Radio | The Norris Group Blog

The Norris Group Blog

California Real Estate Headline Roundup

Archive for the ‘Radio’ Category

254-TNGRadio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 7 12-03-11

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

On October 14, 2011, The Norris Group returned with its award-winning event I Survived Real Estate. An expert line-up of industry specialists joined Bruce Norris to discuss current industry regulation, head-scratching legislation, and the opportunities emerging for savvy real estate professionals. 100% of the proceeds support the Orange County Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. This event would not have been possible without the generous help of the following platinum partners: ForeclosureRadar and Sean O’Toole, Housing Wire, the San Diego Creative Real Estate Investors Association and President Bill Tan, Investors Workshops with President Shawn Watkins and Angel Bronsgeest, Invest Club for Women and Iris Veneracion and Bobbie Alexander, San Jose Real Estate Investors Association and Geraldine Berry, Real Wealth Networks, Frye Wyles, MVT Productions, and White House Catering. The event video can be found on isurvived2011.com.

Bruce continued the discussion on risk-taking. Debra said you have a lot of uncertainty in the lending community right now waiting for regulation and waiting to understand the government’s role. Doug said he had been surveying 1,000 people a month for 16 months and publishes the report on his website, so he asks what their expectation is on interest rates and prices. In the most recent quarter, Fannie Mae also asked them what they thought about stability when it came to unemployment. 26% of the people who were employed were worried about not being able to stay employed. 9% of the people in the workforce are already unemployed, so you have over one-third of the workforce that is concerned about the base ability to pay anything. When you look at their expectation that interest rates are going to be essentially flat for the next two years, they expect house prices to fall during that time period. They are essentially asking, “Why would you tell us that right now is a good time to go out and borrow $200,000 and buy a house?” There is a lot of discussion about the HARP Program and why people are not considering this.

If you think about the practical aspect of what the household faces, you have to consider that they are asked to bring $4-$6,000 to the table. If they are worried about being unemployed in 6 months, they are essentially saying, “If the payback is $200 a month in savings, and it is a couple years before I receive the money back, what if in 6 months I don’t have a job?” So if you say you understand it, it makes sense, and you now need to roll it into the principle; it doesn’t sound like a good deal because you are asking me to take on extra leverage. So to the customer, at the end of the day there is a question of stable employment that is equally big to the supply of properties they have to work off still. That is as much a macroeconomic issue to Debra Still’s point about the uncertainty as it is about housing because the engine for job growth is small business. When small businesses are surveyed, the number one reason they say they are not hiring people is lack of sales. The number two reason is uncertainty about the tax and regulatory environment. Until macro-policy makers get back to focusing on what makes a good investment market for businesses to go into and hire people, we will most likely have a concentric circle between housing and the aforementioned problem. This means we need to reduce regulation and stop making every tax code have to be renewed every two years. We need to make some permanent decisions on whether you are going to advantage or disadvantage investment so that entrepreneurs have a clear view on whether they will be able to retain the capital gains that they make by investing in their business. These kinds of things have to be put in place to give it a strong investment environment, which will then lead to employment.

Eric Janzen reinforced Doug’s point by saying we have a general problem with under-investment in our economy. This means there is not enough capital going into investment versus consumption. The result of that is we are not planting seed corn in the housing market. This is also true in venture capital as is the case with a precipitous drop-off in early-stage companies, which are the companies that provide most of the jobs and all the growth as well as the exports and all the good things that come with it. It really comes down to what Doug said that we have to make investment decisions very clear and stop disadvantaging investment. Bruce wondered what the likelihood was of this happening in the next year. Eric said this was not a good year for these types of decisions, so the safest bet you can make is to assume nothing is going to happen in the next year. Doug said you would not get a better return on a bet than you would on investing.

Bruce asked what was standing in the way of letting investors participate more fully in taking the inventory down. At times in the past we had a 203k loan program that was available as well as more generous loans available to investors, but this ended in about 1995. Debra Still said the Mortgage Bankers Association supports relooking at the 203k program with some incremental safeguards versus the prior program. She said they would support clearing a lot of the inventory. Bruce said this would take care of one level, but there were people at I Survived Real Estate who would not want to go through the journey of that loan but would buy something as a rental; keep it for a long time, and do it in good size quantity. He wondered if there was any discussion on a deed restriction. Debra said one of the recommendations on the RFI that the MBI made was a 3-5 year whole provision. One of the things we have to consider is moving the extra inventory and look at investors to make it happen.

Bruce wondered about how the person who purchases, for example, 20 houses would fix them up and keep them. A company that buys 1,000 will probably try to make them livable, but this is not as helpful as making it nice. This is why the nothing-down program intrigues Bruce. Right now you have a chance to get people in at a very safe payment that is fixed. Later on when we have to pay more taxes, which we will, we will have room in our budget because that payment will seem like a car payment. However, if you don’t let people in, their rent payment is always going to approximate market. We are not going to give somebody a 30-year fixed rent rate. If you had people buying something at no-down at 4%, eventually you would have price support and would get rid of the inventory. Sean said if we could sell every house tomorrow at full-market value, it would crash the system. Doug reiterated saying the big picture problem is that at the end of the day someone will not be paid. It is just like the Greece situation. The political system is good at doling out benefits, but it is poor at doling out costs. A lot of what is happening is instead of the broad-based principle write-downs, which is something that could fix a lot of problems, we have adverse selection and an unfair distribution of results based on decisions made in households. Things are costly politically in addition to financially. There are some discussions of things which are small costs.

For example, some ideas have been floated about tax forgiveness for investors who would get a 3-year abatement of taxes on the rents that they receive if they were to invest in a property today. What this does is raise the rate of return to them, which in turn raises the bid price which they could be willing to put into the market and reduce losses to the institution which holds the loan. There is still a loss, but it is incremental and not as visible. It is actually moving some of the inventory. Therefore, you will most likely see a lot of program proposals and capital gains release. Debra said some of the recommendations are Fannie and Freddie looking at investor properties and making small incremental improvements to the HARP Program, which would include investors owning more than the limit of ten properties. This would also allow for higher LTVs or other loans after 2009. Principle write-downs are very challenging for mortgage lenders. You have to ask whether the tax payer is going to pay, the bank will pay, or will the investor pay. As Doug said, somebody is going to pay the bill.

Bruce wondered about the idea of refinancing owner-occupant or investor over encumbered mortgage. He wondered why we cannot simply refinance them at the current rate, whatever the LTV is. You have the loan anyway, so why can’t you just make it make sense so that people will be able to write out the loan. He wondered what the point was of having a 6% mortgage that is not getting paid when you could have a 3.5% mortgage that would. Debra said this is certainly one of the things on the list to discuss. One of the things we also need to consider is if you think about the capacity of the industry and the fact that the large depositories have a good portion of the properties, it would take the whole industry to participate to help move this big “elephant” through the system. Most lenders who do not already own the mortgage are going to want rep and warrant relief. The question is why a lender who does not already own a loan on an underwater property would make a deal unless they had some kind of rep and warrant relief. This is a big deal for part of the discussion.

Bruce also wondered about the idea of principle-only payments to get people back to an even level. Debra said if the loan is in a security, then the servicer has to advance principle and interest to the investor. The principle-only is still going to create a negative gap for whoever the servicer is because they are advancing to the investor principle and interest each month. Bruce wondered if the investor can make a new agreement, say he is going to lose a lot of money if the money does not get paid. Doug said he does not think there is anything that prevents two private parties who have a contract from reworking the contract. Sean wondered if it could trigger some CDO risk. You have to talk about the derivative risk and potentially magnifying losses. This was a problem years ago, and people have still not tried to go in and figure out how big the derivative risk is and where it lies. Debra said you have to wonder what you would do with mortgage liquidity if investors have to take the principle write-downs. The question is who is going to invest in mortgage-backed securities in the future, and what do you do to the future liquidity of the industry with some of the dramatic actions. Eric said if you look at the market data, the market has been continuing to decline. It spiked from about $300 billion to $1.2 billion, but the latest numbers show it’s back down to about $400 billion. You can exactly identify the point at which the market started to fall in the financial crisis. That market is probably not coming back for a long time until there is market clearing. There is also a hidden additional cost in forcing homeowners to pay mortgages against inflated home prices, which is that there is a string of payments that is going uneconomically to a home price that really should not have existed in the first place. Personal consumption expenditures are getting absorbed for a non-productive, non-economic purpose.

Bruce asked each one of the panelists if we get together a year from now, what is the one thing they would like to have accomplished for their industry. Debra said she would like for all mortgage lenders to work collaboratively with each other. If you think about the industry, there are large depositories, small community banks, and independent mortgage bankers. They need to work collaboratively with one voice, decide on a way forward, and not be fighting each other. In addition, they need to work collaboratively with regulators and the policy makers to make sure that we don’t overcorrect and make sure the regulators understand the unintended consequences of the massive amount of regulation. They should also make sure they end up in the right place one year from now with the whole regulatory environment.

Doug Duncan agreed with Debra and said a great deal of it is overkill based on evidence that the market is simply adjusting back to what is a sustainable homeownership rate. Underwriting standards have moved back to more traditional levels. If the homeownership rate is going to be lower, then by definition the investor and rental share has to be higher. This is why there is finally a turn to focus on ways that this can be advantaged.

From the appraisal side, Sara Stephens believes one of the most important things going forward and what she would like to see happen coming into 2012 is a real effort on the part of lenders and the people who regulate the appraisal business to take a look at the difference between an appraiser and a qualified appraiser. The difference is huge. She also wants the lenders and regulators to take a look at the expertise and the education that one has as compared to a person who is just simply earning a fee. Working with the appraisal institute and other professional organizations would certainly be important. The Appraisal Institute would like to work with the lending community, the brokers, and everyone who is involved in the mortgage lending process to make an effort to use the most qualified people who can give the most reliable conclusions.

Sean O’Toole said he would like to change the national discussion on what a home is worth. The sales comparable approach to appraisal versus income or cost basis is ridiculous. It certainly was not the cause of the problem, but it didn’t help keep the problem from getting out of control. We also have a poor understanding nationally of what a home or a piece of residential real estate is really worth. Bruce said if you think about the appraisal process, when Bruce was purchasing in Grand Junction Colorado in 1985, there was no taker in sight. The only comp was his comp. If you had three of these, this was the appraisal number. In Moreno Valley, 2-bedroom houses that were going for $300 had company, and the appraiser had all the evidence that this was the right decision. This is what Sean was talking about reconsidering the definition of market value to have some other factor that doesn’t let things get out of control, whether up or down. This would give us to have stability that in turn would allow lending to be a lot saner and change the whole game.

Gary Thomas said he would like to see clarity from the members of his organization on what they’re doing. Are we still going to have mortgage interest deductions? We need to consider all the things that are really holding everybody back because they really do not know what the future is. Buyers don’t know whether you’re going to still be able to write off the interest on a loan. They don’t know whether they are going to have to put 20% down, 10%, 0r 5%. There are so many unknowns out there that everybody feels like they are in quicksand. Having some stability from a regulatory standpoint would go a long ways towards making things better for the industry.

Eric Janszen said within the context of the American political system, the aftermath of bubbles is always predictable. It is the collective punishment of the innocent. We had Sarbanes Oxley after the dot come crash, which is the Accounts Full Employment Act. This time we have overregulation across the board. It needs to be counter cyclical, so at this point we need to as quickly as possible regain a clear, consistent, and unencumbered relationship between buyer and seller.

Bruce Norris ended by saying he wishes that everyone that we elected in any position of public office would set aside whether they are Democrat or Republican and become American for one year so we can get a lot of things resolved.

This is the final segment for I Survived Real Estate. Thank you to everyone who attended and have tuned in to our radio broadcast. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

For more information about The Norris Group’s California hard money loans or our California Trust Deed investments, visit the website or call our office at 951-780-5856 for more information. For upcoming California real estate investor training and events, visit The Norris Group website and our California investor calendar. You’ll also find our award-winning real estate radio show on KTIE 590am at 6pm on Saturdays or you can listen to over 170 podcasts in our free investor radio archive.

Tags: appraisal, bruce norris, CDO, Debra Still, Doug Duncan, Eric Janszen, Gary Thomas, harp, homeowneship, housing, i survived real estate, inventory, LTV, mortgage bankers association, mortgage-backed securities, norris group, principle write-down, Sara Stephens, SEAN OTOOLE, Susan G. Komen
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

253-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 6 11-24-11

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

Bruce asked the panel if they see anything in Dodd-Frank or the changes in qualified mortgages that threaten a 30-year mortgage for some of the stratuses of loans. Debra said she does not really see anything in the QM or the QRM that would specifically attack the 30-year mortgage. For the most part this has been a product that housing in America has depended on. Debra does not worry about the 30-year mortgage going away as a result of the regulation. Bruce also wondered if there was any discussion on where Fannie and Freddie will end up. In response, Debra said our fragile housing market right now is delaying the government’s desire to shrink the footprint in housing. The white paper at the beginning of this year would launch the debate for the future of the government’s role in housing, the future of the GSEs, and how to rebuild the nation’s secondary mortgage markets. Debra does not believe the debate is really going to get going until most likely after the elections. The future of the GSEs is uncertain. There are a couple bills that have been introduced that would suggest all the way from completely privatizing what would now be Fannie and Freddie to maybe private companies with a government wrap for the securities that are issued. However, she reiterated to say debate would probably not start until the end of next year.

Sean O’Toole, Doug Duncan, and Eric Janszen returned to continue the discussion with Sara, Gary, and Debra. The first thing Bruce talked about with all six panelists was a recent Moody’s report he read that talked about the qualified residential mortgage in place, and it talked about FHA only being about 10% of the market. This really surprised Bruce because in California, even on the low side first-time buyers were 30% on the low side and 50% on the high side in the market right now. He wondered how FHA could only be 10% unless it was really being restricted. He wondered what would be the restriction that would prevent it from being a normal percentage as this would be the loan to which you would think those kinds of people would go. Debra said if you look at what the government is willing to do to get FHA from a 30% market share down to a target of 10-15%. They have already raised the mortgage insurance premiums, so an FHA loan is slightly more expensive than it was. We have just seen the stimulus loan limits expire, so that is another nudge toward a smaller market share. There has been talk about possibly looking at a median income restriction somewhere in our future. We will most likely not see anything like this anytime soon, but we will most likely see small moves to get the market share down from about 30%. Doug Duncan said part of the discussion will be getting the private market more involved. If you go back to some of the history of the FHA loans, the underlying theory for FHA was that there was part of their credit spectrum that would not get served by the private market. This was because the returns most likely did not reach private market returns, and therefore there were external benefits encouraging home-ownership by providing a subsidy through the FHA program to get credit to the households. In return for that, there was also a ceiling on the size of loans that was available in the market. We may see some discussion on this come up again, but Doug said it will all be done in context of what is done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Bruce wondered what would happen if we lowered the loan balance. For instance, in California we had a median price of $600,000, and we now have a median price of under 3. Even though we reduced the loan limit, it has to serve more households with a new loan limit than it served with the big loan limit because there are a lot fewer expensive homes at least when it comes to going forward. At the same time, you might have a problem with refis. Bruce wondered if we are supposed to have government program that is over twice the median price of an area. Doug said if you looked in their book of business between the previous limit and the conforming limit to where it dropped; it was less than 5% of the book. The problem is it is regionally targeted, so you will see California, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, and all your high-class markets hit more than the national. Debra said from modeling their business she could see the impact is very small, although you really have to question anything right now that would be negative to housing and if this is what we really want to be doing.

Sean O’Toole discussed how one of the things he has always found interesting about the federal programs is that it’s at the county level. One of the biggest drops we had in California was in Monterrey County where you have Watsonville, which is close to Carmel, Pebble Beach, and Monterrey. You have two completely different markets, even though they are 15 miles apart, so Monterrey and Carmel are going to take a $200,000 hit on the conforming loan limit; whereas in other areas such as San Jose and Contra Costa County that are not as desirable, they are not going to take as hard a hit. It does not make any sense, and it happens in any place where this kind of decision is made. This would not be a factor in Santa Ana, for example, but it would be a factor in Newport Beach. It goes back to applying a broad-based national policy to anything that overrides the local conditions and requires some of the expertise that was being talked about in the appraisal space and a whole host of other things that relate to real estate. Doug said for a long period his company looked at the national home price, and then they talked to their friends and neighbors about how all real estate is local.

Bruce mentioned a document that talks about saving $2-$4 trillion off of the budget going forward, and real estate would be an actual target for trying to get some of our chips. Bruce wondered if we have ever thought about what might be okay to take of if we cannot have anything. Bruce said he had a questionnaire, and one half of the people said it was not okay to take anything, but Bruce wondered if it will not happen one way or the other. For example, if an interest rate went down to $500,000, Bruce wondered if this would be that impactful to our market. Gary Thomas answered that the National Association of Realtors does believe it would be impactful. They do not think this should be touched at all because of the unintended consequences. One of the proposals is to take the interest rate down on second homes in resort markets. However, you have to ask what this will do to the resort market and what it will do to the communities where you cannot resell properties. The unintended consequences are it affects the grocery stores, the pharmacists, and everybody. It does not only affect the person who owns the property and cannot deduct it anymore.

Eric Janszen agreed with Bruce in that it is most likely a real target since it is a government subsidy, and subsidies in both of the ideological camps are obvious targets for cuts. It is always the other person’s subsidy that is the bad one. If it did happen, Eric was not sure if it would have as big an impact as everyone thinks it would. The real big problem we have right now is incomes and employment. We are not really going to fix the housing problem. All of these are marginal issues and marginal solutions until we start having job growth. Riverside County is 15% unemployed, and usually we really count on construction. However, we have a price per square foot on some inventory that is half of the construction cost. It is almost like the dominoes have to fall backwards before they can fall forward. We have to get rid of a lot of what we would consider shadow inventory. We first have to know what shadow inventory is and what to do about it. Until you end up with that disseminated into the marketplace to where no one fears it coming out later below replacement cost, you won’t be able to go forward. Sean O’Toole jokingly said the newest version of shadow inventory moves to help provide cover to whoever got it wrong the first time.

In 2008 when the subject of shadow inventory first came up you had foreclosures just on a tear, banks taking back lots of property, and we were not seeing the property back on the market. It occurred to them that the banks were really holding a lot of property that was not making it through the market. This is what Sean O’Toole originally talked about with shadow inventory and had a lot of statistics on it. A lot of people talking about the foreclosure way and other issues needed to change this over time, and it has grown to then include everyone in foreclosure and everyone who is delinquent. It also includes negative equity, and Sean said he has heard people say it also includes all those who would like to sell at the prices that are in 2006 but now cannot. This has been nicknamed the “delusional inventory.” However, if you start talking with people about it, you will see that there is a lot of “delusional inventory” and a lot of property that should be and would be on the market if people were not still holding out some hope that there is going to be some fix in Washington. This is as big a problem as anything else.

Bruce noted in some markets you have 3,000 square foot houses that cost a lot to build being bought for $140,000. There might be a pile of them, so the shadow inventory is not only what the lender owns, but what is being refused to be foreclosed on. Bruce said this is where he would go with shadow inventory. It’s a ball of two-year late people that for some reason are not being forced to the finish line. Whether credit for this goes to MERS or robo-signing, long before this became a front-line issue it looked like lenders made a decision to not foreclose on specific things. The question is what the reasoning is for waiting so long. The last time we had this problem was in the 90s, and lenders began to wait. People were getting close to a year behind, and then the FDIC came in and said this was not okay. Bruce remembered the chart and remembered how there were foreclosures declining in California back in ’95, yet delinquencies were increasing. There was a rule passed that said when you were 100 days late you had to file an NOD. This came basically from instruction. This time, however, it seemed not only was there nothing in the instructions, but it seemed like people were getting free passes and being told, “Whenever you want to or don’t want to, it is okay.” Eric said the thing that changed was there was just not a large enough pool of credit worthy buyers by the new definition of credit worthy. Bruce would say if you want to sell it to investors, you would have all that you can give to the market. However, Bruce does not believe that there is a fear of there not being enough cash because with everything that is bought at trustee sales a month, there is a lot of money spent.

Debra does not get the sense that lenders are purposely delaying foreclosure by design as much as working through the process, meeting regulations, meeting investor requirements, state requirements, and other requirements unless there are REOs that have not come back out on the market. She does not get the sense that lenders are purposely delaying the foreclosure process by the same token that lenders are going overboard right now to make sure they are doing the responsible loss mitigation activities that they need to do to help keep borrowers in their homes, structure short sales, or whatever the appropriate process is one buyer at a time. It’s possible they are also trying to figure out who owns the loan.

Sean mentioned how we had more than double the foreclosures that we have today in 2008. The idea and the notion that the lenders need more time to figure things out is ridiculous. They have had plenty of time to figure it out, and we are four years into this thing. This is not really the problem. Doug touched on earlier the notion that Fannie and Freddie don’t really want to talk about principle balance reductions. They are worried about foreclosures because ultimately these losses flow through to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is not in much of a position to take them right now, and neither are the banks. If you start looking at just the seconds that a bank has where maybe the first are held by Fannie and Freddie, but they have a portfolio of seconds that are on their portfolio that exceed the equity of the institution. When you really start clearing things through, you have a much different problem than simply processing the paperwork. You are talking about banking and government solvency.

Doug said it is a grand social experiment of the question, “Would the welfare of the economy and the populace be better served by a rapid and deep clearing of inventory, which would bring into question the solvency of the significant part of the financial system; or do you obtain a better result through a variety of policies to make a slow move to bring prices back into equilibrium?” Sean said the latter would be great, except now it is extend and pretend because you have to confess and say you have more losses than you can afford to bear. You have to tell the American people that this is really the situation and we’re going to on purpose drag this out so we have an orderly disillusion, like back in Grease, rather than a disorderly one. We cannot continue to extend and pretend and not have a conversation about how bad it really is. We created $4 trillion of excess debt; and we have worked through half a trillion of it. So far we have $3 ½ trillion to go, but we cannot afford it today. Therefore, we have to have a solution.

One of the things Bruce noticed was back in 2008, we really had a lot of price damage and when he was buying houses for $.18 on what the lender was owed. That was really the number because there were so many inventories. At that time our default was about 3.4%, and our foreclosures were 1.2%. About 9 months later, our defaults were 11%; and our foreclosures were .08%. They had just stopped foreclosing, and you had tripled the default. One of the disservices this does is there are gentlemen in the audience at the time of ’08 who had 800 REO listings. They had a business plan around that volume and were never told that the listings were going to turn into 200. One of the things that would have been helpful would have been to tell an industry that they will simply not do it at that pace anymore and could have had a better business plan. This was one thing that would have been frustrating for mortgage people and appraisers as well. This is all business that is turning in a red ball behind us that is not producing a fee, a commission, or a rental.

Bruce wondered if the losses that are in a second position behind the firsts that are a 200% loan-to-value are being booked at zero value or face-note value. Sean mentioned that back in 2008 when Paulson announced TARP, everyone thought it was about loans to banks. However, if you go back and read his statement, it was really about how we should not force banks to sell specific properties into a distressed market at certain distressed prices. This sounded good on paper except that the issue was not a distressed price but rather a reversion of the mean and the price at which things were supposed to be. The losses were real, and we need to figure out how we recognize them and deal with them. Four years later, we have not even started having honest discussion about recognizing and then dealing with them. Bruce wondered what would happen if we were to say, “Let’s foreclose on the red ball.” Do you absorb $4 trillion and survive? Sean reiterated saying Doug may have been right and that we need to think about a different social experiment. At the end of the day, what we need is a clear housing policy because what most people realize that extend and pretend is not working, and that is one of the reasons we are not seeing home sales take off in Riverside where it is now an incredible bargain. It is hard to take risks when you don’t know the rules of the game.

Debra said you have a lot of uncertainty in the lending community right now waiting for regulation and waiting to understand the government’s role. Doug said he had been surveying 1,000 people a month for 16 months and publishes the report on his website, so he asks what their expectation is on interest rates and prices. In the most recent quarter, Fannie Mae also asked them what they thought about stability when it came to unemployment. 26% of the people who were employed were worried about not being able to stay employed.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 7. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: bruce norris, Debra Still, delinquencies, Dodd-Frank, Doug Duncan, Eric Janszen, fannie mae, FHA, freddie mac, Gary Thomas, Henry Paulson, i survived real estate, Moody’s, National Associaton of Realtors, norris group, QRM, reo, Sara Stephens, SEAN OTOOLE, shadow inventory, Susan G. Komen, TARP
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

252-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 5 11-19-11

Friday, November 18th, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

Bruce continued his discussion with the panel on an interesting appraisal they had. Someone with no experience in a very unusual area where you received a lot of money for a certain located lot had a $1.3 million comp for the model-match house. They had the right location, but The Norris Group did not. They had a home for sale for about $700,000 for 90 days, which is not worth $1.3 million. When they went pending, the home was appraised for $1.3 million because it was a model-match house; someone had come in from out of the area who did not have a clue that it mattered there. This did, however, help lock in the sale.

Bruce wondered what the intent is on the mortgage side. He asked what the function of the appraisal management company was and if they are really supposed to just make sure that appraisal independence is accomplished. Sara confirmed saying this is the main function, and it was intended to be the main function to begin with. Unfortunately, it has become a clearing house for fees lower. The management company is going to make the money, and Sara said what her company finds is that when many consumers close a loan are confronted with an amount for an appraisal that includes not only the appraiser’s fee but also the management company fee. Sometimes the management company fee is more than what the appraiser is actually making on the particular sale. Sara related to Bruce on a personal instance where she had a friend who called and asked her if about $300 the usual in customary fee for a residential appraisal. Sara said this sounded a little high an asked her to call the appraiser. When she called the appraiser, she found out that a good part of the fee that she was going to be paying for the appraisal was actually going to the management company and not to the appraiser.

To earn their cut, the management company usually engages the appraiser and is responsible for the documentation securing the appraisal, getting the appraisal back to the file, and getting it to the lender. They act as the middle man. Bruce jokingly said they basically take an email and forward it. They do not necessarily have to have expertise as appraisers, however. In a lot of states like Arkansas and most likely in California, they have certain requirements for AMCs. The Appraisal Institute has been very active in trying to monitor the appraisal management companies and try to obtain some kind of regulation process, some bonding or some kind of law that supports the appraiser in the event that there is some kind of argument with regard to fee and process. In some states they are not regulated at all, and in other states they are closely regulated. This actually brings up a confusing situation. Bruce wondered if the Appraisal Institute has national and state regulations that overlap or contradict, which Sara confirmed.

Debra Still began talking about how her company works in 29 states and files 29 states worth of appraisal regulations, fees, forms, disclosures, and predatory lending. The variation is pretty stunning. The Dodd-Frank Act had tried to solve the reasonable customary fee, and Bruce wondered if this has changed in practice where the appraiser is now getting paid what they used to. However, Sara said this is not the case as there is still a big issue in this area. When Sara testified before the Congressional Subcommittee in July, this was one of the things that she continued to talk about with the subcommittee. The idea of reasonable and customary and the intent of Dodd-Frank was never to include the AMC fee into the reasonable and customary estimation. The Appraisal Institute has done a lot of research, a lot of study, and they have looked at VA schedules and others to try to help these AMCs and try to help the Congressional Subcommittee to take a look at what a reasonable and customary fee might be to an appraiser. They would like to see the HUD-1 form simply separate the fees. The appraisal fee needs to be on one line and one transparent number, and the appraisal management fee should be on another. An appraiser needs to be paid for the time, the education, the professionalism that they have and that they bring to the experience. The AMC should also be compensated for the work that it is doing. There are pretty severe fines for not paying reasonable fees. In the Legislation, it gets into the millions, and it is uncertain if any of these fines have been levied.

One thing that existed at one time and it is good that it does not anymore is undue pressure. However, Bruce gets the feeling it actually does exist but on the back end. He feels like there are buyers who are willing to say about a house that it is the one they want at the price they want it, but somewhere along the line there is pressure to get it at a lower price. He doesn’t know if it is the review appraisal process, an automated system, or it is an underwriter who says it should be lowered. He really doesn’t know, but he does know that as a seller he is confused sometimes why it comes back less. It’s not reasonable. People look out for their own best interests. For example, a seller checks out the market and goes pending, to Bruce this is a comp. If it disagrees with all the other comps severely, then this might be a problem. When The Norris Group fixes up houses, they might spend $30,000, but they do not automatically think about if they will receive $50,000 back for it. There are, however, times where a buyer looks at this and says they would not be able to do it for $30,000, and a $20 grand price difference at 4% interest is so minimal per month that the answer is they will take the $30,000 over the $50,000, especially when you have 70% comps against REOs and short sales. This is a problem. The real question is how they are viewed. One does not show up and say a property is a comp but it does not have a kitchen. You can’t get the truth with the push of a button.

Sara said all this points out the need for local market expertise, for people who are trained professionals, people who are trained to go to the market and interview the buyer and seller, to investigate the comparables, and make sure they are comparables. Secondly, Sara believes that a lot of appraisers, as they begin to turn in their appraisal reports, face a lot of undue pressure, for example, added comparables, extra questions, and more scrutiny placed on their valuation and their judgment. Bruce wondered if for some reason the pressure is there or a review appraiser disagrees that they could lose business because they came in at a higher number than the review appraiser. Sara said this is something that might happen on some instances, but it really falls to the appraiser to defend himself over and over again. If the information is there and the valuation has been done to the best of the appraiser’s ability, then you need to just get to the point in time where you have to say, “This is it; this is all I can do.” Sara said often times when this situation confronts the people at the company, they will say, “Could we pick you up? Could we drive those comps and take a look at them?” A lot of times you are talking to somebody who is sitting at a desk who never looks at the property and never goes to the particular comparable. He never inspects the interior and doesn’t have any information. It is a communication problem sometimes because as an appraiser and as a person who is writing the report, the communication skill needs to be there to convey extraordinary measures you may or may not have taken to include the sale and why. It is a difficult environment, and it is very difficult sometimes to meet the requirements that are piled on, that are additional, and seem perfect in terms of the final valuation result.

Debra Still said you do have underwriting guidelines and some investor overlays that are now causing some of this challenge where you might have an investor that requires that two comps be outside the community. Outside the community possibly means a foreclosure. This is one of the homebuilders’ top 4 issues. As we see some of these sub-markets beginning to heal and prices starting to stabilize, we have to think about how do we move forward and recognize that in a declining area we might have a very stable sub-market. How do we recognize that some investors want four comps or six comps or justify the time valuation? It becomes very complex when you combine both the appraiser’s work and the underwriter’s work on top of it.

Bruce gave an example of something that really changed their business model. They bought a property in Moreno Valley for $52,000, without a kitchen and other necessities, and they fixed it for around $25,000. They put it up for sale and went pending for $123,000, and they had seven offers within two days. This is a pretty good statement of market value. The appraisal came in at $100,000, and the review came in at $80,000. Consequently, they kept it as a rental at $1100, and they rented it in one day. The statement basically by the appraisal said that given $100,000 at 5%, the rental payment was worth twice as much as the value when you consider what it was worth in mortgage payment. What it prevented was them fixing the next 50 properties in Moreno Valley because what it told them was due to the changes that HVCC brought in, the appraiser was incapable of coming to that decision because no one would allow him to do it. This is a challenge for the industry right now, especially in the areas that have the overwhelming vacant REO as the comp. One of the reasons they concentrate in a specific area is because they provide their own evidence that a decision has been made before, which is what you are in a way stuck with as an appraiser. You have evidence that somebody made a decision.

Sara said one of the other things the aforementioned points out is a relationship with the purchaser and with the person who is going to be working with the mortgage as well as conversation and dialogue on the front end certainly might help to solve some of the problems. The Appraisal Institute is beginning to look at how they can develop some relationships in sub-markets that would allow them to try to take a look at what they have in the market in which they are working. The technique, theory, and ideas going forward are pretty new, and therefore they may have a lot of risk in them for a lot of lenders. It goes back to educating both the lender, the appraiser purchaser, and the investor in what is going on in the market and how they can handle some of the consequences of the downturn that we have seen.

Debra Still said this is one of the things that is difficult with HVCC. The spirit of the HVCC was right on target, not doing anything to exert undue influence on an appraiser. On the other hand, it is now law; and having those good, constructive conversations are very delicate. You have to be very careful and very thoughtful, and there is a protocol to have an appropriate dialogue with an appraiser as you are trying to get to the right place. It is using coercion when it really just needs to have better information.

In order for a company to not require an appraisal management company to act as the middle man and go directly to the independent appraiser, they would have to be a reasonably large lender. Debra Still’s company has a national subdivision processing department, so everything that has to do with properties is done by a department that is outside of the origination, the processing, the underwriting, and the closing. As long as you can set up an arms length environment, you don’t have to use an AMC. Most companies, however, would use that as their way to ensure arms length and to stay within the law. Sara said this is a big factor with a lot of lenders right now as they do not want to cross the line.

There is definitely a sense that there is some rotation system that is necessary where no matter what the experience level or knowledge of an area, it is just a specific person’s turn to obtain an appraisal. Debra Still’s company does a 1 in 5 rotation in each sub-market and probably has about 300 appraisers nationally that they use. It is very important not to use one person solely for a community. There needs to be team partners. All of the appraiser’s business would be dependent upon the company giving, so they have to do at least a 1 in 5 rotation. This is how they have set up their due diligence. They will review the appraisals, review for error, review any quality control audits, and they would make sure they have qualified individuals on their appraiser panel. Sara believes in this type of environment you would have more control over the quality of the appraiser. This is one of the things she does not find happening with a lot of the AMCs. They will gravitate toward cheap and quick and possibly overlook the qualifications that the appraiser has such as market expertise, which Sara says is extremely important. What really matters is the person who is willing to travel, to finish the appraisal, and turn it in completed. A quick turn-around time might be a day to a day and a half. There is no way that if you are not familiar with the market you can simply march in, collect the comparables, talk with the buyers and the sellers, get a sense of what is going on in the market, make the inspection, get a feel for what the property contributes, what are its overall attributes in relationship to the others that are on the market or the other sales that have occurred, go back to make the appraisal, and then write and convey it in a quick amount of time. It just cannot be done. Bruce said it is hard to want to do this if you are getting paid half of the appraisal fee. It may not even be feasible to spend as much time because you just cannot possibly do it. You might as well just go to Multi-list and get a couple of comps and move on.

When asked about broker-price opinions, Sara said one of the things about this is in some instances it might be a good vehicle, but for mortgage-lending purposes and for decisions a lender has to make; by in large the opinions are unregulated. An appraisal that is put forth and signed by a state-certified appraiser, which is what the Appraisal Institute does, has some education. They are unbiased and a third party out there taking a look at the property. They really don’t have anything more in the game than just to report and analyze the market. Sara believes sometimes in the terms of broker-price opinion you have a disinterested person. They are an advocate for the property owner and for another entity. They are certainly not regulated like the appraiser is in terms of adherence to certain educational requirements. There are so many things that are missing. The broker-price opinion might have its place in some part of the real estate picture, but certainly not in terms of making a decision to buy or sell. It’s a different approach; it’s a different mindset, and it should be for a different use.

Bruce speculated that when there is an REO created, there is a series of things that happen including a couple of BPOs and an appraisal. It’s uncertain which is weighed heavier, but there is evidence that everybody is getting a turn in saying what the value is.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 6. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more

Tags: AMC, Appraisal Institute, appraisal management company, appraisals, bpo, broker-price opinions, bruce norris, Congressional Subcommittee, Debra Still, Dodd-Frank Act, Gary Thomas, HVCC, i survived real estate, mortgage, mortgage bankers association, norris group, QM, QRM, reo, Sara Stephens, Susan G. Komen
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

251-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 4 11-12-11

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

Bruce continued his discussion with the panel on rental properties and homeownership. If some gigantic company owns 10,000 rentals, then Bruce for example would not know what to do with his because he would not know if the playing field was legit and if they are going to put 10,000 houses for sale. However, as a builder Bruce certainly would not carve up dirt waiting because that risk is out there that others could be his competitor at the drop of a hat. We should give investors a shot at taking the inventory down because it is manageable if we do not put it on the market.

Doug mentioned how he had come out of the venture capital industry, and a lot of folks in his industry put a lot of money into bad companies back in the late 90s. When there was a crash, they lost their money from bad investments. Therefore, the question is if Doug, for example, were to lend Bruce $100,000 and does not figure out what his ability to pay is and Bruce ends up stopping payments, then whose fault is it? The answer in this case is the lender. If you want to know how to fix things like this, from a market perspective the foreclosures should work through the system and let the banks take the loss. The issue in Washington is that the public has poured a lot of money into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a lot of those losses are going to rebound back onto taxpayers. You see the functions of the GSEs in terms of working other options other than the principle write-down piece, which will put those losses right back on taxpayers. Part of the reason that he hosted a meeting with some people at I Survived that night was to explore the investor option. They have a rule to have no more than ten loans per single investor. In the course of the bubble, the homeownership rate got well ahead of what was sustainable. There is not a broad based program to tear the properties down, and when Doug made a suggestion that it would be a good idea to tear them down, he was labeled within the company as “Dozer Duncan.”

Bruce said this actually happened in California with a brand new housing tract that The Norris Group made a bid on. Someone had sent Bruce an email with a YouTube video, and when Bruce saw the housing he thought they looked familiar. He asked Greg, and he told him those were the houses they had just made a bid on earlier. These were all brand new homes; the originals had all been torn down. Doug mentioned the evidence with the company’s portfolio from how they treated the properties, whether or not they were sold to owner occupants or to small investors and hedge funds was that the loss severity was greater. The loss severity on hedge funds is the greatest when you sell to owner occupants or small investors.

Sean talked about how you have 600,000 people right now who are 90 days or more delinquent, and there are another 200,000 who have a notice of default or are in the process of foreclosure. However, even though there are 800,000 in these groups, we have 2.4 million who are underwater. Between short sales and foreclosures, we’re cleaning up about 18,000 houses a month, so we’re looking at a span of five years if things stay at the same pace. It’s amazing that our pace of sales has stayed as high as it has, and it clearly would not have stayed this high without investors in California because repeat home-buying is gone.

Bruce next talked with a second group of representatives from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and the Appraisal Institute. The first, Debra Still, is President and Chief Executive Officer of Pulte Mortgage, a national lender headquartered in Inglewood, Colorado. She is the vice-chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, and she has been in the mortgage industry for 30 years. This year marks the first time Debra Still has been on the panel for I Survived Real Estate.

The next person was Sara Stephens. Sara is the 2011/2012 president of the Appraisal Institute, and she will become president on January 1, 2012. She serves on the organization’s board of directors and on its executive committee. Sara has been active in appraisal institutes up to regional and national levels for 20 years, and she is owner and principal of Richard A. Stephens and Associates, the oldest appraisal firm in Little Rock, Arkansas.

The next representative, Gary Thomas, is the first vice president of the National Association of Realtors. He is the second-generation real estate professional and owns Evergreen Realty in Villa Park. He has owned the business for over 30 years and has served the industry in countless roles. One of the things that struck Bruce was he has 16 grand kids.

Debra Still went first to say that her company is a national company, so they do business in 29 states, wholly on subsidiary of the homebuilder. She is very pleased to say that real estate is very stable and feels pretty flat, even with some of the dramatic headlines they have had in the last couple months. Their new orders and sign ups are very steady. In the third quarter they ran around a 22% cancellation ratio.

Sara Stephens said the market in Little Rock is doing well, and their public supply is officially in the office area. The retail properties are multi-family, while the residential market is stable in some parts of the city, more than other parts. It’s specifically in the Delta where they see declines and real problems.

Gary talked about how Orange County has faired pretty well for Southern California. It’s actually the best performing county in the Southern California area. They are holding their own and doing fairly well. He has not seen any challenges with loan reduction amounts, but he thinks we will sometime, especially along the coast where the average sale price is much higher and will therefore have an effect there. Bruce wondered what his down payment would look like if he was getting a down-payment loan and if he would be able to be self-employed. Gary said this would be very tough as it is harder to get a loan when you are self-employed. He would probably still be able to make a 20% down payment, but the loan would be harder to obtain.

Legislation passed the Dodd-Frank bill about a year ago, but it is almost to be figured out later what it needs. We’re arm-wrestling right now for the terms of what Dodd-Frank is even though it already passed a year ago. Bruce wondered what they did and if they had said what they wanted accomplished and were still trying to find a way to get there. Debra said the Dodd-Frank Act has about 250+ rules that need to be written, about 100 focused on mortgage lending. Now, the regulators are charged with actually writing the rules and the definition to meet the spirit of the law. There is a lot of facets to it, but one of them is a qualified residential mortgage. This could be a problem for our industry because if in fact they adopt the rule, it would mean to receive the better rate, you would have to have a 20% down payment. The problem with the thinking that you have to have skin in the game or it’s not a performing loan is because they’re not concentrating enough on the underwriting, which is what they really need to focus on rather than the down-payment. If somebody can afford the payment, it does not matter whether they have put 10% down or 20% down, or even 5% down. It’s really about whether or not they are a qualified buyer and if they can afford the property that they are buying. That went out the window in the past, so now it has to come back. There is a thought that that is getting back to basics, so Bruce wondered when the basics existed because it was not true in his first house purchase.

The risk retention rule is the rule that the definition of QRM comes up under, and the rule would say that someone who securitizes mortgages needs to retain 5% risk or reserve for the loans that they securitize. When the rule was originally published, there was no exemption other than FHA, USDA, and VA. One of the things the Mortgage Bankers Association lobbied very hard for was the notion of a carve-out for a qualified residential mortgage, and the definition of a QRM was left to the regulators to write. The regulators put out the first definition of a qualified residential mortgage that required the 20% down payment, a 28/36 jet ratio, and required no late payments within the previous 24 months. This is what the industry has been reacting to asking whether the regulators wrote a rule that was more conservative than the spirit of the law. Hundreds and hundreds of comments were filed, and whether it was mortgage bankers, realtors, homebuilders, or consumer groups, Debra believes everyone agrees that the rule went too far and we need to try again. The sound goal of it all was to encourage sound lending behaviors that reduce future default without harming responsible borrowers and lenders. This is where the rub is in that if it’s a 20% down purchase or 30%, it’s 30% equity for a refi. That is a big chunk of equity. The Mortgage Bankers research would suggest that if you look at the law, it provides for fully documented loans, no negative amortization, no exotic loan programs like IOs or payoffs in arms. Their research would suggest that the loan parameters inside the law were strong enough to prevent extraordinary default, and you don’t need the other underwriting restrictions that normal protocol for underwriting should prevail.
Risk retention sounds almost like a good thing because somebody who is creating a loan would have skin in the game, but there are unintentional consequences. If you think about the spirit of the regulation, it was to protect consumers; yet the regulation has gone so far that it is probably denying credit to well-qualified borrowers. Statistics would show that you can have the right risk balance without going as far as the 20% down or the debt-to-income ratios. MBA’s stats would show if you look at the 2009 Book of Business, which was a pretty conservative underwriting year, you see that still 70% of the consumers that received loans in 2009 would not qualify for a QRM loan. For a non-QRM loan, the difference in the interest rate would probably range from 100 basis points to 300 basis points. This would apply to a lender who would want to put capital reserves up and make a non-QRM loan. This is the concern as the Mortgage Bankers Association won’t have that kind of capital, so there would be too many of us that will not be making non-QRM loans. It would also eliminate a lot of buyers from the marketplace if your interest rate was 1 ½% higher. If it was necessary for safety, it would make sense, but if not then it would not make sense.

Another part of the bill is reps and warranties. This basically means that the person who has represented their mortgage as exactly what MBA would buy then has something go wrong with it; this person would be asked to re-buy it. If you look at one of the things those lenders are struggling with right now and the primary driver of some of the behavior that you see from lenders in terms of concerted underwriting guidelines is the notion of reps and warrants. When MBA sells a mortgage in the secondary market, they make reps and warrants to the investor as to certain parameters. They are always on the hook for borrower misrepresentation as well as on the hook for not following the investors’ underwriting guidelines. As investors have gotten more and more conservative and as loans have been put back to lenders, the lenders are starting to get more and more conservative in today’s environment because we are on the hook for reps and warrants. One of the parts of the law suggests that a third party do all of the reconfirming of verifications. This would probably get to the stated income loans that the industry was doing in the past. The fact that we did not have a third party with a verification of employment or depositor bank statements means it would address more a fully documented loan.

Sara went on to say that the appraisal business has not been left out of the Dodd-Frank Act. HVCC came first, and this did a fair amount of damage to the appraisal industry. Bruce wondered what changes happened with HVCC and if that has been replaced with what is intended with Dodd-Frank. Sara said one of the things that most real estate appraisers, especially those who are doing residential real estate, found was that the firewall was initially installed between the appraiser and the lender. Rather than communicating directly to the lender, the appraisers would be placed in a situation where they were directly communicating with the management system and management company. In many cases, their residential appraisers surveyed who worked with them extensively have lost 40-60% of their business. Whereas, when they had a direct relationship with the lender, they were suddenly thrust into the idea that they had to communicate with a management company. In many cases, rather than look for quality, expertise, education, things became quick and cheap. This is what so many of our people are facing now. We see people coming in from 250-400 miles away from markets where they probably had very little expertise. This has been a real problem for the Appraisal Institute, and it has changed the face of residential lending activity in a huge way.

Bruce said if he was an appraiser who had gone to sleep in 2007 and woke up in 2010, he would have been quite surprised at what had happened. You would have your income divided by multiples because you would have the assumption that you must be doing something crooked if you have a relationship, and you also now have to have a middle person taking half of your fee. This would be very frustrating, and the industry has unfortunately lost a lot of people who said they are not interested in this anymore. The statistics on renewal for our specific certification requirements has seen that in some states the renewal rate is as low as 30-40%. If you cannot continue to support your family doing what you are trained to do and what you have expertise to do, then you have to look for something else. This is what so many member of the Appraisal Institute have had to do. It is extremely difficult to re-train yourself to work in a lending environment where your expertise, education, and you qualifications really don’t mean that much to the person or persons that you are communicating with. This is unfortunate, especially for the consumer.

Bruce talked about how they had an interesting appraisal that happened the opposite way. Someone with no experience in a very unusual area where you received a lot of money for a certain located lot had a $1.3 million comp for the model-match house. They had the right location, but The Norris Group did not. They had a home for sale for about $700,000 for 90 days, which is not worth $1.3 million. When they went pending, the home was appraised for $1.3 million because it was a model-match house; someone had come in from out of the area who did not have a clue that it mattered there.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 5. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: 2009 Book of Business, Appraisal Institute, bruce norris, Debra Still, delinquent, Dodd-Frank Act, Doug Duncan, Eric Janszen, Evergreen Realty, fannie mae, foreclosures, freddie mac, Gary Thomas, gse, hedge funds, i survived real estate, mortgage bankers association, norris group, Pulte Mortgage, reps and warranties, risk retention, Sara Stephens, SEAN OTOOLE, Susan G. Komen, The National Association of Realtors, venture capital industry
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

250-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 3 11-05-11

Friday, November 4th, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

Bruce continued his discussion with the panel on loans and the market. An $8,000 rebate was equivalent to a nothing-down loan most of the time on prices. It is not known how well this loan portfolio performed, but it would be interesting to know since it is in essence a nothing-down program without spending the $8 grand. It was pointed out to most of the bankers who had made loans under this program and held it in portfolio that the loan-to-value ratio they believed they had at the time they made the loan was higher after prices receded again, so they had more risk in their portfolio than they thought they did. Bruce and Doug still think it will come out very well. We’re close to the bottom, but we have probably already created a payment that was less than rent. Doug bought a house in Florida last September since they were on sale.

Eric Janszen wrote a book called The Post-Catastrophe Economy, and one of the main things Bruce underlined in the book stated, “The United States will rebuild on its ethics of hard work, education, fairness and honesty, its culture of entrepreneurial vs. risk-taking, of competition of savings and of avoidance of debts, it core competencies in technology development and original invention, its strong institution of property rights and rule of law.” It was Eric’s hope that we would have spent the last two years going forward and hopefully building infrastructure to a new set of tools, transportation, energy, communication, and infrastructure that you call Techi. However, this was not something we did. The policy we took instead was characterized by Eric as “print and pray.” There was no consorted effort or consensus on what to do beyond the emergency measures that were taken to halt the deflationary process in the recession. This is why Bruce asked the question about fiscal policy because a long-term fiscal policy would not be short-term relief or pleasing. If we really did something long-term, the results would be out there a ways. If we approached it as a return on investment and followed the idea that there is certain infrastructure that if you invest in it in a country, it increases your capacity for economic growth and not as an expense but a multiplier effect, then you would have to think very carefully about how you would do that. This takes some planning and execution. In order to pull this off, you have to have enough of a consensus within government to not get into a dysfunctional argument about whether it’s going to result in the short-term and increase in deficits.

As Doug mentioned, the American public was pretty aghast at the quality of the debate that was going on about the debt ceiling. It was not a particular constructive discussion, so most Americans are frustrated by this. There is a document that has a joint effort from Republicans and Democrats regarding the budget deficit and reducing it. You have a few people from each side pour their hearts into a year or two’s worth of work and come to a legitimate conclusion, so Bruce wondered how each of the parties have reacted to the document, whether they knew it was not everything they wanted but had to sacrifice; or did they get beaten from both sides. It’s very difficult to put anything forward since all their discussions are so ideologically charged. It’s a simple constructive plan based on a simple factual argument. You very quickly obtain a dialogue that devolves into some argument about whether we are going bankrupt tomorrow, which is not going to happen. Doug agreed with this; he thought the roots were there for a good discussion. If you take Paul Ryan’s plan and the president’s deficit commission plan, the two of those elements together could lead to a very constructive debate about how to make some long-term adjustments. You’re not going to fix it in two years; it’s something that is going to take some time. Washington did not engage with those elements as prep-starting reference points.

Eric mentioned an output gap in his book. The concept of an output gap is every year the Congressional budget office puts out what they project is what the growth rate of the economy would be if everybody who wanted to have a job had a job. All the producers and consumers are efficient actors in the market. What happens is in a recession you are operating below a theoretical growth rate, so the difference between your theoretical growth rate and where you actually are is the output gap. It’s really a measure of unemployment. In the 1970s, the policy was to try to close the upper gap by any means necessary, which is the wrong approach as we will end up with a lot of inflation. The challenge is that usual reflation measures, monetary policy, and fiscal policy for the last 30 years has been very effective at closing output gaps quickly after recessions. The problem is if we do not close the output gap before the next recession, we would have a mid-gap recession. This is another recession that opens the gap further with what was left over from the previous recession. We have not had this since 1938. Mid-gap recessions cause very significant add-on problems. It’s feasible that we could have one of these, but as Doug said it would probably be caused by an external event, probably in Europe.

The next ten years of investing will not be like the last ten. In 2001 a portfolio was created that was composed of treasury bonds and gold, which outperformed everything if you did not do anything with it. It beat the S&P, both in terms of volatility, draw-down, and batting average, everything you could think of. This is not good. Hopefully over the next ten years we get back on track where we are growing the economy by growing it in a more organic fashion, not to refinance. One of Eric’s investments happens to be connected to apartments, and one particular investment is in a company that sells into B markets of multifamily residential real estate. The theory behind it was the cost of capital was going to remain low, but the rents were going to start to rise. Cap rates were going to improve, and they were going to be profitable investments.

Eric also talks about in his book the concept of having public/private partnerships create an infrastructure. We have not done that much in this country to create this type of infrastructure successfully. Back in the early days a lot of our highways were built with European money funding private enterprises to build our highways. Most people forget that, but we took the public route after World War II, and our infrastructures were rebuilt through public finance. In Europe when they did not have any money, they used public and private partnerships to build infrastructure roads, highways, and bridges. Typically that model is adopted in times when governments are very constrained fiscally. It becomes more efficient to combine private enterprise and the risk management of government to combine together to build new infrastructure.

One of the things Eric warns about in his book is the right and wrong ways to do public and private partnerships. The wrong way is getting public money and giving it to your buddies to go build things. The right way to do it is to create a real competitive market where the partnerships actually have to compete with each other and perform to metrics, and they can’t get another job unless the last one worked really well. One of the hardest things is that there seems to be a lack of credibility to say the least when you want to tax people more or you want to have partnerships, and then you find out that the basis for that partnership was other than for a good reason. You get very suspicious about someone writing the next check or asking you to contribute more. Bruce did not understand how we get away from that. It’s no secret that most Americans are frustrated with American finance, and that is one of the first things we have to fix in this country.

In the past, there were common reasons for foreclosures. Sean O’Toole started investing in foreclosures in 2002, and one of the things he had the hardest time with was none of them made any sense. Everything had equity, so all of the folks could sell. Sean really struggled with this, especially as a son of a logic professor. It finally dawned on him, with the help of his business partner, that it was the five D’s: drugs, debt, disease, divorce, and denial. When you knocked on people’s doors, it was one of those five things. This was back in 2002-2006, so there was equity everywhere. Those five things were what he called the base rate of foreclosure, and this will always be there. If Sean had them in 2002 and 2006, he would have had them every time. The problem was not job loss because you could sell your house. It wasn’t negative equity because it just did not exist at the time. Today, your average property in California right now is $150,000 upside down by the time it hits foreclosure. It sold for $400,000, and it is now worth $250,000. It’s really an insurmountable debt, and if you look at the cost of repaying that debt over 30 years, it’s really not practical or smart for anyone trying to pay it. There are moral issues around that and what a lot of people have, but a lot of it does not make sense.

Bruce recently read an article about Fannie and Freddie not wanting to do principle reductions, and to Bruce this makes sense because you have ramifications to that that are negative. One idea Bruce had was to give somebody a principle-only payment until they break even with an appraisal. There are a lot of people who are not current, but you have more people who are current in that situation. Bruce does not want to reward the group that has not made a payment in two years and get in an article saying that it’s wonderful. However, for the people who are making the payment, there might be an eventuality where it gets to them too, especially if the people that aren’t making the payment get the goodies. However, if you just willingly said for whatever it takes, 5% a year you are going to pay principle-down, so at 25% in five years you are back to square. You would probably have a lot of people sign up for this, but Bruce did not know if this was an acceptable suggestion to lenders. Doug, the lender in the group, said there were lots of things that are going to be explored, including principle write-down. There is a lot of momentum building in Washington toward that in particular. The difficulty has always been in the foreclosure space in that there is a run rate of 1 million to 1.5 million given the level of homeownership and the number of households there are. However, the solutions have typically been one on one treatment.

When Doug was in the mortgage-servicing business at the Mortgage Bankers Association, they did a study where they took apart the servicing operation in which there were 17 elements, 14 of them having very clear economies of scale. Three of them have diseconomies of scale, and economies of scale are more expensive as they get larger. One of these is taxes of insurance, so it’s everybody else versus that because of all the local knowledge that you need about the jurisdictions. The other two are default and foreclosure. The question was if the diseconomies of scale were sufficient to override all the other efficiencies in the servicing business. Now that the experiment has been run and we know that are sufficient. The problem in solving it and why the diseconomies exist is that the treatments are a one on one kind of treatment, and you have to have quite a bit of experience in understanding the households’ situation to determine whether or not you have all the information. This could include whether or not the other people fully understand the obligation, whether they are telling you about their willingness to pay, all of the resources that they have available to pay, and their other commitments. It is very intensive.

With a program like this, you should sit down and find some households that would be very effective under that kind of household because you can determine they are willing to meet the commitment over a period of time, they have the resources that are available, and they are willing to have everything documented and make a commitment to that type of program. There are others who you could put in this type of program who would not succeed because they don’t have the criteria. The difficulty is in putting up broad based policy and applying it to everyone because this is where you find problems with the adverse selection. You would also have a bigger problem because not only would you not be selecting some, but you will also be not selecting completely the people that are current. Doug told a funny story about when TARP was voted on for the first time, his mother called him to ask him what he was doing with their money. They paid their mortgage, so when you do debt forgiveness there is a whole bunch of people who have met all their obligations, and there are going to be losses. While they were not involved in the transaction, on the tax side of things they’re going to be involved in repairing the losses. For those who own free and clear houses, they can just get a check.

Sean O’Toole said the idea that the foreclosure process is tough from servicing standpoint is a self-inflicted one. In California, there is a brilliant piece of policy which is on a purchase-money mortgage, there is no recourse. This creates a really fair balance that resolves the issue and makes it very quick and easy to deal with somebody who is not paying. Bruce and Sean jokingly said this is why it only takes 600 days to foreclose in California even though it used to only take 150 days. 150 days is a lot of time to give somebody to try to work through their problems, sell the property, and do whatever else they need to do. If they can’t, they lose the home. This is okay given that it’s no recourse. If you compare it to the rest of the world where you have significant recourse, it can pass on to your children. It’s also a fair balance of risk with the lender because the lender should take that loss. Sean does not think it is fair to let the person stay in the house when they had made a bad decision by buying their house at a certain price. They had plenty of folks giving them bad advice, a lot in the Federal government, but they were part of it. They should lose their house, and we should move forward.

The losses we are trying to prevent are multiplying. You are also creating a whole group of people that feel very entitled to still stay. When The Norris Group buys foreclosures, they have met people at the door who had not made a payment for two years, and the first sentence out of their mouth was, “Cash for Keys.” That is now the expectation. The policy coming out of Washington is increasing that expectation that they should get to live in a home for free for the rest of their lives. Imagine when the government owns all the rentals. If you want to talk about rent control problems and having no future for real estate, that is the proposal that will kill real estate in the United States forever. One of the problems is uncertainty. If some gigantic company owns 10,000 rentals, then Bruce for example would not know what to do with his because he would not know if the playing field was legit and if they are going to put 10,000 houses for sale. However, as a builder Bruce certainly would not carve up dirt waiting because that risk is out there that others could be his competitor at the drop of a hat. We should give investors a shot at taking the inventory down because it is manageable if we do not put it on the market.

Eric mentioned how he had come out of the venture capital industry, and a lot of folks in his industry put a lot of money into bad companies back in the late 90s. When there was a crash, they lost their money from bad investments.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 4. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: bruce norris, budget deficit, Cap rates, cash for keys, congressional budget office, debt ceiling, diseconomies of scale, Doug Duncan, equity, Eric Janszen, fiscal policy, foreclosure, i survived real estate, inflation, loan portfolio, mortgage bankers association, norris group, output gap, Paul Ryan, principle-only payment, purchase-money mortgage, recession, SEAN OTOOLE, Susan G. Komen, TARP
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

249-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 10-29-11 part 2

Friday, October 28th, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

Bruce told a personal story to illustrate what America is about. He was married when he was 17, and he did not catch on to work very well at the time. He was fired 5 times very quickly because he did not know how to disagree with an owner. The first time he came home with cash, Marsha was really happy, but after that she knew it was severance pay. When they were 21, they had a chance to buy a home in Mira Loma, and he had rectified his problems with working. They bought a house, and they did not know what they were doing at the time. The toilets flushed the wrong way, the windows did not work. The Sunday morning they fixed Sunday dinner, they had a swamp cooler that coughed dirt all over their dinner when they started it up, so they had to eat out. However, the next day Bruce got to mow his own grass for the first time. This was the first day he felt like a man. This is what ownership meant to him; a transformation. He does not want to see our country lose this.

Bruce had the opportunity to talk to Rafael Bostick while he was in Washington, someone he really like but did not like his statement, “There’s a notion that being housed well is synonymous with being a homeowner. This narrative has to change.” Bruce does not want this to ever change. He wants investors to get financing, but we should not buy all the houses by any means. We should be allowed to assist to get things back to a normal market. Sheila Bair also stated, “Clearly there’s a strong correlation between the amount of skin in a game a borrower puts up front and how the loan performs.” It’s only common sense. Did you put 20% down, you’re committed to the house, and you walk away from the house which you’re going to lose a lot of money up front. Based on it being common sense, we now have a challenge for laws that are in process for 20% down being mandatory for the best rates. However, what if this thesis is wrong? What if 20% down does not get you a better record for avoiding foreclosure?

Bruce showed a 25 year chart during the presentation that showed foreclosure rates. He said if you start at 1986, we had a boom in real estate prices from ’86-’90, then we had a downturn, the worst downturn we ever had. You cannot distinguish a foreclosure rate of a VA nothing-down loan, an FHA 3% loan, and a 20% Fannie Mae loan. The lowest one historically happens to be a VA nothing-down loan. If you go all the way back to the 1950s, that is highest performing loan. One of the reasons you know they performed is by looking at the national price in gold and seeing that we never had a price decline nationally. Whatever we were doing was smart policy until the early 2000s. Whatever we did after that is what we should correct. Whatever we were doing before that is what we should go back to. However, one of the things that happens is we’re not in the mood just to fix, we have to revamp. Sean O’Toole also made his own chart showing how prices escalated beyond where they should be. First of all, we had interest rate drops. When people could not qualify, we gave them interest-only loans, then pay option loans, and then stated income loans. We finally figured out that we should not let people tell us what they make to get a loan.

One of the other things Bruce talked about regarding investors is it is hard to get investor financing for unknown reasons, but this is one of the programs The Norris Group offers. Bruce said they funded $15 million of a loan at 9.9% interest at a time when every loan was current. With the interest rate at 9.9%, there is a possibility that people were afraid to loan to the wrong group of people and that there is a connection to investor/speculator. The people who attended I Survived Real Estate were investors who wanted to buy something and keep it, and this is The Norris Group’s qualifying criteria for that success. They look at credit, but they do not make it the determining factor. The after-repaired market value must be supported by comps, and payment must be supported by comparable rents. We’re making rational decisions; we’re not loaning somebody with a payment of $1200 when the rents are $800. It is going to be at least the opposite of this. People have money down, and investors expect they’re going to have cash or skin in the game. To do this, they have to have cash reserves. If you put together a national program like that, you have the best securitized paper in America.

The effects of the current lending policies on investors are they limit the ability of full-time professional investors from assisting in the housing recovery. The Norris Group conducted a survey that showed that people would buy 1,000s of houses if they had the financing. The effects of the current lending policies also prevent the beginning investor from creating wealth for their families. Bruce has a feeling that social security and Medicare might be different in the future. One of the ways that it might not matter is if we can create our own wealth, and this would be a way to do it. The lending policies also prevent 1031 exchanges where financing is involved. You already have 12 loans, properties in another state, and you want to come back to California, you cannot do it. This is one thing that encourages bulk sales to the same people who caused the problem in the first place. One of the things being considered for current loans is to sell a lot of houses at a time to hedge funds. Bruce hopes we don’t do this because he does not think this solves the problem and the local investor would do a better job.

Temporary solutions increase the number of loans available to qualified investors to an unlimited number. We just need a window of about 3 years. Back in the 90s, FHA had a loan program called 203k where you could get the purchase and the repairs built into a loan. Everything that is being suggested used to be there. We already know how to solve things; we just have to go back to programs that worked. Allow simple assumptions of any Fannie, Freddie, or FHA loan for the next three years. A simple assumption originally was you wrote a check for a very small assumption fee without paperwork. In the 1980s, we had a ridiculous interest rate of 17%. However, you did not have any price decline because 60% of the transactions happened because no one needed a new loan. You were able to take financing from the past and bring it forward. This would be very smart to remember that this works. We need to allow equal access to all government-owned inventories for investors and owner occupants alike, and if you have a lot of rentals make reasonable cash reserves.

Cal Poly Pomona and Michael Carney put together a study, and one of the most unique things about the study is that they keep on appraising the same property every 6 months, something they have done for decades. It’s not like a median price or a Case-Shiller Index, it’s actually what the certain address was worth over the course of decades every six months. What Bruce did was he took Lancaster and Palmdale, two properties a piece and he took a look at the square footage they went for in 1990 when they were brand new. They appraised for $83 a foot, and now those same properties appraise for $74. You lost 11% in real dollar terms over 20 years. Now, if you convert that to the payment that is necessary; your payment in 1990 would have reflected a 10% interest rate, and today it is 4%. You have an 11% price discount and a 60% interest discount, so you’re making more money in that area in 2011 than you were in 1990. If you put that all together, you’re buying that house at a 70% monthly discount. This brings up the fact that maybe we need a nothing-down loan program.

One of the problems is some of the ideas are very politically difficult to sell. Common sense sometimes does not sell politically, but we do have a very large group of people who do not own a home or have a down payment only because if you look at a historical chart, you can let them in at a specific payment rate and they would still be okay. If they fail to make the payment and someone else can pick it up without really qualifying but they just write a check and make it current, this would solve 99% of the foreclosures. If you go to a trustee sale eventually just for this new loan program, you need to let the opening bid be the late payment. If that happened, everyone in the room at I Survived Real Estate would buy the remaining properties and take over the loan subject. You would have a nothing-down loan program that would feed huge volumes to get the owner occupancy rate. It is legit and not phony; you do not need to create anything that is bad paper or wink at a certain foreclosures. However, we can think out of the box or go back to where we were originally and say we already know how to solve the problem. We just need to get the politics out of the way and let us handle it.

The first person on the panel to come up was Doug Duncan, the Chief Economist and vice-president of Fannie Mae. He is responsible for managing Fannie Mae’s strategy division, economics, and mortgage-market analysis groups. Doug provides all economic housing and mortgage market forecasts and analyses. He serves as the company’s sod leader and spokesperson on economic and mortgage market issues.

The second person was Sean O’Toole. Prior to launching Foreclosure Radar, Sean successfully purchased and flipped more than 150 residential and commercial foreclosures. Leveraging 15 years in the software industry, Sean used technology as a key competitive advantage to build his successful real estate investor track record. Now he has passed those advantages on in ForeclosureRadar.com.
The next panelist was Eric Janszen. Sean O’Toole spent 15 years in high tech before getting into foreclosures, and he was always looking for people he thought had good insights. Eric wrote articles for a newsletter called “Always On.” Sean would wait for this newsletter to come because he thought the articles were so insightful and important. Eric spent 20 years in the high technology industry, did two stints in software startups as CEO, then moved on into venture capital. Foreclosure Radar would not have existed without him as he recommended getting out of the stock market in 1999, which Sean did. Eric recommended buying gold in 2002, which was close to what he did. He figured out that there was a housing bubble going on, knowledge which benefited Sean when he was flipping foreclosures. When Sean did not even know Bruce yet, Eric was the one who advised him to get out of the housing market in 2005, which he did. This was really the start of Foreclosure Radar. In September 2008, Eric told Sean to get out of the real estate market, something which he also told thousands of people who followed him at his website iTulip, which he started in the ‘90s to warn people about the .com bubble and brought back to warn people about the housing bubble.

Bruce’s goal was to talk about the economy that he watches and the world that he watches it in. He now has the habit of staying up until 11:00 or 12:00 at night just watching to see if there is a Greek default or what is going on over in Europe because there seems to be a correlation. Doug Duncan explained how his CEO Mike Williams had him lead off one of his quarterly meetings with Fannie Mae with an update about the economy. One of the opening remarks he made was you could look at it as the frat house party side effects. 11 million Greeks party into the night and bring down the global economy, targeting the 25-35 year old bracket. Doug does believe one of the primary risks that face us today is a Greek default. The current forecast is on Fannie Mae’s website on the 15th of every month, and here people can take a look at their opinions on the economy. Fannie Mae sees growth in the third quarter as being decent, possibly upwards of 2 ½%, but then receding back to under 2% through the end of 2012.

One thing they believe is certain is Greece will default. The question is whether they will default in an orderly manner or not. Will there be a plan for managing the losses and how the losses will be distributed. If it is orderly so that the banking system is recapitalized while that default takes place, the likelihood of putting the U.S. into a serious recession is low. If it is disorderly, then this is one of the primary risks Fannie Mae sees facing our own economy. Europe is our biggest trading partner. China is the second biggest partner, but they are Europe’s biggest trading partner. If there is a disorderly default and Europe goes into recession, the export business will recede, which is one of the things that has been keeping us growing. This will likely lead to a recession. The question is if we go into a recession, do we have at our disposal the normal monetary tools that we usually have. Doug’s personal view is that from a monetary policy perspective the Fed has exhausted the tools that they have. They made an explicit statement that would keep rates low through mid-2013, which is highly unusual. The general public understands this as shown in their surveys for consumers last month subject to Fed announcement. The percentage of people who expect rates to rise fell 12 percentage points. This shows the public is paying attention.

If you don’t have a monetary policy to help out a recession, then you would use fiscal policy. The survey consumers give information here as well. Fannie Mae gives 1,000 phone calls a month for 16 months. Last July they were making their phone calls while the debate debt ceiling was taking place. The percentage of people who said the economy was going the wrong way rose 6 full percentage points during that month. It culminated at the end of July, so in August they pulled in the first three months wondering whether or not the full effect of that debate had taken place. The percentage of people thinking it was going the wrong direction rose another 8%, so at that point 78% of the people in the country believe it is going the wrong way. This is a function of fiscal policy decision-making in Washington. They’re watching Washington’s actions with one eye, and they’re watching Europe melt down with the other eye and saying if they don’t act responsibly in this face, then that is our destiny. 78% of the people think we are going in the wrong direction.

Sometimes it is a little hard to take the end result that may be inevitable at some point seriously because we have a credit downgrade and an interest rate decline. You do not connect these two dots, but you think that we just had our rate lowered so now interest rates are going to be more expensive. This would be the first time in history the headline of an article has read “Interest Rates Back Over 3%.” When fiscal tools are used, Congress has recently been thinking in short term application. The stimulus bill was intended to be a boost to the economy in the short run, which would then run on its own. Fannie Mae’s forecast, however, would reflect that they do not believe this. Their expectations for growth were not actually stimulated by the activity. They take their signals from what happened in the housing market when there was a temporary tax credit. The advice to the executives of the company was that there would be a temporary price rise, but the market would take it all back and prices would continue to fall subsequent to that.

An $8,000 rebate was equivalent to a nothing-down loan most of the time on prices. It is not known how well this loan portfolio performed, but it would be interesting to know since it is in essence a nothing-down program without spending the $8 grand. It was pointed out to most of the bankers who had made loans under this program and held it in portfolio that the loan-to-value ratio they believed they had at the time they made the loan was higher after prices receded again, so they had more risk in their portfolio than they thought they did.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 3. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: bruce norris, Doug Duncan, Eric Janszen, fannie mae, FHA, fiscal policy, Greek default, i survived real estate, investor financing, Michael Carney, norris group, Rafael Bostick, recession, SEAN OTOOLE, Sheila Bair, Susan G. Komen, VA nothing-down loan
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

248-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 10-22-11

Friday, October 21st, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

On October 14, 2011, The Norris Group returned with its award-winning event I Survived Real Estate. An expert line-up of industry specialists joined Bruce Norris to discuss current industry regulation, head-scratching legislation, and the opportunities emerging for savvy real estate professionals. 100% of the proceeds support the Orange County Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. This event would not have been possible without the generous help of the following platinum sponsors: ForeclosureRadar and Sean O’Toole, Housing Wire, the San Diego Creative Real Estate Investors Association and President Bill Tan, Investors Workshops with President Shawn Watkins and Angel Bronsgeest, Invest Club for Women and Iris Veneracion and Bobbie Alexander, San Jose Real Estate Investors Association and Geraldine Berry, Real Wealth Networks, Frye Wyles, MVT Productions, and White House Catering. The event video can be found on isurvived2011.com.

I Survived Real Estate started just four years ago. For those who had been there for a long time, it has gone by fast. It started with a simple formula, a conversation, and a cause. The last four years in real estate have been particularly difficult. Many who attended the live event would be considered survivors. Long gone are the days of condo hotel investing in Las Vegas, a realtor in every household, stated income loans, and 10% price increases every month. True professionals working in the environment today stay on top of trends, challenges, and all different facets that makes up the market. The event featured six special guests from all over the nation. Some have or soon will be representing their national organizations in Congress trying to influence change. The conversations on stage covered what we should expect in 2012 and how our businesses might change. 100% of the proceeds went to Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and this year alone they raised close to $80,000. The walkers alone raised $15,000. On September 30 several people walked in a breast cancer walk, and some joined the walk to earn a seat at I Survived Real Estate 2011. Over 50 people participated in the walk.

Rebecca Hultquist thanked the Norris family and everyone at the event for their support over the past three years. Over all the years they have raised over $250,000 for women in need in the Orange County area and other surrounding areas. Rebecca recently had a friend who was diagnosed, and because she was under the age of 40 was able to have a mammogram through the funds that Komen offered her. In turn, these funds came from the supporters of I Survived Real Estate, and with their donations they became advocates, volunteering and becoming a part of the movement. Rebecca herself is breast cancer survivor, which she first had when she was 33. She was a wife and a mom with three daughters, and if it wasn’t for a life-saving mammogram that she had that year, she would not be here today. It was stage 2 invasive breast cancer, through which she endured chemotherapy radiation and surgery. Through this, she became involved with Susan G. Komen for the cure. 75% of the funds raised stay in the area to help women in need through treatment and clinical mammograms. Women can get the treatment they need. Early detection was what saved Rebecca’s life and what will save the lives of the future women. Through the science being funded, we look forward to a day when our daughters, children, and granddaughters live in a world without breast cancer.

Aaron talked about his mother, Marsha Norris, who passed away last January after a 17 year brave fight against cancer. The first three years of I Survived Real Estate were launched with a radio show between Marsha and Bruce, and each of the past events really showed her spirit, her stubbornness, her unwillingness to give up, and her faith.

Bruce took a moment to talk about his wife Marsha. She started every day by doing two things. She said prayers for everyone in her family every day, and she took time to think of all the things that were blessings in her life. The one thing you could not mistake about her was that she was thankful for the smallest things. If you took her out for coffee, you never failed to hear her say thank you. Marsha was an amazing blend of stubborn determination and kindness. She had an iron will when it came to some things, and one of those things was dealing with breast cancer. She decided early on that breast cancer was not going to rule her life and that she was going to put it in a little corner and tell it to stay there. There were times she was afraid and was hurting, but that was dominated by her wanting to go on cruises and live a life. If you know somebody who has cancer, it’s a choice on how to handle it. Marsha handled it with such grace and dignity that it was amazing. The people in the audience put a smile on her face constantly during her 17-year journey with cancer. She received cards, calls, flowers, and she felt everyone’s love when she came to meetings.

This year’s I Survived Real Estate was the most important meeting they had, as there is a lot at stake for not only investors but collectively as well. Sometimes as investors we think of ourselves as the lone Mohican, but all of a sudden there is legislation that really deals with the entire industry, how it affects how people buy property, and how much down payment they have to have. We have a common enemy with everyone in the industry. On the other side of things, there is a lot going on in the world that Bruce never thought he would have to think about as a real estate investor. All of a sudden, Bruce found himself staying up late at night watching Europe to see if Greek is going to default. The goal at the event was to bat it around with people at the top of the industry. We had to have a lot of respect for the journey it took to have the positions the speakers had. It’s a lifetime commitment to get to where they are in the industry. They have dedicated themselves and therefore we have a lot more in common than not.

During the presentation, Bruce showed a property that The Norris Group had bought that sold at the peak of the market for $436,000 in Moreno Valley earlier. About two and a half years later, The Norris Group bought it for $64,000. They put $35,000 into it, and they rented it out for $1,400 a month. The property was much nicer when they fixed it up, and Bruce said this was exactly how they fixed their rentals. One of the things Bruce wanted people to realize is sometimes there is just an assumption that when you have rentals, then you are a slumlord. Not true. The reason The Norris Group does what they do with rentals is because they do not have any competition because no one is going to put granite into rentals unless they think like The Norris Group. The way they think is they are going to get the best tenant, the most applicants, the least amount of people to move out, and fix everything nice right now since labor is on sale right now.

Sometimes cities are worried about there being too big a percentage of rentals, but there were most likely a lot of people at the event who fix the houses the same way. One of the problems is someone bought the house across the street for $436,000, and they still owe this same amount. This house may be worth $150,000 or $170,000, but where the problem lies is we have a very large percentage of people who are upside down. In California, we have about 30% of the people who are upside down with another 4-5% who are very close. This is a big problem, and some of the cities are a lot worse. In one particular city, Hesperia, people owed twice as much as the house was worth on 9,000+ households; while 5,793 owe 120%-200%. If you add the entire negative up, you have 76.9% of the people in Hesperia who are not going anywhere; they cannot move up or out. This is a problem when 76% of your city is stationary and cannot go anywhere. This is an extreme example, but the whole state has problems.

One of the things that is occurring is we are having a decent volume in sales in California. This is a historic look at volume in the brown line. In 2010 there were about 500,000 sales, and in 2011 there were similar sales. The difference is the mix of sales. You look at the mix of sales released by the California Association of Realtors for August of 2011, and you see that you have about 43-44% of all sales either being short sales or REOs. If you think about a short sale or REO, the person that leaves that closing has damaged credit. They are not buying another house, so you have just lost 43% of your former owners to non-ownership status, which has never happened in the past. This is the average for the state of California. If you go to areas such as Riverside, it’s 65% combination of short sales and REOs. For every 1,000 sales, 650 buyers no longer emerge as an owner-occupant. They have to be sold to an investor, or you have to have new people migrate into the area.

In Riverside, we have about 15% unemployment, so the likelihood of them showing up is not as good as it once was. This is the dilemma because we have some dominoes to solve, so one of the things we have to ask is how we fix unemployment. In our area, you don’t fix unemployment without fixing construction; and you can’t fix construction until you have a price per square foot that makes a builder a profit. Unfortunately, we are a tad away from this. We have to figure out how to move a lot of properties to another group of people. CAR also released data showing a portion of sellers planning to repurchase, and it showed about 37% of people when they close escrow are saying they will buy another property right away. You have the damage group, but you also have the people who are mentally beat up. This could include people who just closed escrow who used to have a $400,000 house that closed for $190,000. These are the people who do not want to participate in another one right away. You have this lag effect that goes on when you are not too excited about real estate. Consequently, what is going on is the cash sales have exploded. You have people buying properties, but the problem is when we buy properties for cash we eventually run out of the cash. Therefore, we have to shove the same property in a better condition on the market. Instead of it being able to back up the truck with the REOs and unloading a lot of them, you are constantly competing with very nice inventory that is coming back around. If we can get financing, we would not have to do this.

33% of loans in foreclosure have not made a payment in over two years. 41% of the people have not made their payments in a year or more. People stay in foreclosure for a long time. There was a news article in the Riverside Press where a family being interviewed said they were actually pretty delighted about how their lifestyle had changed since they stopped making their house payments. They believed life was so much better: they had extra money for the business, went on a vacation, and bought a barbeque. The problem is eventually this inventory might show up, and this is the ball of inventory that is turning behind the scenes; 90 days late all the way through properties already foreclosed is 4 million properties. This is about 8% of the entire inventory in the country. If you think this is over with, it’s not. The question is why we are letting this happen and why this is the best strategy that is going on right now.

One of the things that is happening right now, and this is important for everyone in the industry, is there is trying to be a retooling of our minds toward ownership of homes. On the recent cover of Time Magazine, the title was “Rethinking Home Ownership: Why Owning a Home May No Longer Make Economic Sense.” They could have said anything else but that. You have half-priced real estate and interest rates at 4%. This is economically a bad idea. People need to call up their landlords and see if they can get a 30-year fixed rental rate. This is not going to happen. It’s not economically infeasible; it’s actually the smartest thing you could possibly do. However, what is interesting is we have decided that, media-wise, we are going to say that we have had it wrong the whole time about owning a home since it has damaged so many people recently.

Bruce was married when he was 17, and he did not catch on to work very well at the time. He was fired 5 times very quickly because he did not know how to disagree with an owner. The first time he came home with cash, Marsha was really happy, but after that she knew it was severance pay. When they were 21, they had a chance to buy a home in Mira Loma, and he had rectified his problems with working. They bought a house, and they did not know what they were doing at the time. The toilets flushed the wrong way, the windows did not work. The Sunday morning they fixed Sunday dinner, they had a swamp cooler that coughed dirt all over their dinner when they started it up, so they had to eat out. However, the next day Bruce got to mow his own grass for the first time. This was the first day he felt like a man.

To find out more, tune in next week for I Survived Real Estate 2011, part 2. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Inland Valley Association of Realtors, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Raven Paul and Company, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: bruce norris, California Association of Realtors, foreclosure, Gold Sponsors, Hesperia, I Survived, industry regulation, industry specialists, legislation, Marsha Norris, norris group, Platinum Sponsors, real estate, Rebecca Hultquist, rentals, reo, Susan G. Komen, unemployment
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

247-TNG Radio – Gary Thomas 10-14-11

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

Gary Thomas

First Vice President, National Association of Realtors

(Full Bio)

On October 14th, 2011, The Norris Group returns with its award-winning event I Survived Real Estate. An expert lineup of industry specialists join Bruce Norris to discuss current industry regulation, head-scratching legislation, and the opportunities emerging for savvy real estate professionals. 100% of the proceeds support the Orange County Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. This event would not be possible without the generous help of the following platinum partners: Foreclosure Radar and Sean O’ Toole, Housing Wire, The San Diego Creative Real Estate Investors Association and President Bill Tan, Investors Workshops and President Shawn Watkins and Angel Bronsgeest, Invest Club for Women and Iris Veneracion and Bobbie Alexander, San Jose Real Estate Investors Association and Geraldine Berry, Real Wealth Networks, Frye Wiles Web and Branding, MVT Productions, and White House Catering, who will provide the 3-course meal for this black tie event. Visit iSurvived2011.com for more details.

Bruce is joined this week by Gary Thomas. Gary is the current National Association of Realtors 2011 first vice-president. He is also owner of Evergreen Realty in Villa Park, and he has served the industry in many roles including being the president of the California Association of Realtors in 2001. Gary began his career in 1975 at a time when California real estate did something unusual from 1975-1980. It actually separated itself from the national price by doubling. Gary was right in the middle of all this in the prime location where it happened the strongest in Orange County. At this time, it was very easy business. Bruce remembered reading on a California Association historical website someone’s surprise that prices could accelerate at such a fast pace when interest rates were 13 ½%. What was interesting was not only were prices escalating, but the interest rates were going up as well. It was like you had a double whammy. If you did not make a decision, then you were not only going to pay more, but you were going to pay more per month. The one thing that did help during the time when the interest rates ballooned up to 18% was they had what was known in California as the Wellencamp Decision, where a buyer of an existing home could take over the loan without having to qualify or without getting permission from the lender. What they did was they put a second trust deed behind the first, so the effective rate was much lower than the 18% that you would have to get if you went out and got a brand new first trust deed.

At the time, 60% of transactions in California did not require a new loan in ’81-’83. If you did not have that in place, you would not have had a market, and it would have been disastrous. What is interesting about understanding the history of how we survive certain things because back in the ‘80s when we had the crazy interest rates, we did not have a price decline. We have the tools at hand, and one of the things we have is most of our loans are government-owned or controlled. They could probably think about the solutions of the past, and one of the things that can be done is to create a loan program where the due on sale clause has a moratorium or literally does not exist to where you could bring it forward into the future. You would end up having a much safer real estate market going forward, and you would also have the ability to have people have nothing down right now without a big risk. A lot of what is going on is finger-pointing and thinking everybody needs to have a giant down payment to be safe. This is never been true. It’s really about getting sound underwriting decisions and whether the people can afford to pay for the property at what they qualify for or not. A down payment does not really make that much difference. The problem is it seems like it should make a difference as it sounds like that could be a right decision. Shelia Bair said that when she said that when somebody puts 20% down, they are more committed to the property and it makes common sense until you look at a chart. If you look at a chart for foreclosures over a course of decades, you find out that there is virtually no difference between a 20% down loan payment and a VA nothing down loan. If you look at the VA loan program or the FHA loan program where FHA has very little down, both of those programs are working well. This is what is so frustrating to somebody on the outside not with a political axe to grind is you say, “Couldn’t we make some common sense decisions?”

We do not need to look at the years between 2002 and 2006 and say it is going to replicate in the future. All the decisions made at the time were probably the only time they will be made where a lender did not care if they got paid back because they got rid of the paper. Prior to that and for decades, somebody actually cared that they got paid back. Whatever programs were in place at the time in 2002-2006 worked. It’s like we are trying to solve 2002-2006 with these programs. This is not what we should be doing, especially in a time right now where people are struggling to get down payments because they are coming off of no gains on real estate. It’s also possible they have lost value in the stock market as well, so there is a combination of things that put investors and customers at a disadvantage by not having the kind of down payment that some within the administration or within government would think that they need to have. It’s understandable to have the desire to not create another group of foreclosures, but what they are probably going to do is create a generation that is going to be a renter. This is not as beneficial as people may think; if you look at statistics you see that people who own homes generally do much better both from a wealth standpoint as well as a way of living. Their children have better test scores, they do better in school, and they generally as less apt to have a criminal background. It’s much better within communities to have stable homeownership than it is to have a renter class.

There was a recent Time Magazine cover that said Rethinking Home Ownership by Owning a Home May No Longer Make Economic Sense. This drove both Bruce and Gary crazy. In the county where Gary is, prices are less damaged than they are in Riverside, which is down 60%. Interest rates are 4%. For somebody to say on the cover of a magazine that it does not make sense to tie up a fixed house payment at a sub-4% interest rate for the next thirty years is really an astonishing statement. What is going to happen is a few years from now people are going to look back and kick themselves for not having bought, even if they absolutely timed the bottom prices because of the interest rates. Once interest rates begin to rise, trying to time it to the bottom is going to erase that difference very quickly. You can go from 4-5%, which doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it is actually a 25% rise. This is a big discount in a price. In 1975, Gary would have seen an interest rate be at 8%, and by the time 1980 came it was doubled. These are bragging rights. If you have a 4% mortgage rate 5-10 years from now, there are going to be people looking at it and confused. It is going to feel like a good decision. When someone talks about on the cover of a magazine that something does not make economic sense, this is not really why most people own.
If Gary went home to a rental instead of a home that he owned, for one he would not feel like doing anything to the property because you just don’t have the pride of ownership and would have to ask for permission to do anything. This is what is special about America; we should not short change the feeling that comes from owning your own little square of the world. The first house Bruce bought really stands out for him because he was married, was 20 years old, and bought a house that had a lot of problems. However, on Saturday morning after closing on Friday, Bruce had the opportunity to mow his own grass on his own house. Gary had bought a brand new house with an FHA loan after he had been married for about three years. He had the same experience as Bruce, but because his house was brand new he got to build a patio and patio covers, put the yard in, and put in the sprinkler system. For this same reason this house is the one that stands out in his mind. There is more to having a home than the economic side of it.

Ron Phipps said we are at a turning point, not just because our livelihood is at stake but because home ownership is at stake. The privileges we have had, our parents had, and our grandparents had are being eroded. Our children face having those privileges denied to them as well. This is a pretty strong statement, but it seems everything is coming together to try and discourage homeownership or try make it much less accessible for most people. All the way from the QRM, where they are proposing that qualified residential mortgages, which would get the best rate, would have to have a 20% down payment. However, this does not make any sense, and people have been avidly going in to make sure this doesn’t happen. There has been a coalition for this, and the members involved are civil rights groups, consumer groups, lenders, and almost every kind of group. The civil rights groups are looking at it and thinking a whole class of people will be disenfranchised if you go down this road. The mortgage interest deduction keeps coming up under attack talking about whether they want to trim it or reduce it. You can go on and on with all the things that are going on to stop the 20% down from happening. The jumbo loan limits have just been reduced, which not only affects the absolute top of the loan limit, but it also affected almost every place in the country because it went from 115% of the price in a market area to 110%. It’s going to affect everybody across the board, and people do not realize this.

You take everything into consideration, and it is just one thing after another where it seems like people are trying to fix the ills of 2002-2006 in 2011 and 2012 when we don’t need it now. In Riverside, for example, it would be hard to find a PITI house payment that would be more than the rental equivalent. They probably have a prototype if they want to see what a nothing-down loan program would perform like, which would be the $8,000 rebate timeframe. This would be close to nothing down; somebody paid it down and received it back. They would most likely not have a serious foreclosure problem with the pile of loans. They would not have had a serious problem ever since the whole downturn started since the newer loans are all performing well. There are some loans also that were recast where the borrower went back in and tried to save it, but part of the problem is still when they purchased the loan and what they got into at the time. It looks like people are going to have to give up a lot of the goodies of real estate because there is going to be a commission of physical responsibility that is going to save $2.5-4 trillion from somewhere, and everyone is going to be asked to do their share. The question is whether the National Association of Realtors has really thought about having to give certain things up as well as what should be given up and what should not.

Everything that you change has an effect that multiplies. Take for example the mortgage interest deduction. One of the things that has been discussed is to take it away from vacation homes or second homes. This not only hurts the resale or sale of homes in vacation areas, but the ripple effect of what that does to the economy in those particular areas. This includes all the way from service sector jobs to anything you want to think of. If people are not buying in those areas, it affects everybody. It not only affects the person who owns it, but it also affects a lot of people. This is the unfortunate as they don’t think through the ramifications of doing anything fully. This would counter to producing jobs. An unintended consequence is a big topic. Sometimes Bruce just shakes his head when he sees decisions made where there could not have been anyone with a deep knowledge of the industry allowed to participate and have the decision emerge. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Bill and the QRM, Bruce got the sense they were handed a past bill with almost the mandate to make it happen. Typically what happens is when a bill is written or a regulation, the people who write it then send it out for comment. Typically comments are made on anything that affects the industry, homeownership, or property rights. Any interested groups will then right on it. Whether they take it into consideration or not when they mandate the regulation is really up to them. Groups such as Gary’s try to be engaged, but they cannot always affect the outcome the way they would like. This is very frustrating because the people who write the bill do it in a vacuum without consulting anybody with academic minds and without any real world experience, and they come out with something without thinking about the unintended consequences.

The Norris Group recently held an interview with the president of MERS, and the reason Bruce did it was because he was just in front of the Senate in Congress. Bruce read his deposit word for word with the yellow maker, so when he watched the Senators ask him questions; it was obvious no one had read it. It is frustrating when a bill is created without the input of an industry that could give input. For example, if the outcome they want is to have fewer foreclosures, then others could advise them the route to take to accomplish it instead of the route that they were choosing without input. Bruce thinks part of it is payback. We really went through a time where real estate was going gangbuster, and many were shaking their heads saying things could not continue the way they were. Therefore, part of what is going on is an overreaction to what was happening as well as misdirection. One of the things Bruce has been fortunate to go and talk to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA about is how to deal with the situation and getting rid of certain homes. One of the things that would be frustrating would be if they decided to bulk sell them to hedge funds since they were great participants in making things happen in the first place.

In 2005, neither Bruce nor Gary knew what a mortgage-backed security or a collateralized debt obligation. They had no idea how they were being funded and spread around until 2007 and 2008. It was really confusing how things were working. We had an industry definitely was benefiting by the new rules, but we did not realize the unintended consequences of what was going to happen. Unfortunately, this is what we are dealing with now.

One of the most important agendas for this coming year for the National Association of Realtors is trying to make sure we get back to a healthy housing market and get some reasonableness back into government and how they’re dealing with things. If we can do this, it would be a homerun. A lot of other pieces of the industry want this too. One of the questions Bruce asked the president of the Appraisal Institute was how he would have liked to go to sleep in 2006 and wake up in 2011 as an appraiser. Your job would be a lot different.

Gary Thomas will be on the panel for I Survived Real Estate 2011, taking place on October 14th. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: 20% down loan payment, bruce norris, California Association of Realtors, Dodd-Frank Bill, Evergreen Realty, fannie mae, FHA, freddie mac, Gary Thomas, I Survived Real Estate 2011, MERS, mortgage-backed security, national association of realtors, QRM, rental property, Ron Phipps, the norris group, The Norris Group Real Estate Radio Show, VA loan program, Wellencamp Decision
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

246-TNG Radio – Sean O’Toole 10-8-11

Friday, October 7th, 2011

Sean O’Toole

President of ForeclosureRadar

(Full Bio)

Bruce is joined this week by Sean O’Toole. Sean is the founder and CEO of ForeclosureRadar.com. Prior to launching ForeclosureRadar, Sean successfully purchased and flipped more than 150 residential and commercial foreclosures. Leveraging 15 years in the software industry, Sean used technology as a key competitive advantage to build his successful real estate investment track record. Prior to that, he was involved in software startup companies.

Back in the late 80s and early 90s, Sean ran a homes and land real estate magazine in the Hawaiian Islands. He spent time taking a break from his software career to run this magazine and to buy and sell his own houses, which played a part in his real estate business career prior to buying at trustee sales. He became attracted to trustee sales after the .com bubble when he was trying to figure out what to do with his life. They were trying to take public company he had started and raised money for about the time that the bubble imploded, bringing it to an end. He was trying to figure out what he was going to do next when he was thinking of starting another software company since this was really all he had ever done. He was introduced to a friend who was buying foreclosures, and he said he should give it a try and if Sean helped him write some software to run his business, then his friend would teach him the rest of the business. At first Sean did not think this was very interesting; but then his friend showed him the kind of money he was making, and he became a lot more interested. Sean started buying at the trustee sales in 2002, which was an interesting time to be involved in something like this. During the era from 2002-2006, Sean was often surprised on the high side. He bought a property, and if it was a hassle to fix and get people out, he was bonused money along the way for the time delays.

One of Sean’s most profitable deals was where he had a gentleman fight him on the eviction for a year through multiple bankruptcy declarations to the point where the judge said he could never file bankruptcy again for the rest of his life. It seemed like a real headache until he went to sell the property, and it had gone up nearly 50%. It’s a very different world today. You would not want to have delays; if you can get to the finish line, then you would want to get there.

When Sean first started in the trust deeds business, it was tough to access information about properties and liens. There was a decent little service up in Northern California that later changed their business model and didn’t have as good of information as Sean had first used from them. After they changed their business model and stopped collecting the data directly, he had to find out how to collect the data himself. He was pulling data from the assessor’s office and the recorder’s office. The biggest thing was you would show up at the sales from everything that had been in the paper, and you would have a list of about 20 properties. They would then call 100 properties because the other 80 had been postponing for some period of time. Unless you went back years and went through all the notices, you had no idea what was still coming up for sale or not. You would have to play catch-up, which would be an awful lot of homework. People don’t realize unless they are in the business that each property entails a full-blown title search, an appraisal, and you have to determine if the pursuit is worth your time. Fortunately, from 2002-2006, there was natural equity most of the time. You wouldn’t have been following a lot of trustee sales that did not have equity; whereas now it is completely different. Back then, term “drop-bid” was unheard of at the time. It was very rare that the banks discounted the bid from the amount owed on the property and was unnecessary. The nice part about having inflation was that their loan was probably below what it was worth and therefore attractive to trustee sale buyers even though the number of trustee sales was way down compared to now. The amount of properties that had equity had to be very high in percentage.

Since Sean’s father is a logic professor, to him he needs things to make sense for him to understand them. So one of the hardest times he had with trustee sales was none of the deals sold on the courthouse steps made any sense. They had equity, and the person could have sold the house. It should not have gone to sale; they should have taken care of their problems, paid their mortgage, or refinanced. This was when he had learned that there were some basic reasons for foreclosure which had happened even in the best of times which were called the 5 D’s: drugs, divorce, death, denial, and disease. These things were not fun to talk about and made the business not feel very great on that side, but back in that period of time these were the reasons properties were foreclosed on. We still have foreclosures for those reasons, but the vast majority of foreclosures happening today are due to negative equity. We have an additional category that is really raining a lot of properties into the system. Back then when you were checking up on sales, you were on the phone and trying to get information to see if it was going to be worth going to the sale.

Sean’s website has really changed the process for someone wanting to be a trustee sale buyer and made it simpler. The person who taught him the business would take a Polaroid of each house and then write down the postponement dates. He had a shoebox organized by date of all the properties that could come up for sale, and literally each time a property came up for sale he had to put a new date on it and put it in a new spot in the shoebox. Other people would keep spreadsheets, and you really had to have somebody down at the sales every day to track everything. One of the big goals for ForeclosureRadar was to get people out of the really tedious sale tracking business. This is one of the areas where they have been very successful. Sean’s website is much more accessible and understandable, and it has made the competition greater. There are definitely new people that can go from novice to acceptable much quicker these days. Sean and his team was definitely in the right place at the right time, but he thinks the transition still would have happened if they were there or if somebody else was there. They launched in May of 2007, and it was towards the end of 2008 that banks began dropping bids and people began making a lot of money. At the same time, they had a lot of contractors and commercial real estate folks who suddenly saw their business go away and needed to find something else. Trustee sales were the right thin at the right time for a lot of people, and Sean and his team benefited from being the best tool at that time. However, he still thinks the transition and the competition would have heated regardless of whether they had been there or not.

Sean’s customer base is dominated by investors and realtors. Just in Sean’s little hometown of Discovery Bay, there is about 85 properties listed for sale; but there is 200-300 in some stage of foreclosure at any give time. If you want to call yourself a market expert, it is pretty hard to do if you don’t have a clue about the all the properties in some stage of foreclosure. If you’re listing a property, and two days later a bank-owned listing pops up next door, there is no excuse for not having known about it ahead of time. At ForeclosureRadar, they can give you months of advanced notice that is potentially coming, so you can work with your customers to be ready for it. The volume of dollars in sales as far as trustee sales in California is in the billions. Typically, the third-party investors are buying 20%, about half a billion dollars worth of property, a month. ForeclosureRadar’s peak month was around $8 billion at original loan value, not at current market value. The $8 billion encompassed the properties that would go to third party and to REO, anything for when someone has lost their house to foreclosure. The two categories combined, REOs and third-party bidders, is a resolution.

In California, there are currently 95,000 properties scheduled for sale, which is down quite a bit. A year ago, there were 120,000 properties scheduled for sale. Out of that, between homes sold back to the bank and sold to third parties, about 14-15,000 sell in a month. Last month, about 24,000 were added. If you take the 95,000 with 24,000 new added, you have 15,000 taken away. This means about 15% or more of the properties are bought by people that are investors to fix and resell. This is one of the reasons they don’t use trustee sales when talking about market sales. When NAR or CAR talks about the number of homes sold per year, they’re not including what happens at the trustee sales. The vast majority of things purchased at trustee sales are resold. Almost all the investors at trustee sales flip the property, and then the banks largely relist the properties as REOs.

Investors are the ones who tend to get rid of properties quicker. Right now in California, it takes banks on average 237 days and 131 days for third-party investors. Investors are a lot better at disposing of properties than banks. Investors are pretty motivated in terms of the fact that it is their money on the line and not a shareholder or tax payer. They also know the local markets better, and they invest in and fix up homes. The people who are fixing up properties put in new paint and carpet, and they are getting them ready for a first-time buyer or a landlord to turn them into a rental. Therefore, they usually try to make them really nice. The banks, usually because of the servicing agreements, try to do a little more than clean out the properties. You will have a lot of properties that are trashed that end up going as REO sales that first-time buyers simply can’t afford to buy, fix, and clean up. You also have some that are so trashed that you cannot get loans on them. The banks not fixing the properties is a big part of it.

When they first started talking about shadow inventory at ForeclosureRadar, it was prior to September 2008 because at that point the banks were taking on huge inventories of REOs that were not listed. Shadow inventory is described as bank-owned homes that were not listed for sale. After September 2008 when they really slowed down the foreclosure sales, at the time when the government made some changes that really slowed down the foreclosure sales, the bank-owned inventory came down to the levels where it really should be. Several folks that had been talking about shadow inventory changed the definition to now include the folks that were now in foreclosure and not-yet-bank-owned. Later, it was changed again to also include delinquent properties and not yet in foreclosure. Depending on who gives the term these days, Sean has even seen some people expand it to those who have so much negative equity they will eventually be delinquent, lose their home, and pay inventory. Sean even had someone the recently tell him that you also have to include all the people who like to sell their home, but not at the current prices. Pretty much most of the country is shadow inventory. Nationally, there are about 4.2 million properties that are between the stages of 90 days late and the bank already owns them. Of the folks that are in foreclosure, you have 134 that are at the default stage plus 94 scheduled for sale. You also have another 100 that are currently bank-owned. NODs are usually filed at the 13-month mark, although this has gone up a lot. Traditionally it was at the 90-day mark, and now it is at 13 months, which is roughly 398 days. The other 300 days, between 90 and 398 days, included defaults and delinquencies. Delinquencies in California are usually around 9%, so that is 30 or more days late. If you take 9% of homeowners with a mortgage, that is another 650,000. All combined, you have close to 1 million.

There are some problems that are going to have to be resolved one way or the other, which will be discussed with the group on the panel at I Survived Real Estate on October 14. They will be discussing possible resolutions since there seem to be conflicting goals. One document says it wants the country to save between $2 and $4 trillion so we can pay our bills, and we have an industry that almost needs more support. It will be interesting to see how the discussion comes about.

The percentage of owners that are over encumbered in California is unknown right now, but a lot of the larger properties are more over encumbered. They have not yet seen the declines in the upper end. There have certainly been declines in the Bay Area and in Newport Beach, but they have not been as traumatic as the declines in San Bernardino, Riverside, Central Valley, and Sacramento. This would most likely be attributed to the bulk of the inventory that is for sale being a foreclosure property. The other reason could be it was a different loan type that did not have the biggest problem as early as its subprime. Also, wealth plays a part. Higher end neighborhoods tend to have more wealth. In addition, data shows that the banks are taking a lot longer to foreclose on higher end homes where the losses are bigger, so part of the reason we have seen less in that area is because the banks are trying to delay losses and remain solvent.

Sean O’Toole will be on the panel for I Survived Real Estate 2011, taking place on October 14th. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: bruce norris, commercial, foreclosure, Foreclosure Radar, ForeclosureRadar, Gold Sponsor, Hawaiian Islands, I Survived Real Estate 2011, properties, reo, residential, SEAN OTOOLE, shadow inventory, the norris group, The Norris Group Real Estate Radio Show, third-party bidders, trustee sales
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

245-TNG Radio – Debra Still 10-1-11

Friday, September 30th, 2011

Debra Still

President and CEO of Pulte Mortgage and the Chairman-Elect of the Mortgage Bankers Association

(Full Bio)

Bruce is joined this week by Debra Still. Debra is the Mortgage Bankers Association Vice-Chairman, and she is also President and Chief Executive Officer of Pulte Mortgage, a nationwide lender headquartered in Inglewood Colorado. The company employs 542 individuals throughout the United States, and since 1972 has helped more than 300,000 homebuyers finance new home purchases. Debra has been the Vice-Chairman for the Mortgage Bankers Association for a year now, and it has been a wonderful experience for her. She got involved with MBA about seven years ago when she moved into her current role as President and CEO of Pulte Mortgage. She really wanted to make sure that she had a strategic component to her leadership at Pulte. Having gotten involved with MBA, sat on a multitude of committees, being able to leverage the research and information, and being a part of the issues and debates in today’s environment is invaluable and gives her a chance to contribute back to an industry that she worked in for the last 35 years.

Debra has a conference coming up called the MBA’s Regulatory Compliance Conference. A piece of information about the conference stated, “While regulators write the rule book for the Mortgage Finance System of the Future, Congress will begin considering the future role of government in the secondary mortgage market. Put all that in front of a backdrop of continuing microeconomic challenges, and efforts to reexamine the tax code in 2011 will remain a time of intense uncertainty and rapid change for the mortgage business.” All of the people in the industry and part of MBA and Pulte are very aware that there is quite a bit of rulemaking going on right now. The laws were passed substantially. The Dodd-Frank Act is now over a year old, so the rulemaking has begun. Right at the moment, with interest rates as low as they are, most lenders are very busy helping borrowers refinance their loans. However, they were also very busy and very involved working with the legislators and regulators to make sure that we write the rules so they do not have unintended consequences for consumers or the liquidity of our industry. At the same time, however, it needs to provide governance for moving our industry forward in a better way.

As aforementioned, the Dodd-Frank Act already passed, but it is just now that the rules of that law are being made. It happened after the fact and is in progress right now. If you think about it, Dodd-Frank created an act that incorporated about 250 new rules. 100 of those rules are focused on mortgage lending. If you think about some of the laws that passed, such as the risk retention law or the ability to repay law, you see that now what happens is the regulators have to go write the rules and the guidelines on how to comply with the law. The rule writing is happening now. If we look at the Risk Retention Rule that specifies that securitizers hold a 5% risk retention for the assets they securitize, we see that we are crafting now and providing comments back to the regulators on several issues. This includes what the definition of a qualified residential mortgage is, how the risk retention would be treated between originators and securitizers, how long the risk would need to be held. These are all the details that the regulators are now charged to figure out, and the law specifies certain timeframes for those rules to be published.

In working with the rules and trying to deal with compliance with the new law, sometimes there are times to make suggestions to restructure the law and show that there were unintended consequences that we didn’t think about earlier. There might be opportunity if absolutely appropriate to go back and look at the legislation, but right now the assumption is that it is our job to work collaboratively with the regulators. Many of the rules are put out for comment, and there is typically 30-60 days to provide comment. The regulators are getting quite a few comments. The comment period for risk retention and the ability to repay have just expired in July and August, so now the regulators will take the industries’ comments, analyze them, and they will come out with a final ruling at some point in the future. It is certainly believed that the rules need to be crafted thoughtfully so that they do not have unintended consequences. There is some concern that some of the rules, particularly as it relates to the risk retention rule, might have gone a bit too far to the detriment providing financing to credit-worthy borrowers. We need to make sure we get the rules well-balanced and well thought out so that they accomplish their intended goal but don’t restrict credit to deserving borrowers.

It seemed the intended goal was to not let 2005 and 2006 ever happen again. However, in a way it seems like they are preventing 2011 from happening nearly as well as it could. Bruce buys and sells properties, and to get people approved now is a very tedious process. We would all agree that we do need rules and guidelines to make sure that we don’t have some of the problems that were created in the past. The rules have to be crafted very thoughtfully, and right now lenders are and have been very conservative based on some of the direction that we have gotten from the federal agencies, whether it is Fannie, Freddie, or FHA. We need to make sure that we have good balance in terms of credit risk parameters and due diligence to comply with all of the regulations that have always been in the industry. Debra believes our industry needs to accept that change, despite being inevitable, is necessary. We need to make sure we have the right balance. One of the things that Dodd-Frank did was it created a new regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and all the desperate consumer financial protection regulations will now be housed under the CSPB vs. different governing bodies that they would have been housed in prior. We have RESPA, PEELA, HOPA, HUNDA, HICRA, ACO, and the Safe Act, all consumer protection regulations now moving to the CFPB. The CFPB now will have full ownership of coordinating and regulating the rules for all the consumer financial protection regulations, which will help the industry have a more coordinated approach to consumer protections. They will therefore have some consistency and standardized forms, a clear coordinated effort, and eliminated redundancies and inconsistencies between the different regulatory bodies.

When talking about qualified residential mortgage, one of the requirements passed was a required 20% down payment to be qualified for the definition of a qualified residential mortgage. There is some debate as to whether the rulemaking went farther than the spirit of the Dodd-Frank Act intended. The rule provided for a 20% down payment, and it also provided for debt-to-income ratio criteria of 28 over 36. It also had thresholds for negative credit events; and it is possible that the people at MBA have put together their working groups and done their own research as FHFA has done research, they are all in agreement that the rule is too restrictive. It would deny credit to far too many credit worthy borrowers. FHFA would suggest that almost 70% of the existing business would not be eligible to meet the requirement of a QRM. If we were to look at the 2009 Book of Business, MBA’s position was that the criteria should be eliminated from the rule all together and sound underwriting practices should prevail. From an MBA perspective, they believe and it was their strong recommendation that the regulators should come out with another attempt at defining a qualified residential mortgage and the industry should get a second chance to comment, having incorporated all of MBA’s first run or responses.

If you put together a 30-year history, going from 1980-2000, have a foreclosure rate of an FHA loan, a VA no-down loan, and a Fannie Mae Loan, you would not be able to distinguish one from the other. They are so tightly compressed in performance. This is consistent with MBA’s analysis, which would show that if you were to leave in the rule some of the product parameters but take out of the rule the down payment requirements, ratio restrictions, and the credit restrictions, you would still very much manage a safe and secure credit worthy mortgage that the criteria the regulators put in didn’t have a significant impact on default rates.

The 2009 Book of Business is considerably tighter credit risk parameters than the five years prior. It’s a highly conservative book of business, and as it relates to the QRM rule, the GSEs would suggest that 70% of their purchases would not have met the standard. Even though 2009 was a much more conservative credit risk box, some of the parameters would be even considerably more restrictive than where the industry had naturally taken itself after the performance of the loans prior. There are not any statistics regarding how well 2009 is performing compared to a prior year’s, but certainly considerably better. Without the QRM, the ship has righted itself just by the industry doing what they did prior to 2002 and 2003. If you look at the Risk Retention rule, the law actually does prohibit risky mortgages, so the law provides for mortgages that would be fully documented. It also provides for mortgages that are fully amortizing, and it disallows mortgages such as some of the pay options ARMs and the negative amortization loans that were being offered. The law, by virtue of the loan programs that it provides for, has taken care of the vast majority of the risk. At the addition of these additional criteria, such as down payments or credit ratios, they are going above and beyond.

On top of the Federal Regulations, each state has an opportunity to put in their two cents and make things more difficult. The CFPB is very committed to working with the states and trying to align with the states, but in today’s environment, Debra’s company is an independent mortgage banker that does business in 29 states. The states have had varying variation in terms of how they treat fees, the forms that are required to be completed by the consumer, the disclosures, predatory lending laws, and treatment of appraisals. It’s critical if you are a state lender that you understand the state you are doing business in, what the laws are parameters are. MBA’s loans officers have to be licensed in the states and some of the licensing requirements are different state by state. There is a lot of variation on top of the Federal laws. Based on the way MBA does their business today, you must comply with both the state and federal laws. Most of the state laws would not negate a federal law; they would just put parameters and requirements on top of federal law. They must comply with federal first, and then they must make sure that they are complying with all the incremental state laws.

Most of the loans funded are in a way connected to the government, whether it is Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, or USDA. Somewhere in excess of 90% of the loans made in the U.S. are being insured by the Federal government. Right at the moment, the federal agencies are critically and vitally important to mortgage-lending liquidity in the U.S. Hopefully over time private capital will come back, and it is very important for us to understand what the future role of government will be. Private capital is waiting to find out what the government’s role will be in housing. In February of this year, the administration put out their white paper that launched the debate on how to restore stability to our secondary mortgage markets and what is the appropriate role for the federal government in housing. It also put forth the notion that we have to figure out what the future of the GSEs is as well as the administration’s commitment to affordable rental housing. The white paper provided some options all the way to a fully privatized market to a couple of variations on a much smaller role for government. The white paper started the debate and has left the final decision up to Congress. While there have been some bills that have been presented in Washington, much of the debate will probably happen after next year’s elections. The MBA was very proactive in putting forth its proposal for the future of government’s role in housing; Fannie and Freddie in particular. They put together a council called The Council to Insure Mortgage Liquidity. Their model would recommend a smaller role for government in housing than the 90% of the funding that we are in today. In an environment where you would have private companies that would issue securities backed by the full phase of the federal government, there would basically be a fee that would be paid by the private companies to receive the government backing.

The president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, David Stephens, went in front of Congress; and one of his suggestions was for investors to be a participant in solving some of the REO problems. It’s not possible to get financing right now, so it would be really nice if this were to become possible. As the government starts to look to find ways to help stimulate the current environment, the notion would be how they would help current homeowners possibly refinance into safer mortgages or lower interest rate mortgages. Some of the things that are being looked at are adjustments to the HARP program, but then also the government also put out an RFI or a request for information to look for new ideas for selling REOs and for the first time considering the possibility of having Fannie and Freddie enter into JV structures to accomplish that goal. You also have to acknowledge that Fannie and Freddie’s core mission is not property disposition, so how can we get the experts to help us move some of the inventory and looking at financing for what would likely be rental housing?

Debra Still will be on the panel for I Survived Real Estate 2011, taking place on October 14th. The Norris Group would like to thank their gold sponsors for the event: Adrenaline Athletics, Coldwell Banker Pioneer Real Estate, Conaway and Conaway, Delmae Properties, Elite Auctions, Inland Empire Investors Forum, Keller Williams of Corona, Keystone CPA, Kucan & Clark Partners, LLC, Las Brisas Escrow, Leivas Associates, Mike Cantu, Northern California Real Estate Investors Association, Northern San Diego Real Estate Investors Association, Pacific Sunrise Mortgage, Personal Real Estate Magazine, Realty 411 Magazine, Rick and LeaAnne Rossiter, Southwest Riverside County Board of Realtors, Starz Photography, uDirect IRA, Wilson Investment Properties, Tony Alvarez, Tri-Emerald Financial Group, and Westin South Coast Plaza. Visit isurvived2011.com for more details.

Tags: 2009 Book of Business, bruce norris, CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Council to Insure Mortgage Liquidity, David Stephens, Debra Still, Dodd-Frank Act, fannie mae, federal government, FHA, freddie mac, I Survived Real Estate 2011, mortgage bankers association, Pulte Mortgage, QRM, qualified residential mortgage, Regulatory Compliance Conference, risk retention, The Norris Group Real Estate Radio Show
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

The Norris Group Blog

Equipping California Real Estate Investors for Tomorrow's Challenges

The Norris Group Blog

California Real Estate Headline Roundup

Archive for the ‘Radio’ Category

254-TNGRadio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 7 12-03-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

253-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 6 11-24-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

252-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 5 11-19-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

251-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 4 11-12-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

250-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 part 3 11-05-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

249-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 10-29-11 part 2

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

248-TNG Radio – I Survived Real Estate 2011 10-22-11

I Survived Real Estate 2011

(Full Bio)

247-TNG Radio – Gary Thomas 10-14-11

Gary Thomas

(Full Bio)

245-TNG Radio – Debra Still 10-1-11

Debra Still

(Full Bio)

Recent Posts

Archives

Here are some helpful links

E-Mail
Password

Equipping California Real Estate Investors for Tomorrow's Challenges

Training Portal Login

The Norris Group Blog

California Real Estate Headline Roundup

Archive for the ‘Radio’ Category

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

Gary Thomas

Sean O’Toole

Debra Still

Recent Posts

Archives

Here are some helpful links