2010 this ratio jumped up to 97.9%, meaning sellers are getting near, at or over their asking price at closing.

This is critical for buyers to understand that the days of “wiggle room” are over. It’s time for buyers to write serious offers and be prepared to pay asking price for a home they really love. From my perspective, this can be attributed to the large number of short sales being purchased. Short sale banks are not accepting low offers and more often than not are countering at a higher price based on the value they receive through an appraisal.

I am an optimist. If these numbers continue on this path, we could see some great progress this year in our local market place. We still have a ways to go before we are really out of the woods, but the light at the end of the will get brighter every month.

New goverment rescue plan for foreclosed and underwater homes

31 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Over the last seven days the papers have been full of new ideas to help the troubled home market. Anyone that is interested in the economy, job growth and unemployment must be concerned with the health of the housing market.  Until housing is back on a solid footing the US economy will be wobbly at best, and at worst it will have a second recession.  Bank of America’s proposed plan to help 45,000 homeowners is laudable but about as effective as using a squirt gun on a home fire.  What is important about Bank of America’s plan is that after three years of blindness they have cracked the door open to the unpleasant, smelly reality of the housing crisis and offered a solution to it. 

Banks and investment banks played with the US economy and profited mightily at the expense of America on the whole.  Regardless if you were conservative and never played in the housing boom, you were used by the banking industry and are now worse off for it. 

On Saturday the Reno Gazette-Journal ran a front page story “Rescue may miss many who need it”. First, let me say in essence that the paper is correct.  Bank of America is recognizing that 45,000 very sick homeowners are going to lose their homes.  The real issue is that those 45,000 are the nearly dead and it is the 16 million homes underwater that need to be focused on and until all banks step up to the plate, housing is flying south for a very long and bitter winter. 

I want to acknowledge just how difficult acting on the problem really is.  The banks have woven a web of curious networks between insurers, investors, servicers and others with protections, profits and liabilities that can be hard to understand.  Despite the problems we are facing, some are profiting from the chaos, not least the very assorted banks and investment banks that brought on the disaster to the American people.

On one hand the commonly held belief, still held by many, is to let the cleansing process work itself out.  Many homeowners that never bought during the boom, or have free and clear homes, are heard to shout this sentiment out and cast all that are in trouble as dilatants that have received their just rewards for not being smart like them.   Without a question in 2006-2007 tens of thousands of people lost their homes that should never have ever received a loan.  But now we are talking about 2010.   We are talking about people that bought homes in 2007, after the “bubble burst”, fully qualified for a home, put 20% cash down and today are underwater!  We are also talking about homeowners that purchased homes in 2001, well before the much talked about “bubble” and put 20% cash down and today have homes that are underwater.  Our market has rolled back well beyond the stupidity of 2003-2006, back to 1998-1999 values.

In the Saturday RGJ article titled “Rescue may miss many who need it”, University of Nevada, Reno economist Tom Cargill said of the new Obama plan “it’s a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money. It uses taxpayers’ money to support bad decisions made by people to buy homes they can’t afford.” Personally, I highly disagree.

We are looking at homeowners that now realize that they are $200,0000-$500,000 upside down in their homes. These were all qualified buyers, who all put down 20% or more and are underwater.  Mr. Cargill, please tell these tens of thousands of Nevada homeowners tough luck and that they made bad decisions.  Please tell them to forget that they owe more money than most and to go out and become consumers again and run up their credit cards and spend money so the economy can grow and the banks can profit and they just need to suck it up and in 7-12 years, if they are lucky, their homes just might, maybe have some equity in them.

What needs to be done?  I suggest the radical notion of the following:  protect the principal, protect the investors, encourage homeowners to pay off their principal loan balances.  First, work with all homeowners that have homes underwater and who are current on their payments.  Move all loans to a .5% interest based on a 15 year amortized loan.  Years 1-5 are at .5%, years 6-8 are at 4%, years 9+ are at 6%.

Example:  A $300,000 loan @ 5.5%/30 years has a P.I. payment of $1,703 per month.  .5% has a payment of $1,730 per month.  The point here is that many homeowners are short selling as much as they realize that it will easily be 10 years before they have equity but can make the payment.  With a 15 year loan not only do we have free and clear homes in 15 years in a mere 5-7 years, the loans will have been paid down so much that with no appreciation whatsoever in the housing market the homeowner will have equity. 

For those homeowners that are not current they can be offered 20, 25, 30 year loans.  In the same example the loan payment would drop over $800 per month on a 30 year loan.  If that does not save the homeowner then per Mr. Cargill they truly overbought or their income has been cut so much that foreclosure is their only option. 

 Drastic?  Not really.  Homeowners take homes off the market, principal is preserved, fewer homes for sale, better chance for stabilization.  Better stabilization and growth, better tax income for the city, better confidence in an individual’s personal financial position, the more likely they are to spend money. The more money they spend the more taxable income to the state, the more confidence homeowners have about themselves, the more likely to buy services, the more services they buy, the more companies can expand and hire. The more people that have jobs the better the economy and so on.

What about the federal government and the bailout money?  Well obviously .5% for 5 years is a bit painful for the banks so that money goes to give the banks/investors a 2% additional return for years 1-5.  When a seller sells in years 1-5 they pay to the federal government a percentage of the profits, if any, as a form of repayment.

Investors get their principal, banks stop write- downs, banks stop paying tens of thousands of employees to handle bad debt, banks save hundreds of millions of dollars on foreclosure costs and write-offs, homes come off the market and prices stabilize.

Short sales, foreclosures, traditional sales

24 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Last week the Wall Street Journal ran an article on short sales.  The article is well meaning but I feel is poorly informed.  I have added the article in its complete form below with my notes in brackets:

“Q: I am looking to buy my first home, and it seems like short-sales are priced much lower than regular sales. Are these prices negotiable, or are they the bottom line that lenders will accept?

A:Many lenders negotiate prices for short-sales [The lien holder is NOT the owner and cannot negotiate the price of the home],  in which the seller is offering the home for less than is owed on the mortgage. But traditionally the only way you could find out was to submit a below-list offer and wait—often for many months—for a response. If the bank made a counter-offer, you knew you were in the ballpark; if they didn’t respond at all, you were too low [The author missed the point.  The bank is NOT the seller and does not "counter the buyers offer". The short sale process is first and foremost to confirm that the lien holders will approve of a short sale for the seller.  That in fact the seller is approved to do a short sale.  Then the lien holders negotiate with the seller on terms acceptable to the lien holders/investors on what they will accept.  The lien holders are looking only at the costs of the sale or the HUD-1 settlement sheet]. By then, you may have lost all interest in buying the property.  [Lien holders are looking at what is best for them.  Is a foreclosure more profitable?  Is the offer within acceptable range to approve of a short sale for the investors without the expense and risk of a foreclosure?  It is all about the net.  Lien holders do not respond to offers per se, they respond to the owner of the home and a low offer only creates a barrier whereby the foreclosure route is the best way for the lien holders to go, thus a decline of the short sale.]

The good news is, on April 5, this frustrating system will change at least for some buyers and sellers. That’s when the federal government will begin to provide financial incentives to lenders to do more short sales. The rules also help standardize the process, so your chances of negotiating a distressed property bargain will increase.  [No, in fact we really do not know what to expect but the author is still thinking that a short sale and a foreclosed home are one and the same.  It is my opinion that in fact the author is right in the fact that more "bargain" sales are on the way but not for what is being said.  In reading the new directive it appears that the banks may well use the short sale process to circumvent the expenses of a foreclosure.  Only time will tell on this.  Until a home is foreclosed on the banks do not own the home and the owner is the seller.  Sellers today are finding that to approve of a short sale they must agree to financial terms on some form of loan payment.  That does not happen when a home is foreclosed, though the banks have the legal right to pursue the owner for lost monies, but that is another subject.]

Under the old practices, when a financially-distressed seller brought a potential buyer who was offering less than the amount owed on the loan, the bank would order an appraisal or broker’s price opinion (BPO) and then decide whether the offer was acceptable [Correct, the banks are looking at fair market value, as a buyer looking for a "bargain" this is where they go wrong.  Fair market value is what the home is worth].  Under the new federal rules, banks will order a BPO before the property is listed for sale, and will share information on the minimum net proceeds they’re willing to accept with the sellers. If they then bring in a buyer whose offer is equal to or greater than this pre-approved amount, the lender must accept it within 10 days.  [This is correct, but actually seeing the lenders adhere to such a time line will be interesting to see.  The new process if done correctly (something I have been asking for for two years) would be huge.  By placing a home on the market that can close in a near normal fashion, we can slow down and even stop the falling prices, therefore the question on bargains we hope will also be coming to an end as well.]

Not all sellers are eligible for this program, called Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) (for the requirements see Help for America’s Homeowner’s Supplemental Directive 09-09). But since the process is likely to go so much smoother for those who buy and sell under HAFA, I suggest you wait a bit until the program goes into effect and concentrate on finding these “pre-approved” deals.  [Agreed.  In fact, based on what I know now many homes will fall outside of this program.]

Of course, when you do find a property you like, you may not be the only person bidding on it. [The days are long gone where only one buyer bids on a home.  Today any buyer writing a low offer is pretty certain to fail, unless they are trying to buy a home that NO ONE else wants and that is also another story for another time.] To improve your chances of winning, make sure your offer is “clean,” with as few contingencies as possible (though I would never fore go a home inspection). Include tax and credit records, and a mortgage pre-approval letter. If you can afford to pay cash, that will put you in an even stronger bargaining position [This is not different than any offer, at any time, these are in fact standard items that any offer should include].  Still, in your eagerness to win the property, don’t forget that distressed properties often come with added financial burdens. Although under HAFA, the seller is supposed to provide clear title, to protect yourself your, your contract must make it clear that you will not be responsible for any of the seller’s unpaid property taxes, liens or second trusts.  [Here we go again, the author is confusing short sales and foreclosed homes, what she says is true on foreclosed homes but on short sales the home is still owned by the owner and in most states the law says that the owner is still responsible for full disclosures] . Also, cash-strapped homeowners often stop paying taxes and homeowners’ association fees during the time between when the house is listed and the deal is closed. To make sure that you’re not on the hook for these expenses, Leonard P. Baron, professor of finance at San Diego State University, recommends that you ask that the bank escrow at least six months worth of taxes and HOA fees, to cover any potential shortfall.  [We call this clear title and in areas that useescrow and title companies all recorded liens must be paid or the escrow cannot close.  Again the difference here is short sales versus foreclosures.]

 June Fletcher at fletcher.june@gmail.com

  It went on to explain how to get a good deal and how the new government guidelines will address how short sales need to be handled from April on.  The general ignorance of the article was amazing and the lack of knowledge underscores the gap in understanding.  Later today we are going to post 60 graphs giving a update on what is happening in the Reno & Sparks Markets with the three dominate types of sales, short, foreclosed, traditional.

Inflation vs. deflation, can we have both?

24 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Each day people ask when will home values stop dropping and my answer is when more buyers buy and fewer sellers are willing to sell.  Simple?  I found the following article this week and decided that it was worth reading.

“As we work our way through the Great Recession, the discussion often sways between whether to expect inflation or deflation.  Deflationists mention the huge credit bubble that we are digesting, and often like to point out Japan’s experience over the last 20 years.  Inflationists point out all of the government spending and quantitative easing (essentially money printing) that may lead us to hyperinflation, mentioning episodes like the 1970’s Great Inflation, or even worse, Germany’s Weimar Republic. Who is right, and is the answer actionable for an investor?  In order to keep the brief discussion more interesting, I’ve decided to add a few quotes from John Maynard Keynes, the economist our leaders claim to emulate.

“It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong” – John Maynard Keynes

Getting the inflation/deflation call seems very important. Inflation typically crushes fixed income, as higher rates can choke business, and pushes down the value of investor’s bonds.  Further, high interest rates make stock investments less appealing relative to bonds, and therefore stocks tend to fall in price until their dividend yields become more interesting to investors.  Hard assets can often make large gains during these periods, as falling currency values lose purchasing power, pushing up the nominal value of real assets.

On the other hand, deflation can cause investors to flock to bonds, which makes their values rise, and yields fall.  Business suffers as prices drop.  Wages also drop, as business slows.  People often save more and spend less, further deepening the deflationary spiral.  As business suffers, stocks typically drop.  A poor business climate usually leads to less use of commodities (hard assets), and their prices often fall.

It is easy to conclude that making a bold bet on inflation will be disastrous if deflation continues, and vice versa.

“Markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent.” – John Maynard Keynes

Even if an investor ultimately makes the right call on inflation/deflation, when does her/his thesis play out?  Remember, one of the best investors  of our generation called the debt bubble well before it happened.  George Soros (among others) mentioned the dangers of our enormous leverage in the mid 80’s, through the 90’s, and into the 2000’s.  He was spot on in his analysis, but acting on his forecast would have made one miss the greatest bull market in American history.  Imagine being short stocks as they rose 16+ percent a year from 1982-2000?

“Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for the reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally”
- John Maynard Keynes

In order to avoid being out of sync, or even worse, loosing their investors, many “professional” money managers choose to follow the crowd.  They “manage” risk by hugging investment indexes, and feel it is ok to lose 49% of an investors portfolio, as long as the markets went down 50%.  Clearly, this may work for the stockbroker/financial advisor profession, but it doesn’t work for people who want to grow their assets and retire in comfort and safety.  We believe this mentality is destructive to most people’s savings.  The need to follow the herd is deep seeded in the human psyche.  To overcome this bias, one must first understand it.  Then, one must study history to see what people did well, and where they failed.  Most importantly, a rational investor must be willing to do things differently than the herd.  It is difficult to watch the neighbors make millions on tech stocks, or reap huge profits flipping houses and condos.  However, fundamentals eventually apply.  A rational investor will be called stupid, old fashioned, and jealous while bubbles expand.  She/he will be resented when the bubble pops.  In order to survive and thrive in an investment career, it would be wise to avoid “worldy wisdom”.

“A study of the history of opinion is a necessary preliminary to the emancipation of the mind.
- John Maynard Keynes

In the inflation/deflation debate, most people with an opinion attach their ideas to a specific guru or school of economics.  One theory is memorized, and doggedly followed, even when experiences dictate that things aren’t working as forecasted.  There is very little thinking and learning involved, only determined rooting for whichever “team” one has chosen to follow.  History is ignored, and few people open their minds to the idea that they might be wrong.  Instead of learning all sides of an issue, most observers start with a premise and assume that everyone else is wrong.  In our opinion, these debates are interesting, but only semi-relevant.   Often times, each school of economic thought offers a few nuggets of wisdom attached to much hubris.

“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.” John Maynard Keynes

While we understand the different schools of economic thought, and pay attention to their lessons, we choose to be open minded as to what may happen in the future.  History leaves a thick paper trail, and what actually happened to markets and asset valuations over time is more valuable to us than defending individual theories.  We want our clients to survive and thrive over their investing careers regardless of the direction that inflation goes.

Those of you that visit our office frequently know that while we religiously track current events, we also spend an enormous amount of time studying the history of the markets.  Often times, the parallels are chilling.

What we find is that most often, the bulk of the mainstream economists are wrong.  Most of our leaders appeared to be caught off guard by the collapse of the debt bubble, despite nearly twenty years of warnings by high profile investors, competent journalists, and the lessons of history.  Politicians typically follow Keynesian policies (stimulus spending to create jobs until the economy gets back on its feet), as this is often the school of economic thought most readily pushed on students at American Universities.  Further, Keynes’ prescription for recessions requires massive amounts of deficit spending and appeal to the populist mentality of “doing something to help”.  Our leaders forget that Keynes recommended government surpluses in good times, and government spending in tough times.  It seems that we either suffer from selective memory, or that we have chosen our theory because it allows our leaders to avoid fiscal responsibility, while feigning to follow a well known economist.  Historically, stimulus hasn’t worked well in solving recessions or credit bubbles.  Tough love (bankruptcies, assets price collapses, high unemployment) has worked faster, but has understandably wrought political unrest.  Our politicians don’t have the will to say “no” to their voting base, therefore stimulus will most likely continue until it creates massive inflation, high interest rates, and potential social unrest.  (Hey, no one said running a democracy is easy!)

We also find is that quality businesses purchased at low prices tend to thrive over all time and space.  The price of their stocks may swing with the ebb and flow of boom and bust cycles, but this really has little to do with the cash that these businesses earn and distribute to their shareholders.  Large, multinational corporations have the added advantage of doing business in different countries.  Some countries boom while others bust, creating some protection in the event of regional issues.  Regardless of the economic outlook, people still eat, drink, and wear clothes, and the companies that supply these products really don’t care if we are of the Keynesian or Austrian persuasion!

Further, when we buy a bond, we actually become a creditor.  Our thought process, when loaning money, is no different when buying a corporate bond than if we were loaning money to a distant cousin.  When do we get paid back?  Is there adequate cash flow to pay us timely interest and principle?  Is the interest rate we are charging enough in context of both the risk of the loan, as well as in regard to competing investments?  Only if these questions can be adequately answered will we invest.

By the way, these things also work for real estate investments, with an additional look at regional supply/demand characteristics as well as incomes and cap rates.

History shows that rational analysis of business and loans, as well as the proper pricing of these investments is more important to financial success than just looking at the economic backdrop prevailing at the time of investment.  To reiterate, the safety of an investment (whether it be a loan or an ownership position) is of paramount concern for an investor, but the price paid is nearly as important.  Money managers and individuals that got these two concepts right made money during the 30’s and 70’s, two difficult periods for investors.

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”  John Maynard Keynes

As pointed out above, it is not only difficult to pinpoint the direction of inflation/deflation, but also the timing.  Credit bubbles tend to cause significant damage to an economy (see Reinhart and Rogoff’s This Time is Different) that takes years to play out.  Contrast this with the United States high debt, inflationary policies, and a fed Chairman that has stated he will “drop money from helicopters” before he allows deflation to take hold.

Instead of making a bold wager on one or the other directions, we think it is prudent to remain open minded and hedge our bets.  Housing and other big-ticket items that require financing to purchase are likely to continue falling in price.  Until incomes begin to stabilize, and even rise, expect other discretionary purchases to remain weak.

Keep in mind (thanks Dave Rosenberg of Gluskin Scheff) that some Americans are walking from their homes and freeing up their cash, which leaves more room for consumption, while further hurting banks, investors, and the fed which hold the mortgages on these properties.  If enough people strategically default, without retribution, consumption can recover quicker, although the losses will most likely be born by investors and by taxpayers in the form of more bailouts, with  higher government debt and rising taxes.

As the government continues to add debt, and the Federal Reserve continues to monetize assets (print money), we put our currency at risk.  A floating currency means that the value of said currency is left up to the financial markets in theory at least. In practice, many countries manage the value of their currencies through market intervention.  If investors believe in the stability of the U.S. dollar, it’s value can remain high despite skyrocketing debt and quantitative easing.  If, on the other hand, investors panic, the results could be severe, and could happen almost instantly. The British Pound’s recent sharp drop should be a warning to developed countries.  We are a nation that imports more than we export.  If the value of our currency plummets, the cost of much of what we import will rise.

Tying it together, we think it is entirely possible to see, for example, houses continue to fall, while the cost of food and oil rise.

We could spend hours discussing other potential sources of inflation/deflation, but I think our readers get the big picture.  There are legitimate threats for both inflation and deflation.  Over time, our spiraling deficits will most likely lead to a weaker dollar.  Whether these trends play out over 2 years or 10 years, nobody knows. In the meantime, the collapse of a credit bubble tends to push prices down for years, slowly unfolding despite our impatient desire for “things to get better”.  In conclusion, we think it is entirely possible to see, for example, house prices continue to fall, while the cost of food and oil rise. There is no reason to believe that all prices must rise or fall at the same time.  If history is any guide, quality assets bought at cheap prices will provide protection from inflation and deflation.  By owning assets of this type, we believe an investor can both protect capital, and grow purchasing power.”  Courtesy of Ancorawest, Robert Barone

Bob says a lot in his writing but I feel that this is worth reading, and thought provoking as well.

David Morris

CRS, CRB,CLHMS, CDPE, SFR, ABR

Foreclosures in Febuary 2010, multiple offers and more

15 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

As we move into the mid point of March I am seeing a different pulse from the past 30 months.  Maybe, just maybe, by July of 2010 I will be able to look back six months and finally say “we hit bottom”, keep your fingers crossed.

Here is a quick note from Vince Lotito with PrimeLending, INFO THAT HITS US WHERE WE LIVE:

“There wasn’t a ton of housing news last week, but one can always find a few significant items. For example, foreclosure filings in February were down 2% from January and up just 6% from a year ago — their smallest increase in four years. Most significantly, in the six states that made up 61% of the national total for February, foreclosure filings were down 15% from a year ago. We’re definitely heading in the right direction. �

Here’s a chart showing that housing is a great long-term investment, not withstanding the last 3 years.”

Inventory is getting tight, I know that many of you will find this odd with prices still showing declines and, in some neighborhoods, a For Sale sign on every corner, but inventory is getting slim in select parts of Reno, Sparks and Carson City.

For the first time ever, we are seeing multiple offers on short sales, and the offers are no longer at the bottom of the barrel.  Encouraging signs and with 16 days left in March, this month may well prove to be a bellwether month.

How much are foreclosed/short sales really costing us in the market today?

15 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Over the last four years Northern Nevada has been knocked back and forth by the winds of the financial markets.  Prior to 2006 foreclosed homes accounted for less than 1% of the real estate market.  By 2008 foreclosed/short sales were accounting for upwards of 75% of all sales, with short sales and foreclosed homes dividing the market roughly half each.

As we move from 2009 into 2010 banks want homes sold using the short sale method if possble.  They still get their insurance and they get their write-offs but do not have to take possession of the property and all attendent costs.  As short sales have moved to the forefront of market activity the question is raised: what will a buyer be willing to pay to buy a home that can actually close escrow in less than 45 days? Homes with good certainy that the escrow will close, versus 180 days filled with uncertainty all the way?

To answer that question I have taken the time to break down our market by traditional sales, short sales and by foreclosed sales.

By March of 2010 in the greater Reno/Sparks market, 710 homes had closed escrow:

The average price was $212,878

Traditional: 180 sold with an average sales price of $283,923

Short sales: 246 sold with an average sales price of $190,363

Foreclosed: 224 sold with an average sales price of $189,419

We are seeing an area-wide, whopping 30% difference from a traditional sale to a distressed sale. Now taking a look at a specific neighborhood, such as Sommersett, we can see a more specfic example:

Traditional: 11 homes sold for an average price of $308,384

Short sale: 11 homes sold for an average price of $279,841

Foreclosed: 7 homes sold for an average price of $259,821

Therefore, to buy a home that will close, the market paid about a 10% premium.

What about pending sales?

Northwest Reno today has 100 pending sales, 8 traditional, 80 short and 9 foreclosed.

Traditional sales in escrow are averaging $244,616

Short sales in escrow are averaging $208,000

Foreclosed sales in escrow are averaging $183,938

That means that the market is adjusting about 15% for the ability to buy a home that will close escrow.

From these three examples it can be seen that sellers that will sell as a traditional sale can, in fact, sell at higher prices.  Conversely, the banks practice of short sales is costing the markets at least 15% in equities than a more sensible approach to the short sale process would result in.

Our markets have been rocked by the storm of the incredibly badly managed financial markets but without question, if leadership existed that was forward thinking, our markets could already be leveling out and even begining to move forward, but alas that has not happened and does not appear to be on the horizon.

On April 5th new guidelines will be released that may affect some of the above numbers, the question is going to be, in which way?

What is wrong with FDIC?

5 March, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

There are now 702 banks on the FDIC’s endangered list.  That’s about 10% of all community financial institutions.  Unless something changes, very few of these will survive.  As I’ve recently blogged (The Creation of Jobs – A Systemic Failure, February 23, 2010, http://ancorawest.wordpress.com ), these are institutions that make loans to small business, and it is widely recognized that small business is the job creating engine in America.  So, imagine, 10% of this vitally important industry is being devastated.  Our politicians praise FDIC Chairwoman Shelia Bair.  But I submit that she and her organization, the FDIC, is single-handedly destroying the basic fabric of American business.

It need not be that way.  What we have is government run amok.   First, two decades of excessively easy monetary policy which has led to a devastating debt bubble.  Then, when the crisis hits, the government responds by using taxpayer dollars to save the “Too Big To Fail” (TBTF) institutions that played a key role in fostering the debt bubble.  Finally, seeing that the public is up in arms about such policies and government behavior, the government reacts by refusing to aid those institutions that are now victims of the government’s own and the TBTF institutions’ policies, but are vital to economic recovery.

In trying to make it look like it is protecting the taxpayer, the FDIC has taken heavy handed and aggressive tactics with community financial institutions.  The problem here is political.  They want to appear tough to satisfy what they perceive the public wants, especially after the government’s TARP, AIG, and TBTF “bonus” fiascos.  The result is a depleted FDIC insurance fund, a certain need for a taxpayer bailout sometime this year, and devastation for America’s small banks and small business.

Each of the 702 endangered institutions has a Cease and Desist Order (C&D), the last step before closure.  Each C&D Order and all of the correspondence from the FDIC accuses Boards and Management of “incompetence” and “mismanagement” despite the fact that in ’05 and ’06, most of these same Boards and Managements received high scores in examinations.  I simply can’t swallow the assertion that most of the 702 institutions suffer from “incompetent” management.  We are in the midst of an economic crisis, not a crisis of management.  Yet, the FDIC is addressing the issue as if only the latter is the cause.

Each of the 702 problem institutions has a capital raising mandate as part of the C&D order.  The fact is, once on this list, capital is impossible to raise.  Those with capital to inject simply only have to wait for the FDIC to close the institution to get a once in a lifetime sweetheart deal from the FDIC.  On the other hand, the TBTF easily raised capital last November and December to repay TARP in order to ensure that big bonuses could be paid.  They could raise capital because the public knows that the government won’t let these behemoths fail.

Worse, when an institution is closed, in come the Wall Street wealthy who appear to get the deal of a lifetime, at taxpayer expense.  [The FDIC will argue that the insurance funds are not taxpayer dollars, but insurance premiums paid by insured institutions.  Two points: 1) the FDIC fund is now -$20 billion, so soon taxpayers will be on the hook; 2) bank fees would be lower without insurance premiums, so, like every other tax, eventually the consumer pays.]  By the way, one must be an “approved” purchaser to purchase the failed banks, an exclusive club composed mainly of Wall Street sharks.

Capital devastation for these small banks comes mainly from souring loans (although the opening salvo was the losses many took on FNMA and FHLMC preferred stock in September, 2008, another government failure).  In many instances accounting rules require loan write-downs upon renewal of loans if appraisals come in lower than at loan inception, virtually a 100% probability.  Bank balance sheets are illiquid by design (they turn illiquid collateral assets into cash via the loan process).  Rules that force “mark to market” on such illiquid assets only erodes capital, make survival problematic, and prohibit new loans to small business, thereby prolonging the economic crisis and joblessness.  Instead of blaming management and employing Gestapo like tactics, an approach to capital that allows “healing” time for bank balance sheets appears to be a better and cheaper approach, especially in light of the FDIC’s mandate to resolve institutions using a “least cost” approach.  Most of the assets on those balance sheets will regain value as economic conditions improve.  Time is all the institutions need.

One way to provide time would be to have a special category of capital where the “write-downs” of loans due to economic circumstances could be amortized over a long period, say 10 or 20 years.  This would give the vast majority of the 702 doomed institutions new life.  If it is publicly perceived that they will survive, most will have the ability to raise capital, and the time to heal.

I believe the devastation and havoc being wreaked upon Main Street America’s financial institutions by Ms. Bair and the FDIC’s current policies will continue to cripple America’s economic engine and prolong the economic malaise.  Funny thing about America, oftentimes media heroes turn out to be real villains: Elliot Spitzer, Bernard Madoff, Alan Greenspan, Tiger Woods, to name a few.  If the FDIC’s current policies continue, we’ll soon add Shelia Bair to this list.

Robert Barone, Ph.D.

March 1, 2010

Courtesy of Ancorawest and Robert Barone

Reno/Sparks February mid-month update

18 February, 2010 | David Morris | No Comment

Please take a look at our mid month update for the Reno/Sparks market as of February 16th, 2010

You’ll see the following categories:
f/s = Homes that are for sale today.
Pend = Pending sales today but not closed.
% of pending sales today that are short sales.
Sold = Sold homes in the last 180 days.

All sales values are averages.

$000,000-$250,000

f/s 821 units $165,943 avg. 94 days on market
Pend 1,315 units $155,614 avg. 140 days on market
% short sales 72%
Sold 2,072 units $155,346 avg. 116 days on market

$250,000-$500,000

f/s 386 units $348,099 avg. 132 days on market
Pend 291 units $330,279 avg. 170 days on market
% short sales 62%
Sold 544 units $326,288 avg. 147 days on market

$500,000-$750,000

f/s 164 units $612,121 avg. 188 days on market
Pend 45 units $609,890 avg. 250 days on market
% short sales 64%
Sold 89 units $599,365 avg. 183 days on market

$750,000-$1mill

f/s 74 units $894,265 avg. 202 days on market
Pend 15 units $843,377 avg. 333 days on market
% short sales 80%
Sold 20 units $879,743 avg. 164 days on market

$1mill-$2mill

f/s 103 units $1,518,516 avg. 315 days on market
Pend 9 units $1,350,000 avg. 601 days on market
% short sales 67%
Sold 17 units $1,246,000 avg. 200 days on market

$2mill +

f/s 26 units $2,872,688 avg. 289 days on market
Pend 0 $0 0
Sold 1 unit $2,250,000 575 days on market

RSAR Releases 2009’s Year-End, Fourth Quarter and December Existing Home Sales Reports

3 February, 2010 | David Morris Group | No Comment

The Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® (RSAR) released its 2009 year-end, fourth quarter and December report for existing home sales in Washoe County, including median sales price and number of home sales in the region. RSAR obtains its information from the Northern Nevada Regional Multiple Listing Service (www.nnrmls.com) and includes sales of bank-owned (foreclosure) properties.

In 2009, Washoe County had 5,231 sales of existing single family homes; an increase of 45 percent from 2008. The median sales price for existing single family homes in Washoe County in 2009 was $185,000; a decrease of 26 percent from the previous year. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Washoe County in 2009 was $78,950; down 47 percent from 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2009, Washoe County experienced 1,436 sales of existing single family homes; an increase of 57 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and a 5 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2009. The median sales price of existing single family homes in Washoe County in the fourth quarter of 2009 was $180,000; a decrease of 19 percent from the fourth quarter of the previous year and a slight 2 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Washoe County during the fourth quarter of 2009 was $65,000; down 38 percent from the previous year.

During December 2009, the report showed Washoe County had 416 sales of existing single-family homes; an increase of 41 percent from December 2008 and an 8 percent decrease from November 2009. The report listed the median sales price for an existing single family residence in Washoe County in December 2009 at $179,500; an 18 percent decrease from last year and a 3 percent increase from the previous month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Washoe County in December 2009 was $50,950; down 50 percent from December 2008.

The report showed Reno (including North Valleys) had 3,515 sales of existing single family homes in 2009; an increase of 42 percent from the previous year. The median sales price for existing single family homes in Reno during 2009 was 189,900; a decrease of 27 percent from 2008. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Reno in 2009 was $72,250; down 51 percent from the previous year.

In Reno (including North Valleys), there were 979 sales of existing single family homes during the fourth quarter of 2009; an increase of 61 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and a 6 percent decrease from the previous quarter. The median sales price of existing single family homes in Reno during the fourth quarter of 2009 was 185,000; a decrease of 21 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and a slight 3 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Reno during the fourth quarter of 2009 was $61,000; down 37 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008.

The report indicated that Reno (including North Valleys) had 265 sales of existing single family homes during December 2009; an increase of 43 percent from last year and a 12 percent decrease from November 2009. The median sales price in Reno for an existing single family residence in December 2009 was $180,000; a decrease of 22 percent from December 2008 and a slight 2 percent decrease from the previous month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The existing condominium/townhome median sales price for December 2009 in Reno was $43,400; down 51 percent from last year.

Sparks (including Spanish Springs) experienced 1,638 sales of existing single family homes in 2009; an increase of 53 percent from 2008. The median sales price for existing single family homes in Sparks during 2009 was 175,000; a decrease of 26 percent from 2008. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Sparks in 2009 was $75,000; down 45 percent from 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2009, Sparks (including Spanish Springs) experienced 441 sales of existing single family homes; an increase of 48 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and a slight 2 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2009. The median sales price of existing single family homes in Sparks in the fourth quarter of 2009 was 170,000; a decrease of 21 percent from the fourth quarter of the previous year and no change from the third quarter of 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Sparks during the fourth quarter of 2009 was $70,000; down 33 percent from the previous year.

Sparks (including Spanish Springs) experienced 144 sales of existing single family homes in December 2009; an increase of 41 percent from December 2008 and less than a 1 percent decrease from the previous month. The Sparks’ median sales price for an existing single family residence in December 2009 was $175,000; a 17 percent drop from last year and an increase of 3 percent from November 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The existing condominium/townhome median sales price for December 2009 in Sparks was $65,000; down 45 percent from last year.

In Fernley, there was 579 sales of existing single family homes in 2009; an increase of 69 percent from the previous year. The median sales price for existing single family homes in Fernley during 2009 was 109,900; a decrease of 34 percent from 2008. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales.

Fernley experienced 167 sales of existing single family homes during the fourth quarter of 2009; an increase of 78 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and a 10 percent increase from the previous quarter. The median sales price of existing single family homes in Fernley during the fourth quarter of 2009 was 104,000; a decrease of 29 percent from the fourth quarter of 2008 and less than a 1 percent decrease from the third quarter of 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales.

The December 2009 report showed Fernley had 54 sales of existing single family homes; an increase of 69 percent from last year and a 10 percent increase from November 2009. The median sales price in Fernley for an existing single family residence in December 2009 was $100,500; a decrease of 28 percent from December 2008 and a 12 percent increase from last month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales.

“Turning the corner on the new year calls for a cautious celebration,” said Ken Amundson, 2010 president of Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS and managing broker of Coldwell Banker Select Real Estate’s Sparks office. “There were many positive signs that we can point to including the fact that more people purchased homes in 2009 in every quarter than the previous year and median home prices have remained stable for the past seven months. As we move into 2010, we can optimistically look at the fact that the supply of homes is at a five year low, government incentives for first time buyers and move up buyers are available through April, and low interest rates remain in effect.”

The Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® is an organization providing services to its members to ensure their success as real estate professionals, as well as protecting and promoting the consumer’s dream of homeownership. For more information visit www.rsar.net.

Existing Home Sales Report For October 2009 Shows Continued Increase in Existing Home Sales

3 February, 2010 | David Morris Group | No Comment

The Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® (RSAR) today released its October 2009 report on existing home sales in Washoe County, including median sales price and number of home sales in the region. RSAR obtains its information from the Northern Nevada Regional Multiple Listing Service (www.nnrmls.com) and includes sales of bank-owned (foreclosure) properties.

During October 2009, the report showed Washoe County had 553 sales of existing single-family homes, an increase of 59 percent from October 2008 and a 10 percent increase from September 2009. The report listed the median sales price for an existing single family residence in Washoe County in October 2009 at $180,000, a 22 percent decrease from last year and a slight 3 percent decrease from the previous month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The median sales price of existing condominium/townhomes in Washoe County in October 2009 was $64,950, down 46 percent from October 2008.

In October 2009, Reno (including North Valleys) had 398 sales of existing single family homes, an increase of 72 percent from last year and a 20 percent increase from September 2009. The median sales price in Reno for an existing single family residence in October 2009 was $185,622, a decrease of 23 percent from October 2008 and a 5 percent decrease from the previous month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The existing condominium/townhome median sales price for October 2009 in Reno was $61,500, down 44 percent from last year.

Sparks (including Spanish Springs) experienced 150 sales of existing single family homes in October 2009, an increase of 29 percent from October 2008 and 10 percent decrease from the previous month. The Sparks’ median sales price for an existing single family residence in October 2009 was $165,000, a 23 percent drop from last year and a slight 3 percent decrease from September 2009. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales. The existing condominium/townhome median sales price for October 2009 in Sparks was $67,425, down 42 percent from last year.

The October 2009 report indicated that Fernley had 62 sales of existing single family homes, an increase of 77 percent from last year and a 63 percent increase from September 2009. The median sales price in Fernley for an existing single family residence in October 2009 was $115,000, a decrease of 23 percent from October 2008 and a 33.5 percent increase from last month. All sales numbers are for existing “stick built single family dwellings” only and do not include condominium, townhome, manufactured, modular or new home sales.

“This large increase in year-over-year existing home sales is phenomenal and is an indication of how slow and flat the market was last year,” said Kris Layman, 2009 President of Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORSR and sales associate at RE/MAX Realty Affiliates. “One of the reasons for the boost is the first time homebuyer tax credit and we are excited about the recent extension and expansion of the program. We are now hopeful that the extended period of the credit will allow banks to deliver on the high volume of pending short sales, where a large pool of buyers and sellers have been patiently waiting for third party negotiations.”

The Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® is an organization providing services to its members to ensure their success as real estate professionals, as well as protecting and promoting the consumer’s dream of homeownership. For more information visit www.rsar.net.