Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RE: Is Flipping an Answer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RE: Is Flipping an Answer?

    House-flipping waiver is extended

    The Federal Housing Administration's two-year extension is intended to keep housing market from sliding back

    By Steve Kilar, The Baltimore Sun
    6:55 PM EST, December 31, 2012


    Federal officials have extended a regulatory waiver that makes it easier to "flip" properties — a move meant to encourage the renovation of foreclosed homes but that critics say could herald the return of predatory schemes.

    The Federal Housing Administration has waived through 2014 an anti-flipping regulation, which had prevented the agency from insuring mortgages on properties sold within 90 days of acquisition. The waiver, first implemented in 2010 to bolster the flagging housing market, is intended to enable investors to buy and quickly rehab properties as the market continues to struggle.

    But in Baltimore, one of the cities most affected by fraudulent flipping, some housing experts are concerned that another extension of the waiver may usher in a repeat of predatory transactions that duped hundreds of buyers in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and left many Baltimore neighborhoods scarred with abandoned homes.

    The anti-flipping waiver has been controversial even within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees the FHA. Kenneth M. Donohue, HUD's inspector general, raised concerns about the waiver and its implications soon after it was instituted.

    "While we recognize FHA's business decision to again institute its anti-flipping waiver as a way to encourage investment, stimulate the housing market, and reduce blight through home ownership, we continue to have concerns that the anti-flipping waiver will also invite fraud schemes to occur," Donohue's office said in a statement last week.

    He added that officials continue to devote resources to investigating flipping schemes "wherever they may arise."

    "We're getting ready to go right back into the mess we just had," said Larry Chriscoe, who says he was the victim of a flipping scam in 1999.

    Chriscoe used an FHA-backed mortgage to buy a house in the Waltherson neighborhood of Northeast Baltimore. He said the seller had owned the home for a short time and used cosmetic improvements, such as paint and caulk, and a deceptive appraisal to charge him tens of thousands of dollars more than the home was worth.

    "I walked out on the property," said Chriscoe, who decided it wasn't feasible — or logical — to pay off a mortgage that cost much more than the value of his home, which needed major roof repairs and an electrical overhaul. "There were so many things wrong in that house."

    Flipping schemes proliferated throughout Baltimore and targeted first-time and lower-income buyers. In some areas, groups of homes were bought cheaply by speculators, revalued by conspiring appraisers and resold within days — or hours — for many times over the seller's purchase price.

    In the 1500 block of N. Bethel St. in the Oliver neighborhood of East Baltimore, for instance, one unscrupulous investor purchased six rowhouses in 1997 for less than $6,000 apiece. He resold them the same day for nearly $50,000 each to unsuspecting buyers, according to tax records and Sun reports. They were subsequently purchased by the city and demolished.

    Like Chriscoe, many buyers walked away from their homes and left behind vacant properties to be dealt with by banks, City Hall and the federal government. The transactions also destroyed buyers' finances. Chriscoe filed for bankruptcy and said he is still trying to get his credit in order, eight years after leaving his flipped home.

    In 2003, after flipping had been a growing problem in Baltimore for the better part of a decade, prompting Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski and others to hold hearings in the city about the practice, HUD issued the anti-flipping rule that restricted what mortgages FHA would insure. " 'Quick flips' will be eliminated," the FHA said in a statement at the time.

    But after the housing bubble burst and foreclosed homes became commonplace, the FHA decided to lift the ban to accelerate the resale of homes.

    At the time, Donohue said the action had not been vetted with his department. "While we understand the underlying reasoning to turn around foreclosed properties in a quicker manner, we believe its imposition may open a new round of fraud-related flipping abuse," he said in written comments to a congressional committee.

    Donohue said the FHA should be wary of loosening regulations because the government, to encourage lending, has insured more mortgages. In each of its two most recent fiscal years, the FHA insured 1.2 million loans — well over $200 billion worth of mortgages each year.

    More FHA loans can make "careful and comprehensive lender monitoring difficult," Donohue wrote in his comments. He noted that in previous periods of high volumes of FHA loans, "the program was vulnerable to exploitation by fraud schemes, most notoriously flipping activities, that undercut the integrity of the program."

    The waiver has been extended twice before, in single-year increments. The second extension was set to expire Dec. 31, but in November HUD announced it was again extending the waiver — this time for two years, until Dec. 31, 2014.

    "FHA research finds that in today's market, acquiring, rehabilitating and reselling these properties to prospective homeowners often take less than 90 days," HUD said in a statement in December 2011, announcing the second extension.

    To some, the extensions make sense as a way to keep the housing market moving forward.

    "It's a different market now," said Andre Weitzman, a Baltimore attorney who represented many homeowners victimized by flipping fraud schemes. "The main catalyst for flipping was the easy availability of loans. Money's not so easily available now."

    As long as lenders are more stringent in their mortgage requirements, there seems to be little room for inflated home values to be used as a way to get a quick-flip payout, he said.

    Appraisers, too, are being more careful now than they were during the housing bubble, said Fern Dannis, the director of housing programs for the Maryland Association of Realtors. When the market was hot, appraisers were more likely to be taken in by the constantly rising values, instead of focusing on the value added only by improvements.

    Restrictions built into the waiver should also guard against fraud, said Owen Jarvis, an attorney at St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center, which helped lead efforts against flipping in Baltimore.

    For instance, to be eligible for the waiver, a property that is being sold for more than 20 percent more than the seller's acquisition cost must provide a second appraisal or provide documentation of the improvements to the home. An inspection also must be completed if the home is being resold with 90 days for a price that is 20 percent more than its previous sales price, according to HUD.

    "As long as that's adhered to, that seems to protect the buyer," Jarvis said, though he added that if no one is monitoring loans to ensure those precautions are taken, there could be a problem.

    Mortgage fraud has again become a problem in Baltimore in recent years, as residents facing foreclosure or "underwater" mortgages, in which they owe more than the home's value, seek assistance.

    Against that backdrop, Mark Sissman, president of Healthy Neighborhoods Inc., said he's also concerned about the anti-flipping waiver. His organization, which promotes homeownership and stabilizing Baltimore neighborhoods, still sees wide swings in appraised value of homes, he said. And loosening regulations could invite more mortgage fraud, he said.

    "Somehow, in Baltimore, creative entrepreneurs have found every way possible to make money at the cost of individual homeowners and the FHA," he said.

    steve.kilar@baltsun.com

  • #2
    Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

    Originally posted by baltsun
    House-flipping waiver is extended

    The Federal Housing Administration's two-year extension is intended to keep housing market from sliding back
    .....
    .......
    ..
    "It's a different market now," said Andre Weitzman, a Baltimore attorney who represented many homeowners victimized by flipping fraud schemes. "The main catalyst for flipping was the easy availability of loans. Money's not so easily available now."

    As long as lenders are more stringent in their mortgage requirements, there seems to be little room for inflated home values to be used as a way to get a quick-flip payout, he said.

    Appraisers, too, are being more careful now than they were during the housing bubble, said Fern Dannis, the director of housing programs for the Maryland Association of Realtors. When the market was hot, appraisers were more likely to be taken in by the constantly rising values, instead of focusing on the value added only by improvements.....
    and THEN there's this....


    11/25/2012 @ 8:13AM |212,766 views

    Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?


    Originally posted by forbes mag
    Don’t buy a house in a state where private sector workers are outnumbered by folks dependent on government.


    Thinking about buying a house? Or a municipal bond? Be careful where you put your capital. Don’t put it in a state at high risk of a fiscal tailspin.

    Eleven states make our list of danger spots for investors. They can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers. The list includes California, New York, Illinois and Ohio, along with some smaller states like New Mexico and Hawaii.

    If your career takes you to Los Angeles or Chicago, don’t buy a house. Rent.

    If you have money in municipal bonds, clean up the portfolio. Sell holdings from the sick states and reinvest where you’re less likely to get clipped. Nebraska and Virginia are unlikely to give their bondholders a Greek haircut. California and New York are comparatively risky.

    Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is whether it has more takers than makers. A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector.

    Let us give those takers the benefit of our sympathy and assume that every single one of them is a deserving soul. This person is either genuinely needy or a dedicated public servant or the recipient of a well-earned pension.

    But what happens when these needy types outnumber the providers? Taxes get too high. Prosperous citizens decamp. Employers decamp. That just makes matters worse for the taxpayers left behind.

    Let’s say you are a software entrepreneur with 100 on your payroll. If you stay in San Francisco, your crew will support 139 takers. In Texas, they would support only 82. Austin looks very attractive.

    Ranked on the taker/maker ratio, our 11 death spiral states range from New Mexico, with 1.53 takers for every maker, down to Ohio, with a 1-to-1 ratio.

    The taker count is the number of state and local government workers plus the number of people on Medicaid plus 1 for each $100,000 of unfunded pension liabilities. Sources: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and a study of state worker pensions done in 2009 by two academics, Joshua Rauh and Rovert Novy-Marx. Professor Rauh estimates that the shortage in pension funding is on average a third higher today.

    The second element in the death spiral list is a scorecard of state credit-worthiness done by Conning & Co., a money manager known for its measures of risk in insurance company portfolios. Conning’s analysis focuses more on dollars than body counts. Its formula downgrades states for large debts, an uncompetitive business climate, weak home prices and bad trends in employment.

    Conning rates North Dakota the safest state to lend money to, Connecticut the most hazardous. A state qualifies for the Forbes death spiral list if its taker/maker ratio exceeds 1.0 and it resides in the bottom half of Conning’s ranking.


    It’s easy to see how California got on our list. It has pampered a large army of civil servants while using every imaginable trick to chase private-sector jobs away, the latest being a quixotic scheme to reduce the globe’s atmospheric carbon. A City Journal essay by Victor Davis Hanson notes that the state spends $10 billion a year on entitlements for illegal aliens.

    Illinois is especially known for its dishonesty, whether among officeholders (future license plate motto: Land of Corruption) or in the habit of under-accounting for promises to government employees. The Rauh study counted $66 billion in the till to cover pension obligations of $233 billion.

    To lend money to California, Illinois or the other nine states perched on the precipice requires a leap of faith. So does buying a house in those locales. Don’t count on a property tax limit to protect your home’s value. If other taxes are high enough, there won’t be any buyers.

    Last edited by lektrode; January 03, 2013, 07:41 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

      Originally posted by lektrode View Post

      ...A taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector.

      Let us give those takers the benefit of our sympathy and assume that every single one of them is a deserving soul. This person is either genuinely needy or a dedicated public servant or the recipient of a well-earned pension.

      But what happens when these needy types outnumber the providers? Taxes get too high. Prosperous citizens decamp. Employers decamp. That just makes matters worse for the taxpayers left behind...
      I would like to hear what Mr. Baldwin would have us do with "takers" who are "... recipients of well-earned pensions.."
      Perhaps when an employee is too old to be putting money into some owner's pockets, we should just shuffle them off to the soylent green factory.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

        Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
        I would like to hear what Mr. Baldwin would have us do with "takers" who are "... recipients of well-earned pensions.."
        Perhaps when an employee is too old to be putting money into some owner's pockets, we should just shuffle them off to the soylent green factory.
        The problem is governmental accounting allows these bennies to be kicked down the road while the pols get elected upon theor promises. Now we are running out of road.

        Like the old saying of not being able to squeeze water from a nickel, you will find that as taxes go up employers will decamp for those states where 'money is treated best'. While this further exacerbates the problem in the decamped state, it actually props up and makes the new 'home' a better place for their retirees. In essence, the destination state is rewarded for their past prudence, while the decamped state is penalized for their financial mis-steps.

        If governmental accounting were honest, and had to take into account generational promises while at the same time voters were not so stupid, we would never be in such a pickle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

          Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
          I would like to hear what Mr. Baldwin would have us do with "takers" who are "... recipients of well-earned pensions.."
          Perhaps when an employee is too old to be putting money into some owner's pockets, we should just shuffle them off to the soylent green factory.
          While I understand that many people receiving government benefits or drawing a government salary have been made promises, it is often a feckless, corrupt, and non-representative government (though admittedly duly elected) that made those promises, not the people paying the taxes. It is unconscionable that, for the same type of work, a government worker is paid more than someone in the private sector.

          My belief is that a government worker, in return for much greater job stability and often better benefits, should always earn less than a similar worker in the private sector who has to risk losing a job and often work far more hours. Raises and boosts to benefits for government workers should only be made if and when workers in the private sector receive similar increases in compensation. Furthermore, in situations where private sector wages are stagnant or falling, government worker wages should be frozen if not scaled back.

          The situation I see right now in the states that have given government workers the biggest bonanzas is a situation where private sector workers are being burdened with a debt they will ultimately be unable to pay unless private sector compensation going forward increases at a vastly greater pace than public spending. And as it is said about onerous debts, "The debt that cannot be paid will not be paid." States that tax their residents too unreasonably will experience their own form of capital flight.

          As for what can be done, getting rid of the worst abuses of the FIRE economy is a good start to relieving the tax burden on workers. For California, where the cup runneth over for government workers, this means amending Proposition 13 to more heavily tax home owners and outright elimination of the giveaways for commercial real estate. [Fat chance, I know. The U.S. dearly loves its housing bubbles and California especially so.]

          Another thing that could be done is the breaking of certain pension promises. We've all read stories about how bad eggs pile on the overtime in their final years of employment to grossly inflate what their yearly pension benefit will be, often more than doubling their yearly payout. How about disqualifying those pension-stuffing years? For the most egregious cases which make the news, breaking a pension promise would still result in these retirees getting six-figure pensions; they're hardly going to starve or even suffer mildly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

            Every minute of every day ZIRP drains private pensions, transfering the wealth upward to the TBTFs free money. Where's the outrage?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

              Originally posted by don View Post
              Every minute of every day ZIRP drains private pensions, transfering the wealth upward to the TBTFs free money. Where's the outrage?
              I think it's reasonable to say that U.S. economy needs to cut costs. Unfortunately, since the media is only willing to incessantly broadcast the message of the FIRE economy, the only alternatives presented to the public are cutting of pensions, eliminating Social Security, or some other swindle. If only the media would instead endlessly repeat the real and better options of clawing back every penny of money stolen during the run-up to the 2008 crash (if necessary, drive the individuals who presided over and committed these frauds into utter ruination) and removing from power the individuals who continue to promote rentier interests (this means Congressmen, regulators, and Federal Reserve members).

              Of these two choices in dealing with fiscal problems, only choice A, a combination of money-printing and austerity, is on the menu in the media.

              I supposed you can say there is a choice C: continue to run-up the national credit card with generous welfare for government beneficiaries, do nothing about the corrupting influence of FIRE interests, tax workers heavily to extend and pretend as long as possible, and wait for the inevitable, vicious crash.

              Of these choices, I think most people who understand what's going on would agree that the best course of action would be choice B: the euthanisation of the rentier. Since we don't seem to have the political will to do the right thing, though, perhaps a combination of A and C is best to buy us as much time as possible to maybe get lucky and eventually elect a president and Congress who will have the cajones to beat down on the FIRE interests.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
                I think it's reasonable to say that U.S. economy needs to cut costs. Unfortunately, since the media is only willing to incessantly broadcast the message of the FIRE economy, the only alternatives presented to the public are cutting of pensions, eliminating Social Security, or some other swindle. If only the media would instead endlessly repeat the real and better options of clawing back every penny of money stolen during the run-up to the 2008 crash (if necessary, drive the individuals who presided over and committed these frauds into utter ruination) and removing from power the individuals who continue to promote rentier interests (this means Congressmen, regulators, and Federal Reserve members).
                +1
                fat chance, seeing as most of them are absolutely complicit in the whole fraud known as the current administration,
                from their initial 'coronation' up thru their re-election - with nary a peep out of the lot of em, cept for a few PBS documentaries, a rather revealing CBS 60minutes focus on the topic - contrasting this with the near daily blasts of bad news thruout the entire 8years of geedubya, particularly during 2008 in the runup to the elections....

                and when even bernie madoff is saying somethings wrong??? never mind when even lord blankfiend sez it...

                oh and yeah, dont forget matt taibbi's latest -this ones a beauty too - could it get any plainer/in-yer-face/obvious?
                yet we get essentially ZILCH out of the primetime 'mainstream' newsfeed (which i call the 'hypochondriac hour' from 5-6pm, since its ALL DRUG ADS, ALL THE TIME - and just gotta wonder how much of that is being 'paid for' by the 'affordable care act')

                Of these two choices in dealing with fiscal problems, only choice A, a combination of money-printing and austerity, is on the menu in the media.

                I supposed you can say there is a choice C: continue to run-up the national credit card with generous welfare for government beneficiaries, do nothing about the corrupting influence of FIRE interests, tax workers heavily to extend and pretend as long as possible, and wait for the inevitable, vicious crash.
                that seems to be the only 'plan' they can come up with - and then we get more gushing HAPPY DAZE ARE HERE AGAIN
                imagine - a 3 TRILLION dollar budget, 1.3tril of which is borrowed - and THEY CANT COME UP WITH EVEN 100billion to cut, without it being a 'disaster' - HOW ABOUT A SIMPLE SPENDING FREEZE??? - guess thats out too, when even that would be called a 'cut', since we hear that's what the whitehouse calls merely leaving the present numbers in place?

                that the best course of action would be choice B: the euthanisation of the rentier. Since we don't seem to have the political will to do the right thing, though, perhaps a combination of A and C is best to buy us as much time as possible to maybe get lucky and eventually elect a president and Congress who will have the cajones to beat down on the FIRE interests.
                +1
                now yer getting 'out there' mr K - since there seems to be at least 2 stubborn - and apparently 'trivial'? facts involved...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                  Originally posted by don View Post
                  Every minute of every day ZIRP drains private pensions, transfering the wealth upward to the TBTFs free money. Where's the outrage?
                  TA DA!!!!
                  ding, ding, ding
                  a WINNER!!!

                  outrage? mr don - one wonders why the unions havent been very vocal about this one little aspect of 'the great bailout'
                  kinda shows how blinded they are by their own ideological perogative (read: back the dems, NO MATTER WHAT the costs)
                  , dont it?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                    Originally posted by don
                    Every minute of every day ZIRP drains private pensions, transfering the wealth upward to the TBTFs free money. Where's the outrage?
                    I would have thought it is obvious by now:

                    Steal a man's wallet, and you're a thief.

                    Steal a man's house and/or livelihood, and you're a vital part of the American economy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                      The avge American is so plucking stupid it just makes my head spin. The media can twist them all up any which way and they believe every bit of it.

                      WHO, in their right mind, would lend the US any money and think they will get said money back with the same purchasing power, plus interest?

                      Gotta have rocks in your head.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                        Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
                        The avge American is so plucking stupid it just makes my head spin. The media can twist them all up any which way and they believe every bit of it.
                        It boggles the mind, doesn't it? Imagine what would happen if everybody stopped taking anti-depressants at once...

                        Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Flipping an Answer?

                          Originally posted by lektrode View Post
                          TA DA!!!!
                          ding, ding, ding
                          a WINNER!!!

                          outrage? mr don - one wonders why the unions havent been very vocal about this one little aspect of 'the great bailout'
                          kinda shows how blinded they are by their own ideological perogative (read: back the dems, NO MATTER WHAT the costs)
                          , dont it?
                          Union leadership in America has been a sick joke for a long time. ZIRP accomplishes many things. One is a minute by minute transfer of wealth from the savers, including private pensions, to the upper elites. TBTFs get money for nothing, to speculate with, pumping up the market - enticing savers to take the plunge out of desperation, and further indebting savers who can't make ends meet. Ditto the munis racket. It's a sweet system. Outrage? More like the Great American Silence.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X