The Norris Group Blog

California Real Estate Headline Roundup

Posts Tagged ‘norris group’

« Older Entries

262-TNGRadio – Robert Kleinhenz 1-28-12

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Robert-Kleinhenz

Robert Kleinhenz

Chief Economist for LAEDC


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

This week Bruce Norris is joined once again by Robert Kleinhenz. Robert is the Chief Economist of the Kyser Center for Economic Research, which conducts research on regional, state, and national economies. Dr. Kleinhenz has a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Michigan, a Masters and Doctorate from USC, all in economics. Prior to joining LAEDC, he served as Deputy Chief Economist at the California Association of Realtors and taught economics for over 15 years, most recently at California State University Fullerton.

Bruce said he recently poked around at a refi and quoted a rate that he could barely understand. He said it was something like 3 7/8 for a 30-year mortgage. Bruce said going back 30 years when he became an investor and had refinanced his house at the time to get the money; it was perfect timing back in 1981 when he paid 17 ½ % fixed. Robert said there may have been a couple recessions in between, but what a difference two decades makes. Bruce wonders if when you are 22 and just starting out if you are thinking that it is in any way normal where you are only accustomed to seeing numbers that start with a 5 or a 4, and he wonders how different the future will be with the particular rate going forward. In this case you are comparing what happened back in the early 1980s to the interest rate situation today.

Robert said if he were to place a bet on what was likely to be more normal in the foreseeable future, he would look at the interest rate climate of today and not of the early 1980s. Back in that time we had high rates of inflation, and we had an economy that was in transition and stagnating in several sectors for several reasons. The main thing was we had a lot of inflation, partly driven by high oil prices. This in turn led to high interest rates and at the time the Paul Volcker of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York led efforts to bring the reign of inflation down. One of the ways it did that was by increasing rates by making it very difficult to borrow. This was a much different climate, and hopefully economists have learned a little bit about keeping inflation in check. Hopefully policymakers have listened to the economists who talk about it, and we are most likely going to stay in an environment over the next few years that either has low or moderate inflation and not double-digit inflation.

Bruce read a quote saying, “Experience is something that lets you recognize a mistake when you make it again.” What is interesting about not being concerned about the people that are in charge of policies is their opinion of how benign the housing problem was going to be. This bothered Bruce; and Robert reiterated saying policymakers are humans like us and sometimes don’t get the information right and sometimes still make poor judgments. We definitely have to be concerned about the fact that mistakes are made on the policy side just as mistakes were made on the business side of things. This gave rise to the situation we face today.

Bruce wondered if Robert was concerned about deflation if not inflation. He said it is not that he is not concerned about inflation, but he does not expect to see high levels of inflation over the foreseeable future, and that is predicated on policymakers and their ability to make the right decisions. It hinges on the ability of the Congress to come up with a credible plan to take care of these federal deficits over the long term. Somebody has to be interested in a bond that the risk-level seems appropriate with the return. What is interesting is the one-year T-Bill in Greece is paying 402% as of yesterday, which would probably give you an idea that you should not invest in it as you are not going to get your principle back.

The likelihood that the United States would find itself in the same position that Greece finds itself in is very low, so we should not be too alarmed. There is a very real possibility that we may face a debt situation, but there are several moving parts here. Fortunately, the ace in the hole that we have here in the United States is the fact that the U.S. dollar is the reserve currency, and our Treasuries tend to be the flight to safety for so many investors around the globe when things go awry elsewhere. Bruce did not know how profound an effect this would have because this is exactly what happened when you talk about a ten-year T-Bill. Most of us would have anticipated seeing something under 4% was pretty astonishing, and then it was under 2%. If someone has not already refinanced their house, you definitely need to be sitting up and taking a look at rates today because those rates are fundamentally driven by what is happening with the yield on the ten-year treasury, which nobody would have expected would fall below 3 or 4%, and here it has consistently been under 2% for quite some time. All of this is courtesy of something that is really outside of our borders. Part of this also stems from the Fed’s commitment to maintain low rates over the foreseeable future through the middle of 2013. There was this policy move and effort to insure that long rates stay low partly to help the housing market and to get investors to pay attention to the stock market where it would theoretically be better returns. There are a number of angles behind the Fed’s move, but this has served to also keep rates down.

To insure that something like what was aforementioned is in the Fed’s control, they would have a limited ability to do it. If the market moves in a big way, they may not be able to buck that trend. However, it does accomplish that end by buying or selling securities in such a way as to maintain rates at the levels that they are targeting at this time. We have a 0-fit fund rate and a mortgage rate under 4%. If we were to have an issue where the Euro zone went into a tough recession, Bruce wondered if there would be a domino effect here that could possibly kick us into a another recession. Robert said the cards we are looking at in 2012 include the situation happening in Europe. If their economy is weakened or there is some concern that we have already seen of economies tipping into recession; then that could jeopardize the situation here in the United States. We’re out of the recession and growing and now in the expansionary phase coming out of the recession, so that could tamper the growth or lead to a stall out in the economy here in the United States. This is economic linkage between the European economies and the U.S. economy.

The other linkage is the financial linkage. If the sovereign debt problem in Europe, not just in Greece but also Italy and possibly France, give rise to problems with banks not unlike what we had a few years ago at the height of the financial crisis, then that could stymie activity in the financial world once again. As a result of that, it could have a feedback effect on the real economy and either slow the growth pattern of the U.S. economy or tip it into recession. You have two things coming out of Europe that have the potential to either slow down or derail our current expansion. When the United States had defaults on the mortgages, mortgage-backed securities, and the CDOs, it had quite a direct effect on the people that invested in the banks.

Bruce wondered if the United States has as much of the investment there in Europe, or is it mostly contained inside of their own banking system. Robert answered that it was incestuous in a way in that there are flows capital that go across international boundaries through commercial banks; so if there is a problem that shows up over there, it may also show up on the balance sheets of banks over here. It is through this particular conduit or channel that we would see problems occur. Robert said he would be very surprised if we have something as calamitous as what we saw in 2008. To look at this situation in the financial sector, we have to recognize that so many financial decisions rest on some confidence of what is going to be occurring in the future. If you lack confidence in the future or just don’t know, then you are unlikely to make a decision or make a decision to do nothing. The problem with financial crises that we went through in 2008 is that they have long-lasting effects and wreak havoc on consumer and business confidence. They then leave businesses and households to sit on their hands until they get a sense that the coast is clear. That is one of the reasons this recession was so deep and continues to keep going as long as it has been. There is a real concern about the outlook, and it is reflected in consumer confidence and business confidence that has just not really shown marked improvement over the last couple years.

Bruce wondered if there is real concern about the oil world and if there is fear about aggressive actions such as the closing of the straight. Robert said if we take a step back to 2011 for a moment and think about all of the wild cards that played out in 2011, there are a lot and a number are still playable in 2012. There was earlier discussion on the European debt situation, which is a wild card that has been played several times over the past few years. The Greek debt crisis seems to be the one that is played most frequently. If you take a look at the Arab Spring, that gave rise to disruptions in the flow of oil and gave rise to higher oil prices. There is always the chance that something in the world of energy that triggers an increase in the price of energy, oil or otherwise, there is always the chance that this could slow down economic activity if not derail a growing economy. The other wild card that we have to contend with in 2012 that we also dealt with in 2011 was political. This year the big political wild card is what will happen in November with the election. It does appear as though we are going to continue to be stepping carefully through 2012, hoping that these wild cards do not wreak too much havoc on the economy. If they do, then they have an adverse impact on confidence. If there is an adverse impact on confidence, then the growth we anticipated is just not going to materialize.

In the employment sector, Bruce wondered how important construction is to the improvement of the unemployment. Robert said it is an important segment of the economy but is essentially flat on its back right now in California and elsewhere around the country. If you look at residential activity in the state of California, permits for example, they are just a fraction of what they were in years past. They have been at this very low level for just a fraction of any long-run numbers for the last few years, but it makes sense. If so many foreclosed or distressed properties are available for sale at a fraction of the cost of new construction, it is going to be sometime until after the backlog of distressed properties gets substantially moved before we see construction pick up in a noticeable way. There is a broad market for housing where distressed property values are probably way down on other properties. Things are also the same way with commercial construction. There are a lot of high vacancy rates for office buildings these days; less so for retail and certainly much less so for industrial. Industrial in Southern California is actually outperforming markets around the country. It has less than a 5% vacancy factor, so it is very much a mixed bag. However, construction is going to be recovering slowly, so meanwhile we should take a step back.

In a general sense, the labor market seems to be at a turning point where in order to produce more in 2012, it seems very likely that employers are actually going to have to add people, not just ask their existing labor force to work longer hours. There should be a general upturn in employment in 2012 compared to 2011. It is just a question of how much of an upturn there will be. We need somewhere around 300,000 jobs added per month across the nation in order to bring the unemployment down in a noticeable way in a reasonable amount of time.

The most recent report, the one for December, showed that we added 200,000 jobs, which was a great number based on the recent history. It is just not a high enough level of growth to bring the unemployment rate down. At 200,000 jobs per month, it could take 4 or 5 years for us to get back to a 6% unemployment rate nationally. At 300,000 jobs per month, it would only take a little less than two years, which is a huge difference. At the present time, we should be banking on the 200,000 jobs per month, barring any of these wild cards being played. If that happens for a few months time, then we might actually see the economy gain some ground.

The sector that is in the driver’s seat here is the consumer sector. Consumers are weighed down by uncertainty about their jobs and their economic outlook. The fact that are assets are not worth what they had been worth and the fact that they may have some credit constraints, access to credit may not be what it had been, especially with respect to buying homes. All those things are constraining growth and consumer spending, and that is really the main thing that we need to look for in terms of the driver behind the overall economy. If consumer spending picks up, then we are going to see job gains pick up as well.

In looking at a chart for mortgage equity withdrawal in 2002-2006, it was responsible for a lot of GDP growth. This driver has certainly been diminished if not eliminated from most people’s possibilities. As we go forward, it is certainly going to be the case that the American consumer is still going to have a place for the use of credit. They may not have access to the same amount of credit that was available when they were able to use their home equity in order to finance so many things. This is not a bad thing because it does seem to have created problems, especially problems that have spilled back into the housing sector. We do not want to go back this way, but we do expect to see that some loosening of credit access on the part of consumers would probable enable the consumer sector to get a little bit more steam and give a little bit more push to the overall economy.

Another issue is shadow inventory. Bruce wondered what Robert’s thoughts on what shadow inventory contains are. The definition of shadow inventory has changed over the last couple years, so Bruce wondered what Robert feels is the shadow inventory and what the best resolution for it is. Robert said it is useful for us to get a sense of how long we are going to be dealing with large numbers of distressed properties. If we use that as the definition and ask what things going to be like two years out, then the shadow inventory is the inventory that is on the books, such as MLS inventory for existing homes plus unsold new homes, and the unsold inventory for existing homes in the state of California, which is about 5 months inventory. Five months inventory is enough to actually sustain increases in prices and not decreases in prices because the average is about seven months, so we are at seven months if we are under five. By then we would go through the foreclosure pipeline, and the thing we would pick up would be the number of REO properties that are held by banks in inventory. This is equal to about another 2 ½ months of inventory. Now you are getting over seven months when you take the five mentioned earlier and add 2 ½ months, then there properties that are scheduled for auction and also another 2 ½ months inventory. However, the timeline for that is a much longer timeline.

For the REO properties, the point in time they go into inventory might be about 6 months or so before they are prepped and sold. The relevant shadow inventory number to use for current market conditions and understand what is happening in the current market is probably MLS based inventory plus new homes plus REOs in inventory. If we are asking the question about how long this is going to be with us, then we are going to go further up the foreclosure pipeline and pick up the properties that are in a pre-foreclosure state, such as an NOD or delinquent property. If this is the case, then you are looking at another 2 ½ months inventory. This is simply by taking the number of properties that are in pre-foreclosure state, which is roughly 100,000, and looking at that relative to total annual sales. You also have to look at the timeline. An NOD that is filed in January of 2012 is probably about 18 months away from going into the REO inventory. These numbers are roughly 100,000 in REO inventory and roughly 100,000 NODs plus delinquencies at the present time for the state of California. The timeframe is not anywhere close to normal as the statutory timeframe is about 6 months. Because of different kinds of policies and other factors, this timeline has been stretched out; and a number of lender and servicers have encountered a number of problems along the way.

The bottom line is as we are going further up the ladder and actually including more and more things in this notion of shadow inventory, we also have to figure out how long it is going to take to push all the properties through the foreclosure pipeline and out through the new home market. Therefore, we are looking all the way into 2014 before things get any closer to normal levels of distressed properties. The housing market is going to feel like it has recovered before that period of time, but we are going to have substantial numbers of distressed properties working through the housing market over the next three years. In Riverside, 62% of the sales are either short sales or foreclosures, which means when you sell 1,000 homes, only 380 buyers emerge. Everyone else is credit damage. This is going to take a while to heal.

If you want to learn more about Robert’s company, the Kaiser Foundation, go to LAEDC at www.laedc.org. Here, you can find out about the annual forecast event that will be happening this February 15th in downtown Los Angeles. This is a ticketed event.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News, Radio | No Comments »

261-TNGRadio – Robert Kleinhenz 1-21-12

Friday, January 20th, 2012

Robert-Kleinhenz

Robert Kleinhenz

Chief Economist for LAEDC


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

This week Bruce Norris is joined by Robert Kleinhenz. Robert is the Chief Economist of the Kyser Center for Economic Research, which conducts research in regional, state, and national economies. Dr. Kleinhenz has a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Michigan, a Masters and Doctorate from USC, all in economics. Prior to joining LAEDC, he served as Deputy Chief Economist at the California Association of Realtors and taught economics for over 15 years, most recently at California State University Fullerton.

The Kyser Center is within the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation or LAEDC, which among other things is interested in promoting the local economy and doing what it can do to help local businesses to streamline permitting processes and promote a long-run vision of where the region is headed in terms of the economy and related issues. The Kyser Center’s economic research function is in support of this. They carry on what is happening in the economy and what is happening with key sectors in the economy. They also produce forecasts, one coming up on February 15 in downtown L.A. They have an annual forecast that comes out at the beginning of the year in February and a mid-year forecast update that typically is released in July. This is the one that Bruce took a serious look at a few nights ago, and one of the things that really impressed him was it was not in the least bit promotional. He said it was very informational and quite candid if it had to be negative. This is one of the things that have given rise to the reputation of the Kyser Center and the LAEDC have established over time. Their forecasts have really maintained their objectivity when looking at issues pertaining to the regional economy; so they have a lot of credibility, which they had even before he came on board.

It’s a great asset for the community to have this kind of document. When it becomes promotional and inaccurate, it does not help anybody map out a proper business plan. We are certainly at a key point here. 2012 is a pivotal year where potentially we can see the local economic situation and the national situation accelerate if the right things fall into place. You have to have an objective view on things as business people so that these business people can make smart decisions about their future and the future for their businesses. When you are dealing with the local economy, even one as large as Southern California and Los Angeles, you also have to determine how effective we are by state and federal level decisions. The most obvious impact that we have seen over the last couple of years is that the budget problems that have popped up at the state and have filtered down to the local level have given rise to real job losses in the public sector. Therefore, the private sector is adding jobs that are much needed jobs.

We have unemployment rates that continue to be stubbornly high. The economy and the labor market have both been very slow in recovering from this most recent recession. Anything that detracts from growth is problematic; and unfortunately one of the very weak segments of the labor market over the last couple years has been public sector or the government labor numbers. They have been declining even as the private sector has been taking off, so that is certainly one constraint that we have to deal with in the immediate term. The longer term issue that we need to bear in mind is that the state and county government agencies are often times responsible for so many infrastructures that we rely upon, both physical infrastructure and the education of our young people. Both of these are things that concerns Robert as they look at the longer timeframe and the role the government plays.

Bruce wondered if education needs have started to shift. One of the things Bruce read that was very interesting to him was the manufacturing sector. It is not something we think about being a major player; yet it really is, but there are shifts occurring. As far as education is concerned, you go to high-school through college. Bruce wondered if you emerge as a useful participant in the manufacturing sector in any of the training to where you can take on a high-tech manufacturing jobs and function. Robert said it is safe to say that the jobs that the people who went to high school and college will be taking on through the course of their career are jobs that we know nothing about right now. The most important thing one gets from a college education in particular is learning how to think and to adapt to what is a changing workplace environment. There are really dramatic changes that take place both in the consumer side and in the industry side. You have a sector of the economy that is quite dynamic and is one of the leading sectors here in Southern California. Putting it differently, Southern California is one of the leading manufacturing centers here in the United States. At the same time, in the United States manufacturing is still one of the leading GDP. It is a high-value added segment of the economy, but it has experienced a trend decline in the number of people working in that sector over time because much automation has taken place that has displaced some workers. Manufacturing on a wide, broad scale such as mass production of goods, frequently goes offshore because they can produce at a much lower wage or lower cost of goods produced outside of the United States and certainly outside of Southern California.

When Bruce read the document, he said the thing he found interesting was the number of jobs was down, the number of products produced was way up, and the earnings per worker was up. The people who are working in manufacturing have to be more skilled today than their predecessors had to be ten or twenty years ago. They probably have some training in computers and other types of automation, so it is no longer that you have strong hands and a strong back. You also have to have a pretty nimble mind to be able to do what is necessary in these jobs, which are increasingly automated and require some knowledge of sophisticated machinery. The first question was really if in the education process if we are taking people through it, do we need a college degree to understand how to operate that particular piece of machinery even though it is technical? Do we have trade types of training that are taking that on?

Robert said that particular aspect of education in the United States, which is typically provided by trade schools and community colleges, is one that is often overlooked. However, Robert believes it is very important to training people for jobs that don’t require a college degree but do require something more than an unskilled background. You have to have skilled workers. One of the things we are contending with now and really have for quite some time is that we probably do not dedicate enough of our resources and educational resources to training people for those kinds of jobs. There is so much emphasis and so much pressure on seeing people complete their Bachelors Degree, which is important for the reasons that he mentioned at the beginning. However, it does not really create someone who has a great deal of versatility. However, there are a lot of other jobs. Robert had just spoken with one of the business assistant managers, and he said there are a lot of jobs for which you have to have a certain set of skills. Many people who are running businesses right here in Southern California right now have job openings for skilled workers, but they cannot find people with the appropriate skills to fill those spots. It is a challenge right here and now, and it is an ongoing challenge for years to come.

We also have an aging workforce who with those skills will be retiring, and there will be even more of a need for those replacement skilled people with very high-paying wages. The fact of the matter is the baby boomer generation, particularly the oldest members of the baby boomer generation, turned 65 last year in 2011. In terms of numbers, the first few years that are marked by that boomer generation have fairly small population numbers. However, as you see people who were born in the early 1950s to the mid to late 1950s, you see that this is where you have the real bubble in terms of population growth in that particular generation. In the next 3-4 years, we are probably going to be looking at what could be a fairly large number of people going into retirement. There are probably not as many people choosing to retire as would have been the case before the recession. Still, large numbers of people will at least consider retirement or maybe going to a part-time schedule. This may lead to a void in the workforce in terms of many skills, not to mention the experience that these individuals have accumulated over so many years of work.

Bruce said when you do have this baby boom generation begin to retire, it brings up more pressure on the budget. The California budget and the national budget both have their share of problems. Bruce wondered if we solve it by aggressive cuts and austerity, or do we solve it with some type of growth program that makes sense. Robert said that as far as the budget situation at the national level is concerned, it is important for us to break it into two parts. You have the budget deficit at the federal level, the $1.3 trillion deficit, and the corresponding level of national debt. The high deficits that we have seen over the last couple years stem in part from the weakness of the economy, which has lead to reduced tax revenues. At the same time, especially with the stimulus program that actually came and went the high expenditures that were a part of that stimulus program and other programs has driven a wedge between the amount of money that the government was bringing in and the amount of money that was spending. However, as the economy improves, that wedge should narrow. Robert believes this will improve over time, so he is less concerned about that and more concerned about the Social Security program and Medicare, both of which could escalate out of control and dominate the budget before too long. It would be in the 2020s by which time it might happen, but certainly changes will take place between now and then to prevent that from happening. Robert does not think we would sit back and just let it happen.

There was a joint committee that worked on the aforementioned suggestions; they produced a document, then when it got to Congress it seemed both sides were not interested in the conclusions and looked like they pushed it forward to 2013. Because of that, this was one of the things that pushed rating agencies to downgrade the United States credit situation. Bruce found this interesting because since he is connected to real estate; his assumption would have been that we have a downgrade and an interest rate hike. However, this was not what happened. If we are talking specifically about the downgrade and what happened at the time back in August of last year; that downgrade and the anticipated impact on interest rates for T-Bills and Treasury notes was trumped by what was happening in Europe, specifically the sovereign debt crisis. This was a much bigger problem; so instead of having a spike in treasury rates as a result of the downgrade, we had a flight to safety globally to U.S. government securities. This pushed yields down, not up.

We are fortunate in that we continue the dominant and reserve currency that so many countries around the globe rely on, and we continue to be the safe haven for investors not just around the globe, but also here in the United States. That worked to our advantage that time as it pushed yields and pushed rates down at a time when rates otherwise might have increased. Robert said he is not terribly concerned about the downgrade, but he does think we all need to be worried about the reaction in Washington D.C. to problems with the deficit and the fact that they are not willing to take action. The credit markets are most likely watching this carefully. If after the 2012 election we do not see a real concerted effort and a real plan to take care of these long-term concerns with respect to the federal budget, then he would be more concerned about downgrades of our credit.

If we get to this is 2013, Bruce wondered if we are going to go the route of austerity and how we would produce GDP growth from this. The kind of austerity programs that have been talked about and implemented in the European economies, unfortunately, do damage to the economy in the near term so that they can get their financial house in order. The levels of indebtedness and sovereign debt in countries like Greece and Italy, relative to the overall economy, are much higher than here in the United States. If there was a belt tightening that was required in order to set things straight in the United States, it would certainly hinder a growing economy and could slow down the pace of expansion. For the record, it does not feel like we are out of the recession, but we have been expanding and our GDP is higher now than it was in the last peak. Technically the economy recovered from a recession and started to expand. If we do go through an austerity program of sorts, it would either slow down that rate of growth that is mediocre at best right now; or it could tip us back into a recession. These are things we have to be very concerned about going forward a year or so out.

The GDP numbers have actually accelerated past the former peak, but we had 8 million jobs lost and have only rehired 2 million of those people. This is one of the quandaries we find ourselves in this particular economic cycle, and we should not be surprised by it. We had the recession, and it was the Great Recession; so it was the worst recession in the working lifetimes of many people. It was a large recession with unemployment rates that have risen to levels we have not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s both in California and in the United States. When that recession hit and when the job losses occurred, the companies became very lean with respect to their workers and their workforce. They also took advantage of technology, which has been partial of the economic story really for the past 30 years, beginning with the PC and going forward. As a result of that, they were able to repair their workforce and replace some of the functions with some kind of technology. Now that the economy is coming back, some of the jobs that used to be there are no longer there because of the displacement by technology. This goes back to the point touched on earlier that people have to be adaptable and have to be able to move in to the jobs of 2012 and 2013, which might well be different from the jobs of 2002 and 2003. Training is very important for these kinds of transitions from the job climate that existed ten years ago to the job climate we have today.

Bruce recently looked at a report that talked about rankings as far as business friendly states, and California was almost at the bottom of the barrel. Robert is in the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation having to attract people into an environment that you maybe did not create. In other words, Bruce wondered how you attract people to Los Angeles and Southern California for jobs in a negative environment and it has that reputation in place. This is indeed one of the challenges that we face across all of California, especially in Southern California, with the high cost of labor relative to other parts of the country. This also includes the high cost of other resources, not the least of which would be buildings and land. The perception, if not the reality is that there is a fair amount of red tape that one has to navigate in order to establish a business here. Fortunately, there are entities such as the LAEDC that provide assistance to employers who are interested in locating here to Southern California to help them work through that. The reputation that California has as not being a terribly friendly business state is certainly a hurdle to be overcome. This is something that is a long-term concern and has been a concern for a few decades; and it continues to be a challenge that we have to work on.

Bruce believes Texas might be the favored state and wondered why it is so different with them. Robert said that Texas has, among other things and from the workforce point of view, income tax at the state level and is also a right-to-work state. The presence of unions is not quite what it is here in the state of California and other states around the country. Their permitting and regulatory requirements are also not what they are here in California. When you are in the predicting business, you have to really pay attention to the whole country. Bruce stays up until midnight now seeing if Greece is going to default. It seems to be much more complicated than it ever has been. There is no doubt about the fact that our local economy is more closely tied to what is happening around the state and around the globe than it ever has been in prior years. To begin with, you take a look at things such as mortgage rates, which are determined in the global financial system. A problem in Greece, specifically their sovereign debt problem, will indeed cause difficulties for someone who is trying to finance the purchase of a new home or refinance a home. This is one example of how we are so much more integrated today as a global economy where local meets global in a way we did not really have to worry about or be concerned.

If you go back 40 years in the early 1970s or even the 1960s, which was not terribly long after World War II had ended, you would have seen that the U.S. economy was really the only economy that was untouched by World War II. Its infrastructure was in place, and it was the dominant economy around the globe. Over time it gave way as different economies and different countries rebuilt and then saw Germany and Japan and other economies that had been industrialized become re-industrialized and become more important players on the global scheme. You look at the 1980s, we had another wave of economies that have come onto the scene.

Tune in next week for the second part of Bruce’s interview with Robert Kleinhenz on The Norris Group Radio Show and be sure to visit our website, www.thenorrisgroup.com, for more information on trust deed investing and our loan programs.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

260-TNGRadio – Craig Hill 1-14-12

Friday, January 13th, 2012

Craig-Hill

Craig Hill

Hard Money Lender for The Norris Group


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

This week Bruce is joined once again by Craig Hill of The Norris Group. Craig has worked with The Norris Group since the company opened in 1995. Craig has worked with the real estate investors, helping them access money for their deals and trust deed investors who want to get a very safe yield on their money. Prior to working with The Norris Group, Craig was in the hard money loan business for years prior to that; and the expertise he brought with him has proved him valuable to the success of the company.

Today’s radio show focuses on the borrower side of loans. Craig deals with calls all the time and goes through the terms of the loan, and there will be some callers who are connected to the advertisements of 4% and are completely shocked when Craig tells them it will be 12.5%. They do not understand this side of the world at all. However, Craig said these calls usually come from people who have never done it before, so usually whenever Craig gets into a situation like this he tries to ask them how they funded the last deal they did. You really have to establish that this is a different world, and if somebody has been a property buyer for a long period of time, they have a better understanding. Sometimes if you get that person who feels they can do it, it might be best for them to pursue a loan at their bank under a non-owner occupied program. Craig tells them they might be able to get it if they have perfect credit and other things. There are a lot of different ways to handle it, but Craig said The Norris Group usually deals with investors who do this for a living and have an understanding of what the costs are going to be.

The real education is to go ahead and try whatever you think is easier or less expensive because the lending world is really not working very well right now. Bruce worked with a major bank where the manager told him the frustration they have right now where they cannot fund owner-occupied loans inside of 75 days. In the investor world, if you do not have speed, you don’t find deals. They have to be able to close their loans quickly, and they have to rely on the fact that the deal will close. People are always asking how they can save money, so they either try to list the house themselves or find their own money source. People even hold seminars about how people can find their own money, but it is really not that easy. It is not that easy to get trusted with money. You always have to ask yourself whether it is really cheaper or not because there is always something attached to it, including a no answer when you thought you already had a yes. The Norris Group gets a lot of these kinds of calls where someone calls at the last minute and only has three or four days or less and they need to close it. Someone had told them something didn’t perform. It is so competitive out there now, so you have one loan that does not perform then you can forget about doing business with your agent again or anybody that agent knows. You have to see that this was really the cost of not getting a loan as it exceeded far the cost of getting one. It is not easy to watch over the years people going through a process of trust. As a person, to start from scratch is just not a reliable source.

Bruce came through the hard money business first as a borrower of considerable amount of money on a regular basis. He really did not consider the cost as onerous at all; he just needed access to it. With reliability comes the ability to grow. It’s the same way with The Norris Group business as a whole and just like how it is with an investor. If an investor has either his own money, such as a limited amount like $200, they really are working under constraints. Once they have access to somebody who might have, for example $1 million, they can start and tailor their business knowing they have access to $1 million. There is a cost to this, but you also have to look at the benefits of this. The benefits are you can up your marketing and do many more types of projects. It’s like being a construction lender without having a lender. A construction worker has to have some leverage, or he is only going to build ten homes. This has been the same way with The Norris Group; the borrower side has always grown along with the money side because the money side is there and the borrowers need the funds. This is what a hard money lender is.

When Bruce and Craig met, their meeting came about because Bruce was seeing more opportunities than he could personally handle. He had a fair amount of cash and a credit line, and all these were active on free and clear things. He had a chance to go to HUD auctions that were tossing out $.50 deals a half a dozen times per auction. He also had the chance to buy a track of homes at the same number. He looked around and saw how he could not take advantage of it, and this was the start of their meeting. When Bruce and Craig met, this was not the typical loan for a hard money loan business. It almost did not exist, and this was in about 1992 or 1993 when for hard money lenders the rule of thumb was a house was worth what you paid for it. If one next door sold for $100 that was fixed up, then you bought one that was exactly a model-match right next door for $50 or less, then you could borrow $30 or $40 on that one. At the same time, The Norris Group could lend somebody who had never made a payment $60 grand on the other one. When Bruce first came to Craig, he had to fight very hard to get the first few deals through because it was not done that way. Now, in a lot of ways hard money is synonymous with that exact function for investors. Back then, however, it did not even exist.

Bruce said he remembered for one of the properties he bought at a HUD auction that was appraised, they had not discussed what he had paid for it. He asked for it to go ahead and be appraised and would be able to borrow X-amount of percentage on the value. When Craig told Bruce the value, he asked Craig if it bothered him that he would be giving him money back more than he paid. The first thing Bruce thought of was they had a really unique opportunity there and Craig was probably dealing with his type of the world for the first time, and Bruce had access to a lot of dough for the first time. Bruce told Craig he could rest assured and made six payments on the first loans, and all of a sudden it dawned on the owner of the company that they had never had anybody do that prior, so they either understood that Bruce understood it or he was capable more than their other clients had been. This was an important transition for the hard money loan industry because it followed with Craig hoping there were more people like Bruce. Craig spent three or more years until he had all the other loan officers ask him when he thought it was going to be done. Some of them never transitioned into doing that and Craig strictly transitioned into doing only that because he got used to the facts from Bruce and others thinking the process was very efficient. They knew how to make the most happen with the least effort.

Bruce has always been surprised because he remembered thinking when 1995-97 passed and it was the end of the REO world, they were really thinking from where all the deals were going to come from, and they did. The private party purchasing and construction started, and all of a sudden The Norris Group was even busier. Craig said this has been the one important thing that there has always been a niche for good borrowers and private money. If good people are out there doing something and making a profit at it, whether it be buying off private parties or lots when the time is right, there is always an opportunity and a surprise that no matter what the real estate market is like, there is always a space for hard money loans. Bruce is so convinced about this now that he has had the chance to go back and rub shoulders with the people who make decisions in the normal world and see how they view investors. He came back with a self-assurance knowing there will always exist a need for a private loan business because we just make decisions that are common sense, yet the infrastructure prevents this. For example, The Norris Group is not afraid of a home that does not have a kitchen because they have dealt with 1,000 of them and have not been damaged by any of them because they know a kitchen can reemerge for a certain amount of money. In the loan process, they retain the money that would cause a kitchen to show up if the borrower stopped paying. You start putting the pieces of the safety together and think you can make the loan, but it does take private money to fund it quickly and accurately. Bruce does not think we are ever going to have a lot of competition from the other side.

Craig is amazed how much conventional lending will not do. There are so many hoops to go through, and the borrowers The Norris Group is loaning to have wealth and credit. They have everything where you think you can walk in and get any amount of loans you want, and they can’t even get loan #1. Craig received a call from a borrower not too long ago who owned about 4 houses free and clear for about $120-$140,000 each. This is his money he put into them, but the bank will not work with this because they consider it cash out. Craig wondered if he would be a stronger borrower if he leveraged at 100%. Here is somebody with perfect credit with four free and clear houses and the bank will not work with him because they see this as cash out. It does not make sense to him. Somehow this puts him in less of a safe position that he owes, for example, $200 grand at 50% and has $200 grand of liquidity to make sure it gets paid. This is a decision-maker you’re competing with and you think you will be okay. With The Norris Group on the other hand, their response is how quickly they can get their appraiser out there.

Some people are disappointed that there are more hoops than they thought. They attend a seminar and get told that hard money only looks at one thing, and then they go elsewhere like The Norris Group and see that this is not the case. They were not really told what was really going on. Because of the nature of loans and more recent history, Craig said one thing that is very difficult for people to understand is if you are brand new, it is very hard to delicate the whole process and think you are going to have a good result. You don’t even know how to protect yourself. This is the most frustrating thing Craig sees from some of the national seminars because it is almost like they are a part of a group and are dealing with a mentor, while The Norris Group takes a look at the deals and sees they are not deals. The number one thing The Norris Group wants is to make sure people have a deal, or they are going to talk them out of it. Bruce said this is an important thing for people to know that there are companies that are built that way and companies that are not. It has to go through some filters. If The Norris Group is going to make a loan on it, then there is probably a very high success rate for the investor.

There are several filters. For one, you might look at the sheer numbers and say it is not a deal, and then you have an appraiser who goes out with a lot of experience in investing and says that the numbers make sense but it is really a dangerous property for specific reasons. The filter The Norris Group has for people who borrow money from them is second to none. Bruce trusted himself and said he would actually have cause himself if he had found a deal. If someone like Rick Solis had gone out there and told him he really needed to take a second look, then he would. You really cannot put a value on this type of filter, and sometimes The Norris Group will get calls from people who are thinking of buying all cash, and Craig tells them to call him when they have their numbers. If they have something in escrow that they are thinking of doing, then they need to take a quick look at it because it is very easy to see where somebody can make a mistake.

For people who don’t have experience, they really don’t realize how expensive the journey will be, so there are surprises and repairs. All these things start taking away, whether it is a percentage here or there, and all of a sudden a deal at, for example, $.82 on the dollar that seems like it is going to make you a lot of money actually costs you a lot of money. If you get over 75% of what the house is worth in repairs and the purchase price, you are really starting to deal with a very thin margin. Craig will back out everything and start at 100%. He will ask them if they are going to sell it themselves or if they are going to have a commission, because now more people are paying incentives such as 2 or 3% of the closing cost. If you have something and then you have the cost of the loan, pretty soon they can see that what something is costing and being sold for is not leaving anything in the middle. You are going on a 6 month journey, and this is where the experience comes in. You are going to hire a construction crew you have never dealt with, and the odds of this not working out are higher than dealing with one you have dealt with twenty times. Everything that potentially goes wrong in the business is especially likely to occur to the first-time person. For that individual, having a deal is critical. The first step is the person needs to have a deal.

The second most frustrating thing for people is they really are told that they don’t need to have any money or need only a very little money. We are looking at things in terms of the borrower needs to have survivability and a successful outcome. Years ago Craig had a client who had a house and made payments like clockwork, then all of a sudden he stopped making payments. He called in and said he had a specific amount allocated for that, and Craig said it was quite a surprise. This was years ago; so more and more The Norris Group has had the philosophy that the really liquid cash is very important because it gives them survivability to only to protect The Norris Group and their investor, but it really protects their down payment and what they put into the property. It gives them the ability to get out of a situation instead of lose a situation. It is also really a benefit for them to make a monthly payment.

Craig has always been asked if the payments can be included in the loan, and he learned years ago from making an unwise transaction with his baseball cards that once the money was long gone he made payments on it every month. Every time he wrote the check it was a lesson to not do it again. In the same way, if you are making a payment on a property you realize that it is costing you money. Just because you might have payments for six months, you cannot just sit around and wait. You have to take action since the problem is not going to solve itself. The payments are either not a high priority or the borrower has a tendency to not think about making payments. The Norris Group used to do seconds for people so they would not have as much in, although this is something they do not do anymore. They realized that not everyone is disciplined. The Norris Group not only looks at the deals, but they also try to help people be disciplined so they have successful outcomes. You cannot try to do three if your limit really should be one. Stick with the one because you are really going to have a successful result on that one. One of Bruce’s favorite statements Craig has made is, “Lost another loan; made another client for life.” In this case, the client was told the truth they actually needed to hear to see that they now have confidence that they have a backup system they can trust and will not get hurt by their loan officer.

There is almost as many people out there who would thank The Norris Group for not doing deals, talking them out of a deal, or explaining how it works. It is very satisfying because what Craig tells people when he is talking to them is he can tell by their voice when they are a little disappointed, but he tells them he can deal with that. Being a little disappointed right now with Craig telling you no or what is the real deal is much better than the client having a deal three weeks from now where they are going to lose the deposit or having a deal nine months from now where you lost $20 grand. This is going to be a lot more disappointing. The philosophy at The Norris Group is to deal with it as it comes, and people are usually very appreciative of the fact that TNG tries to give them good advice.

Bruce mentioned the home shows and how one of the things he noticed was how frustrating they were because some of the reality was missing. On the show, you are shown a property in the beginning that needs a lot of repair. It’s a perfect opportunity for two investors, but then you come back four months later and they look like they want to get a divorce. Then, the realtor comes back in and tells them what they left out. Going from A to B is an expensive process, and it just shows there are deals that do not fit the level of experience of certain buyers. Craig always tells them when they get their first deal; he tells them they did not find the deal, it found them. There were several people who passed on that deal who were experienced investors, and the newer people need to stick with what they know and what is the simplest process. You have to leave the other things for the other people, and conversely in their group of clients they have a lot of clients who are experienced. They have one right now out in Orange County who is buying a property for $220,000 and are putting about $125 grand into it. This is a very experienced investor, but it is also a niche because not a lot of people are going to be able to accomplish what he is going to accomplish. You have two sides of the scale; one that can tackle these kinds of things, and the newer group that needs to stay away from this. Most often these are the deals that the new people find that other people had passed on originally.

Be sure to visit our website, www.thenorrisgroup.com, for more information on trust deed investing and our loan programs.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News, Radio | No Comments »

259-TNGRadio – Craig Hill 1-7-12

Friday, January 6th, 2012

Craig-Hill

Craig Hill

Hard Money Lender for The Norris Group


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

This week Bruce is joined by Craig Hill of The Norris Group. Craig has worked with The Norris Group since the company opened in 1995. Craig has worked with the real estate investors, helping them access money for their deals and trust deed investors who want to get a very safe yield on their money. Prior to working with The Norris Group, Craig was in the hard money loan business for years prior to that; and the expertise he brought with him has proved him valuable to the success of the company.

Bruce said it never ceases to amaze him that their client base keeps on finding deals that keep giving them record years. Craig said it seems that regardless of what you hear out there about there not being any deals, The Norris Group is very fortunate because they have wide enough base of clients that they seem to find enough properties to keep The Norris Group hitting record levels every year. They have an expert base of clients that finds things when most people don’t. Bruce has a feeling next year might be a blockbuster year and that there will be inventory in excess of what they had this year. Craig said for most of his clients, the perception ranges from no deals to a blockbuster year. Their base of clients, both buyers and trust deed investors, will be ready for whichever one it is.

The mood has definitely shifted, but at least now there is a safety in what people think has happened to prices. Craig thinks there is definitely not a huge issue with a large price drop, especially in the inventory with which The Norris Group is dealing. They are dealing in the starter homes, whether it is L.A., Orange County, Riverside, or San Bernardino. It is the lower priced homes. But Craig said people definitely do not see a sharp drop in the prices. This would be hard to imagine because when they deal with one of the long-term loans, it is not uncommon that the rents are 2x the interest payment. This is a 9.9% interest payment, not 4%. You would have to think there would be an interested buyer at some level. It is almost like with the investment side and the trust deed side, it is hard to imagine a real worst case. Craig had talked to a gentleman earlier who talked about how the only real issue is it would go from passive to a little less passive if you ever had a situation you had to deal with, but not something where you have a major loss of funds or would not have 2 or 3 solutions.

Back in 2007 and 2008 was not normal, it was really a Great Depression for real estate. It was hard to not get damaged somewhat in that, but for the ten years prior there are so many solutions, including the client base that deals with the inventory. When The Norris Group has one client that might have an individual problem, it seems to be easily resolved by multiple sources. Since a lot of the buyers concentrate in the same areas, Craig cannot imagine that if somebody were to get a house back or if a borrower was to have a problem that he would have any trouble finding somebody who would either take over the mortgage or take a similar mortgage on a house where it cash flows by twice of what the payment is. The Norris Group has had very few problems, but when they have they have had cooperation from the borrower. It seems like most of the time they are interested in a solution that does not force them to take it into foreclosure. The cooperation The Norris Group has had has been very fantastic.

The easiest case here would be if somebody wants to do a deed in lieu of foreclosure, this makes the process very simple. There have been a couple cases where someone has allocated a sale to another investor that then put the trust deed investor back on track receiving payments. A lot of things really come with the base of the clients that they have. The Norris Group has really grown to become the company it is today, and there are not a lot of people who want to burn that bridge. It is a lot of fun when you are associated with a company that has that reputation. Both Bruce and Craig receive the calls where people tell them they have heard of The Norris Group from so many different directions and want to know what they do. This is a fun phone call for them. The calls are definitely warm if not red-hot depending on how many times they have heard of Bruce Norris and The Norris Group. It is an advantage to take those calls. What is nice is there is no other place you can go to where they are treated the same way.

The concept of loaning money out to someone seems fairly simple. You find someone with a unique situation where normal lenders would not loan on it, so you step in, put up money, and get a higher interest yield. It sounds simple except for when people try to do it themselves. This is when the failure rate is astronomical. This is why they do loans and not situations because the situations are the dangerous ones. Their focus has always been on investors buying properties, so they really focus on doing loans. The people who only lend to people who have a situation, such as someone in foreclosure, currently do not have the ability to pay, or they would be paying. Therefore, somebody steps in and thinks they are protected by the equity and if they give a certain amount, such as $30 grand, then everything will be okay. However, what happens is that $30 grand has a home probably 5 minutes after you give it to them. Now you are dealing with the only security you have, which is the property. You really cannot rely on the borrower to make you good because he really could not make payments before you met him, and now he has all the payments plus The Norris Group’s payment, and the $30 grand did not really solve the problem the way the customer thought it would. If you are protected by the property, then this is a situation where you can be tied up by the borrower with litigation; and this has never been something The Norris Group wanted to do.

The word Craig uses more than anything because it applies to how he feels as an investor is passive. Their group of investors really gets spoiled by the passive nature. When they first started, the investors at the beginning felt like the company was a big warehouse filled with loans. People were asking for loans that were, for example, $200,000 more than what they originally asked. For a long time this may have worked because they were growing as the money base was growing, but then when the market got a little more difficult, they really backed off on the number of loans they did. Unfortunately, this was when clients found out it was not a warehouse, but rather a process. The clients went elsewhere thinking the process would be the same and they were drawing the loans from the same warehouse, but unfortunately this was where a lot of people got hurt. They have had so many people who want to invest, and Craig has had to tell people they will never change their criteria, no matter how many people want to lend money through The Norris Group. It is better for them to be a little disappointed than for The Norris Group to change their process.

What people have to understand is The Norris Group spends no time on negative situations in relationship to a lot of other companies. A lot of companies have foreclosure divisions, and Bruce said he just cannot imagine the stress of this. Earlier in the year, they did have a house that went all the way through foreclosure that was 600-700 loans in the past. This is something Craig can deal with; but when you are dealing with loans from 2 or 3 years ago and you have only had one, then it makes things a little more difficult. As a business model it is very good because they are spending all of their energy on positive things, such as new programs and ways to service people better and fund deals more quickly. It really helps the Norris Group do a better job too because when everyone is making their payments on time, the base of investors who have trust deed investments feel safer to make more quick decisions saying that what they have is just like the one they had originally. Craig said he sometimes wishes he were like the Ghost of Christmas Present when dealing with the new investor and show them how a deal had worked out originally and what they could do this time. Unfortunately you can’t, so it is understandable for new people. Everybody is new at something at some point, but usually with the success and consistency of things, everybody wants to get in and they’re only frustrated by the fact that maybe The Norris Group does not have enough loans for everybody.

Sometimes we get into situations where there are multiple decision-makers, a lawyer, and there was even one incident they dealt with where it was trumped by somebody who had a bad sense about the investment, and the investment they put in has not worked out. You can go a year out and look back to see how you really liked the decision you made. This is one thing that is a hard decision for people because sometimes they just have the wrong perception because hard money for years has been tied to people lending to people in situations Craig had talked about earlier, and it is not real easy for them to separate that somebody may actually have a different process. On the surface, with interest rates are 4% and the Norris Group is loaning at 12.5%, the borrower has to be risky; and his is not. It almost does not make sense. Interestingly enough, you have two groups of people, some who think they can do better with their own money and can get a 15-20% yield, and others who are completely the opposite and are earning under a percent in a CD and when they look at a yield of 9% think the money is being taken to Vegas. Whenever somebody comes into the office, he always shows them a list of all the 9% loans they have. He shows them how they have not had to foreclose on any and only might occasionally have a couple that are 30 days late. It is real comforting to know that on any given day he can have somebody in the office he can show his computer to and not be embarrassed.

Bruce also discussed the time he had the opportunity to speak in front of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac about the safety of loaning to investors. At that time we had a pool of $15 million loans with absolutely no late payments, and he said you could see the look of shock on their faces that there could be a 9.9% interest rate and no late payments. It was so out of the box of their thinking because they were looking at the investor as the risky borrower as opposed to the owner-occupant, and The Norris Group has found just the opposite to be true. This is why they have always pushed the envelope on the yield vs. risk side. They have never been the highest in yield to an investor, but they have always been by far the less risky. Sometimes people ask Craig if he could lend a little less or try to custom-fit the program, and Craig always responds that what they have to realize is this is a very given and take situation because if we want to continue to have the absolute best clients, we have to be on the cutting edge. It has to make sense for both sides, but The Norris Group cannot make it to where it absolutely does not make sense because what happens is instead of getting the A quality borrowers that they are filled with, they have to start fighting for lower than this. They always have to keep the clients they have because this is what makes them successful.

The type of people who always want to chase the higher yield is interesting because Bruce has had the same conversation with them where you finally figure out that they are in fact getting a higher yield and are foreclosing on 50% of their properties while they have 20% of their money active. The active part is really the key because Craig has had conversations with people year by year, and they just cannot pull the trigger. One instance might be the 9% program because it is an 8 year program. They think they are going to be looking at a higher interest rate and more nervous about committing their money. They will call Craig a year later, and he will finally tell them that for two years they have not been getting any yield, so going forward it would really have to obtain a yield. You really can’t take riskier investments or wait for some kind of better yield, especially someone who has wealth already. Sometimes it may not be a good fit for somebody that has to create wealth.

Craig was having dinner with a client recently who had been with them a long time, and she had somebody she knew who came up to Craig and asked him how they could make $1 million. He said he could not tell her how to do it, but if you try to do it you might lose $1 million. Sometimes not everybody is a fit for everybody, so they have really found a nice niche for people who have some wealth and want to consistently build it with very low risk. With the price points we are at right now, we are making loans based on 1990’s prices. Common sense tells all of us that that was before it even went up this last time. If we feel that 1995 was a realistic value, these loans are being made at 60-65% of 1995 prices. All that tells us is historically we would not know what would have to happen for this to make sense and it also does in a second way because the rents are already covering the payment by double. It is one of those situations where the smart money is actually on both sides of the table because the investor, or the person buying the property, is a skillful investor buying something below market by today’s value. However, if you look at the whole picture the investor is buying it with a starting point of half of what it was worth four years ago, and he is receiving a discount and a cash flow. He is making money monthly and buying something below replacement cost where the history says we will probably accelerate in the future. He cannot borrow money through standard lenders because they are not interested in that loan. On the other side, he has the choice of receiving a ten year t-bill that is at 1.9% today, the stock market that goes down or up 300 points every other day based on what happens in Greece, or a 9% trust deed. ]

The Norris Group has some very large commitments from people, who have money managers and overseers, and from talking to these people one year apart Bruce has seen that they are astonished that their yield had performed perfectly. They were warning their client that there is no way that the yield could be so riskless, and then it turned out to be so. The best and most satisfying thing about what The Norris Group does is what they see happen in the long-term. Before going to The Norris Group, Craig was working with a friend and was funding deals with hers and her father’s funds. She told him a story about how she went to her account year after year for 6-8 years in a row. Craig told her he did not know what her investment was but she needed to get out of it because it was too risky. Meanwhile, with her father’s insistence she has also diversified into some stocks, which had netted a 0 yield over the last 18 years. However, by the ninth or tenth year she was told to keep doing what she was doing. It was very rewarding. The Norris Group has a process in place that is second-to-none in picking clients that are worthy of borrowing money.

Bruce and Craig talked about the process and why it was different from other people. The main thing you have to do is rule out people to make sure they are qualified when you get a call from a borrower. The first thing you do is try to establish right away whether or not it is a situation. If it is a situation, then you have to rule that out. Secondly, you always try to find out if it is owner occupied. Most hard money companies will not do owner-occupied loans any longer, so you also look at this. You also have to get an idea and see if they have any experience. The Norris Group really relies heavily on liquid cash because one thing they have found in the business is you really need to have liquid cash because you cannot have a situation where a $10,000 or $20,000 problem throws your whole world upside down. This is probably the most frustrating thing when somebody calls in to borrow, they might have $800 credit but only $10,000 in the bank. You can usually tell by their credit report and what they state their income is to see that it would not take much to flip the whole thing over. This is compared with someone who is a business person who went through a situation 4-5 years ago where he had a bankruptcy and so his credit is not as good. However, he currently has about $200,000 in the bank to back him up. People with better credit don’t like to hear this, but in our world this is a safer bet.

When we make loans, we are actually using common sense and asking ourselves what are the odds that we are going to be paid monthly and get paid back. We are really not guided by any 1,2,3,4 rules. The bottom line is if it really makes sense and it is a good loan, then it can be done. Bruce said that Craig also has kind of a sixth sense in that there are times when he has come to Bruce showing him something that looked good on paper, but he knew there was something about it that he felt uncomfortable with, and he was right. This was probably one of the things that he has always appreciated from the very start, whether it was from a trust deed investor or a borrower. There will be times when he will come to Bruce, and he can just feel that there is something not right. Craig has learned that he if gets that feeling to try to catch somebody in a little bit of a situation where he can tell they are not being up front with him.

Tune in next week for the second part of Bruce’s interview with Craig Hill on The Norris Group Radio Show.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

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

Friday, December 2nd, 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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 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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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 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.

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 for many years.

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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 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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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 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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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

I Survived Real Estate 2011


(Full Bio)

 streamitunesdownloadrss

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 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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Radio | No Comments »

« Older Entries