[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

Does this mean its the end of price drops as of now?

A couple things to keep in mind.

1) The areas that have been hit the hardest with dropping home prices have been the less expensive areas. Places where 20% down and a conformimg loan at $417k would get you a house. So, for these areas, the increase is not going to matter one iota.

2) This will make it so that some areas will now be “purchasable” with a conforming loans. For these areas that might indeed be a slight boost helping to hold up prices a bit. But only a bit. To qualify for a conforming loan you need to document income, have a down payment, etc.

3) Because interest rates are down, this might make it so that some small percentage of people who need to refi out of their adjustable will manage to do so. That will mean fewer foreclosures. Which of course means home prices not falling so fast.

4) The biggest impact will probably be psychological. This will give plenty of realtors ammunition to tell sellers to NOT lower their prices. That as soon as these loans are available, the buyers will come back and the market will pick up. Sellers will want to believe this, and will suddenly have a ray of hope to grab onto. I expect this to make sellers all the less likely to cut deals in the next month or two.

When you put all this together, I think what will happen is that this will slow the falling. Maybe hardly at all, maybe significantly. However, the problems that caused SoCal housing to start collapsing are still there and no government plan is going to take that away. It’s just a matter of how fast it falls.

And oh yeah… Right now the mood in punditland is that things aren’t so bad. Why we were just all overreacting, and that nasty down we just had in the world markets was caused by a rogue trader. But I have my doubts that all the Dorothy’s can keep us on this yellow brick road by clicking their heels so smartly. But then again, I’m sorta like Rich. I see the glass as empty and broken, not half full or half empty…

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

I can’t find the reference to raising the conforming limits in the above article either. Does look like it got removed. However searching news with google for conforming does get many hits, including this one:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/01/24/afx4570780.html

Which includes this bit of info:

House Financial Service Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he expects the measure would increase the value of mortgages that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy.

Specifically, Frank said Fannie and Freddie would be able to buy mortgages worth up to 125 pct of the median value of a home in any given region, up to a new limit of 730,000 usd. The current limit on so-called conforming loans is 417,000 usd.

The Bush administration has said previously that it opposes this expansion unless it comes with a strengthening of the federal regulator of Fannie and Freddie. However, Frank said he hopes it can still be included based on two assurances from Congress.

So it looks like Frank said that he’s hoping for this. Hopefully it won’t go through.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Doesn’t an agent representing both buyer and seller have legal responsibilities to both? I seem to recall being told by a realtor that if an agent represents both the buyer and the seller that they do have legal responsibilities to both. Can someone who is knowledgeable on this point respond clarifying what if any legal responsibilities an agent has if there is only one agent in the mix. (Note that I’m asking about legal responsibilities, not about what might motivate the agent or where the agent might feel their loyalties should lie.)

What if you agree to have someone as your buyer’s agent, and then they show you a house that is also a listing of theirs? Does that change anything?

Thanks

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Schizo, could you hold this knife for me for just a sec….

[XBoxBoy]

Schizo, could you hold this knife for me for just a sec….

[Author]

Posts