Jump to content






Photo

Folsom Housing Prices Continue To Sink?


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#16 caligirlz

caligirlz

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 3,163 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 10 May 2011 - 10:53 PM

This just in - Sacramento-area home prices continue their slide-- posted in Sac Bee 5/10/11
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/10/3616338/sacramento-area-home-prices-continue.html#storylink=omni_popular

For the eighth straight month home prices dropped when compared to the same month a year prior. The March 2011 median sale price was down 7.5 percent nationwide in March when compared to March 2010. The drop was even more pronounced in the four-county region of Sacramento, Yolo, El Dorado and Placer counties where the median in March was down 10.42 percent year over year.

The CoreLogic data came out just after the Sacramento Association of Realtors released their figures for April sales in Sacramento County and the City of West Sacramento. Similarly those figures showed a local market still seeking the bottom.



#17 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:44 AM

Every month your partner, Forth Hoyt, puts out a Housing Inventory Snapshot of all the counties around the Sacto region.
Is it possible to breakdown this info into cities that we are interested in, like Folsom?

I do publish local Folsom numbers here in the Real Estate section each month. It is easy for me to break them down and slice them up, but I have to be careful not to bombard the forum with too much data, too many posts about one subject, or I'll just look like a spammer.

I'll publish the latest soon.

Its probably best to stop looking at your house's value, unless like Old Soldier says you are in a postion that you might have to sell. As long as you like your house and can afford to live there, don't worry about the rise and fall of its value. Granted keep your eye on extremes either way as you may want to make an informed business decison at some point.


I agree. My house isn't worth nearly what it was 5 years ago, but I don't plan on moving any time soon, so I'll stick it out. I can paraphrase many buyers with this statement, 'I have to pay to live somewhere, and though I don't know if we're at or near the bottom, this is a good deal and I'm getting a low interest rate, so the payment will be close to what I pay for rent now, but I'll own the place and get tax benefits, too. I'm planning on being here long-term, so this is a house I can live and grow with.'


#3, Try to get more involved in the community in some manner. An active comunity of giving residents will show community pride and others from outside the community will want to move here, keeping demand higher for real estate in that community.


Yes, getting involved in your community is very important. It improves quality of life, enhances community services, makes the town safer and a more enjoyable place to live.

Everyone knows that home "values" were overestimated during the bubble. Very few people are going to be willing to pay bubble prices now, most can't afford it. Interestingly, those with good incomes (engineers, nurses, physicians), at least per a local realtor, are going in on the 3% FHA loans, STILL, currently. What does that tell you?

The reality is that the government is still contracting & services are being cut. Folsom isn't some little isolated island that won't be affected. We all know that. I have my own theories why Folsom has held up longer than the other communities, and they are not along these lines you are proposing. I'm not writing it all out here, but I'd be willing to tell you about it sometime if you want to know.

Values are always very subjective. Dictionary.com calls it 'relative, worth, merit or importance. When an appraiser estimates 'value' he/she is giving an opinion of what someone is likely to pay for a property, based on comparable sales.

The fact that people with money are still trying to get in with the least amount down (FHA) tells us that many people still want to keep cash in the bank, just as they did when prices were much higher. Back then they were using 100% financing, even the wealthy. Today, they can buy with an FHA loan and pay mortgage insurance and still pay less for the property than they would have 5 or 6 years ago.

We do still find the occasional buyer who wants to pay the 20% down and avoid mortgage insurance and get an even smaller payment.

Folsom may not be an isolated place, but we have so much more to offer than many of the surrounding communities, and that's why our prices tend to be higher, even with the slide.

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 


#18 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:55 AM

hey Robert,
You know it's about economics, right? maybe?

With perhaps the exception of #1, I really don't understand how doing the things you mentioned above will hold up home values.

I mean, you all complain about the city council members all the time. It sounds to me that "talking" to one (based on forum discussions) isn't going to make any difference, unless they are paid off....so what good will it do, really?

The reality is that the government is still contracting & services are being cut. Folsom isn't some little isolated island that won't be affected.

Its the City Council who set the policies that affect the quality of life issues for its residents. People can't stick their head in the sand and ignore the effects of the amount of debt the City has, the underfunded legacy costs for employees and the effects of adding another 20,000 homes S50, without realizing how these forces are going to contribute to eroding home values going forward.

Its already happening, but some are in denial about this.

A couple I know who used to live in Folsom foresaw these dynamics sold their home 3 years ago, rented for a while and bought a slightly larger home for cash for significantly less in Citrus Heights. The home they sold was foreclosed upon and was sitting empty. This vacant home is creating downward pressures on prices here in Folsom. This couple could afford to live here, but chose to move because of the direction the City was moving. I see them occasionally on the Bike trail as they can access the same trail we can from their house.

More recently, a younger couple also decided to buy in Citrus Heights, despite being able to afford to buy in Folsom. Their Agent gave them some handouts about the Finances of Local city Governments. They were savy enough to realize that buying into a city with so much debt could be problematic down the road and to avoid this risk. More and more sophistacted buyers are investigating different aspects before buying.

I know some others who are struggling to maintain their homes. They both are realizing going forward that values will probably continue to go down and they will be even further upside down. They know the City will have to start increasing fees for services. When that happens they won't be able to keep their homes, so they are addressing the enevitable now, by walking away and moving to other cities. This will create additional downward pressures on home prices

Cities that have less debt and have a better handle on legacy costs for their employees will be in a better position to continue to provide services to its citizens without making drastic cuts or increasing fees. Cities that are able to maintain services to its citizens will probably see less erosion of property values compared to cities that are significantly reducing services.

This is why I feel its important to have a conversation with city council members about your concerns. The more informed and educated residents who do this, the greater chance that maybe the council might change some policies.

#19 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 11:05 AM

did I hear correctly that there is a meeting coming up about how the city will use funds raised through bonds sthey sold recently? I heard the areas on their radar screen are finishing the railroad plaza improvements, revitalizing the central business district or/and building an improved rodeo facility. has anyone heard about this?
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#20 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 May 2011 - 01:30 PM

did I hear correctly that there is a meeting coming up about how the city will use funds raised through bonds sthey sold recently? I heard the areas on their radar screen are finishing the railroad plaza improvements, revitalizing the central business district or/and building an improved rodeo facility. has anyone heard about this?


I don't know about a meeting coming up, but they sold the bonds because they were afraid Gov. Jerry Brown was going to take away the redevelopment funds and they wanted to finish the railroad plaza and whatever didn't get done with the $11 million it cost to renovate Sutter Street.

I believe the next area to be looked at will be the Central District and maybe the Dan Russell Arena (We're not supposed to call it a rodeo facility anymore, remember?). I'm not sure if redevelopment funds will have anything to do with the big affordable housing project that is going in near Parkshore.

If anybody knows more, please enlighten us. I am the first to admit I don't always understand city business undertakings.

As far as the housing prices, the foreclosures and short sales are definitely affecting home values; but, like others here have been saying, if you don't have to sell & move it's probably best to just hang on.

#21 4thgenFolsomite

4thgenFolsomite

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,979 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 01:42 PM

I believe the next area to be looked at will be the Central District and maybe the Dan Russell Arena (We're not supposed to call it a rodeo facility anymore, remember?). I'm not sure if redevelopment funds will have anything to do with the big affordable housing project that is going in near Parkshore.

[/quote]

Wow, where have I been? What is the affordable housing project near Parkshore??
Knowing the past helps deciphering the future.

#22 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 May 2011 - 02:51 PM

Wow, where have I been? What is the affordable housing project near Parkshore??


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/02/11/lewis-group-buys-34-acres-in-folsom.html

I posted the map and how many units a while ago, but I don't remember which thread it was on.

Found it. Some interesting things are posed on page 3.

http://www.folsom.ca.us/agendas/MG119063/AS119073/AI120225/DO120282/DO_120282.pdf

#23 Robert Giacometti

Robert Giacometti

    There are no Dumb questions

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:01 PM

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/2011/02/11/lewis-group-buys-34-acres-in-folsom.html



Some interesting things are posed on page 3.

http://www.folsom.ca.us/agendas/MG119063/AS119073/AI120225/DO120282/DO_120282.pdf


Are you refering to staff's comments pointing out residential development doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost to provide services for that area?

Lets put our thinking caps on here...If residential development doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required, then why in world are we going further into debt for the infrastructure to develop S50, if its going to cost more to provide services there than the city gets in revenue?

Anybody willing to venture a prediction on what is going to happen with our real estate values once this happens?

Maybe some should have that conversation with our city Council members?

#24 caligirlz

caligirlz

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 3,163 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:08 PM

Its the City Council who set the policies that affect the quality of life issues for its residents. People can't stick their head in the sand and ignore the effects of the amount of debt the City has, the underfunded legacy costs for employees and the effects of adding another 20,000 homes S50, without realizing how these forces are going to contribute to eroding home values going forward.

Its already happening, but some are in denial about this.

A couple I know who used to live in Folsom foresaw these dynamics sold their home 3 years ago, rented for a while and bought a slightly larger home for cash for significantly less in Citrus Heights. The home they sold was foreclosed upon and was sitting empty. This vacant home is creating downward pressures on prices here in Folsom. This couple could afford to live here, but chose to move because of the direction the City was moving. I see them occasionally on the Bike trail as they can access the same trail we can from their house.

More recently, a younger couple also decided to buy in Citrus Heights, despite being able to afford to buy in Folsom. Their Agent gave them some handouts about the Finances of Local city Governments. They were savy enough to realize that buying into a city with so much debt could be problematic down the road and to avoid this risk. More and more sophistacted buyers are investigating different aspects before buying.

I know some others who are struggling to maintain their homes. They both are realizing going forward that values will probably continue to go down and they will be even further upside down. They know the City will have to start increasing fees for services. When that happens they won't be able to keep their homes, so they are addressing the enevitable now, by walking away and moving to other cities. This will create additional downward pressures on home prices

Cities that have less debt and have a better handle on legacy costs for their employees will be in a better position to continue to provide services to its citizens without making drastic cuts or increasing fees. Cities that are able to maintain services to its citizens will probably see less erosion of property values compared to cities that are significantly reducing services.

This is why I feel its important to have a conversation with city council members about your concerns. The more informed and educated residents who do this, the greater chance that maybe the council might change some policies.


This sounds more like you ;)

It's really hard to believe that Citrus Heights is more fiscally sound than Folsom. I wonder where the desirable CH neighborhoods are, because most of it seems pretty run down to me. Some 'hoods are downright scary.

I had a conversation tonight with a Folsomite who told me that Folsom is one of the most financially stable cities in the area. He then proceeded to tell me all the reasons that isolates Folsom from the economic woes that every city is experiencing.

#25 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:09 PM

Are you refering to staff's comments pointing out residential development doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost to provide services for that area?

I was. The other part of it is what happens if that land stays zoned as is and office/industrial goes in?
I'm thinking more jobs, more tax base. Isn't that what we should be focusing on?


Lets put our thinking caps on here...If residential development doesn't generate enough revenue to pay for the services required, then why in world are we going further into debt for the infrastructure to develop S50, if its going to cost more to provide services there than the city gets in revenue?

Anybody willing to venture a prediction on what is going to happen with our real estate values once this happens?

Maybe some should have that conversation with our city Council members?



#26 caligirlz

caligirlz

    Living Legend

  • Moderator
  • 3,163 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 11 May 2011 - 10:35 PM

I do publish local Folsom numbers here in the Real Estate section each month. It is easy for me to break them down and slice them up, but I have to be careful not to bombard the forum with too much data, too many posts about one subject, or I'll just look like a spammer.

I'll publish the latest soon.

Great! do you always post the Folsom numbers under a certain title or location, to make searching easier?

The fact that people with money are still trying to get in with the least amount down (FHA) tells us that many people still want to keep cash in the bank, just as they did when prices were much higher. Back then they were using 100% financing, even the wealthy. Today, they can buy with an FHA loan and pay mortgage insurance and still pay less for the property than they would have 5 or 6 years ago.

We do still find the occasional buyer who wants to pay the 20% down and avoid mortgage insurance and get an even smaller payment.


Do these people think they are going to make more money on their investment (higher interest) if they keep the money in the bank? The last time I looked the highest interest on a long term (5 year) CD was around 2%. It seems that it would be less expensive in the long run to pay more money down & have a smaller payment.

The other scenario that this suggests (putting only 3% down) is those who "have little skin in the game" making it much easier to walk, if needed. I think it perpetuates the current housing situation.

IMO, I think a higher downpayment, say minimum of 10% should be required.


Folsom may not be an isolated place, but we have so much more to offer than many of the surrounding communities, and that's why our prices tend to be higher, even with the slide.

Ok, I'm going to play the devil's advocate :DEVILMAN: what is it, specifically, that we have so much more of ?? Thanks!! :P



#27 (The Dude)

(The Dude)
  • Visitors

Posted 12 May 2011 - 05:49 AM

Federal Retreat on Bigger Loans Rattles Housing

MONTEREY, Calif. — By summer’s end, buyers and sellers in some of the country’s most upscale housing markets are slated to lose one their biggest benefactors: the deep pockets of the federal government. In this seaside community of pricey homes, the dread of yet another housing shock is already spreading.

“We’re looking at more price drops, more foreclosures,” said Rick Del Pozzo, a loan broker. “This snowball that’s been rolling downhill is going to pick up some speed.”

For the last three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods in high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans. With the economy in free fall, Congress broadened its traditionally generous support of housing to a substantial degree.

But now Democrats and Republicans agree that the taxpayer should no longer be responsible for homes valued well above the national average, and are about to turn a top slice of the housing market into a testing ground for whether the private mortgage market can once again go it alone. The result, analysts say, will be higher-cost loans and fewer potential buyers for more expensive homes.

Michael S. Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities. “There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,” said Mr. Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. “But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.”

As the housing market braces for more trouble, homeowners everywhere have been reduced to hoping things will someday stop getting worse. In some areas, foreclosures are the only thing selling. New home construction is nearly nonexistent. And CoreLogic, a data company, said Tuesday that house prices fell 7.5 percent over the last year.

The federal government last year backed nine out of 10 new mortgages nationwide, and losses from soured loans are still mounting. Fannie Mae, which buys mortgages from lenders and packages them for investors, said last week it needed an additional $6.2 billion in aid, bringing the cost of its rescue to nearly $100 billion.

Getting the government out of the mortgage business, however, is proving much more difficult than doling out new benefits. As regulators prepare to drop the level at which they will guarantee loans — here in Monterey County, the level will drop by a third to $483,000 — buyers and sellers are wondering why they should be punished simply for living in an expensive region.

Sellers worry that the pool of potential buyers will shrink. “I’m glad to see they’re trying to rein in Fannie Mae, but I think I’m being disproportionately penalized,” said Rayn Random, who is trying to sell her house in the hills for $849,000 so she can move to Florida.

Buyers might face less competition in the fall but are likely to see more demands from lenders, including higher credit scores and larger down payments. Steve McNally, a hotel manager from Vancouver, said he had only about 20 percent to put down on a new home in Monterey County.

If a bigger deposit were required, Mr. McNally said, “I’d wait and rent.”

Even those who bought ahead of the changes, scheduled to take effect Sept. 30, worry about the effect on values. Greg Peterson recently purchased a house in Monterey for $700,000. “That doesn’t get you a palace,” said Mr. Peterson, a flight attendant.

He qualified for government insurance, which meant he needed only a small down payment. If that option is not available in the future, he said, “home prices all around me will plummet.”

The National Association of Realtors, 8,000 of whom have gathered in Washington this week for their midyear legislative meeting, is making an extension of the loan guarantees a top lobbying priority.

“Reducing the limits will put more downward pressure on prices,” said the N.A.R. president, Ron Phipps. “I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense.” But he said that in contrast to last year, when a one-year extension of the higher limits sailed through Congress, “there’s more resistance.”

Federal regulators acknowledge that mortgages will get more expensive in upscale neighborhoods but say the effect of the smaller guarantees on the overall housing market will be muted.

A Federal Housing Administration spokeswoman declined to comment but pointed to the Obama administration’s position paper on reforming the housing market. “Larger loans for more expensive homes will once again be funded only through the private market,” it declares.

Brokers and agents here in Monterey said terms were much tougher for nonguaranteed loans since lenders were so wary. Borrowers are required to come up with down payments of 30 percent or more while showing greater assets, higher credit ratings and lower debt-to-income ratios.

In the Federal Reserve’s quarterly survey of lenders, released last week, only two of the 53 banks said their credit standards for prime residential mortgages had eased. Another two said they had tightened. The other 49 said their standards were the same — tough.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has opposed letting the limits drop, although a spokesman said its members were studying the issue.

“I don’t want to sugarcoat this,” said Mr. Barr, the former Treasury official. “The housing finance system of the future will be one in which borrowers pay more.”

The loan limits were $417,000 everywhere in the country before the economy swooned in 2008. The new limits will be determined by various formulas, including the median price in the county, but will not fall back to their precrisis levels. In many affected counties, the loan limit will fall about 15 percent, to $625,500.

Monterey County, however, will see a much greater drop. The county is really two housing markets: the farming city of Salinas and the more affluent Monterey and Carmel.

Real estate records show that 462 loans were made in Monterey County between the current limit and the new ceiling since the beginning of 2009, according to the research firm DataQuick. That was only about 1 percent of the loans made in the county. But it was a much higher percentage for Monterey and Carmel — about a quarter of their sales.

Heidi Daunt, with Treehouse Mortgage, said loans too large for a government guarantee currently carried interest rates of at least 6 percent, more than a point higher than government-backed loans.

“That can definitely blow a lot of people out of the water,” Ms. Daunt said.

#28 (The Dude)

(The Dude)
  • Visitors

Posted 12 May 2011 - 05:52 AM

Anybody willing to venture a prediction on what is going to happen with our real estate values once this happens?

Maybe some should have that conversation with our city Council members?


I keep saying if they build S50 we are screwed! Our houses will be worth less then 200k

Have a conversation with our city council members?? :laughcry: :rolleyes: :lol: :lmaosmiley:
That's funny! As if any of those pompous asses would EVER listen to a citizen! Steve Miklos would rather have you run over then have a civil 5 minute conversation with you.

#29 Redone

Redone

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,865 posts

Posted 12 May 2011 - 06:14 AM

This will have little to no negative effect when taken with the Original Post.
SAC County is expected to go from $ 580,000 to $ 474,950 so effectively you can buy the same house, with the same loan as you could 2 years ago.

Also, in the arena above these limits the 30 fixed is not competitive but the 5/1 and 7/1 are favored.

Federal Retreat on Bigger Loans Rattles Housing

MONTEREY, Calif. — By summer’s end, buyers and sellers in some of the country’s most upscale housing markets are slated to lose one their biggest benefactors: the deep pockets of the federal government. In this seaside community of pricey homes, the dread of yet another housing shock is already spreading.

“We’re looking at more price drops, more foreclosures,” said Rick Del Pozzo, a loan broker. “This snowball that’s been rolling downhill is going to pick up some speed.”

For the last three years, federal agencies have backed new mortgages as large as $729,750 in desirable neighborhoods in high-cost states like California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Without the government covering the risk of default, many lenders would have refused to make the loans. With the economy in free fall, Congress broadened its traditionally generous support of housing to a substantial degree.

But now Democrats and Republicans agree that the taxpayer should no longer be responsible for homes valued well above the national average, and are about to turn a top slice of the housing market into a testing ground for whether the private mortgage market can once again go it alone. The result, analysts say, will be higher-cost loans and fewer potential buyers for more expensive homes.

Michael S. Barr, a former assistant Treasury secretary, said the federal government’s retrenchment would be painful for many communities. “There’s always going to be a line, and for the person just over it it’s always going to be an arbitrary line,” said Mr. Barr, who teaches at the University of Michigan Law School. “But there is no entitlement to living in a home that costs $750,000.”

As the housing market braces for more trouble, homeowners everywhere have been reduced to hoping things will someday stop getting worse. In some areas, foreclosures are the only thing selling. New home construction is nearly nonexistent. And CoreLogic, a data company, said Tuesday that house prices fell 7.5 percent over the last year.

The federal government last year backed nine out of 10 new mortgages nationwide, and losses from soured loans are still mounting. Fannie Mae, which buys mortgages from lenders and packages them for investors, said last week it needed an additional $6.2 billion in aid, bringing the cost of its rescue to nearly $100 billion.

Getting the government out of the mortgage business, however, is proving much more difficult than doling out new benefits. As regulators prepare to drop the level at which they will guarantee loans — here in Monterey County, the level will drop by a third to $483,000 — buyers and sellers are wondering why they should be punished simply for living in an expensive region.

Sellers worry that the pool of potential buyers will shrink. “I’m glad to see they’re trying to rein in Fannie Mae, but I think I’m being disproportionately penalized,” said Rayn Random, who is trying to sell her house in the hills for $849,000 so she can move to Florida.

Buyers might face less competition in the fall but are likely to see more demands from lenders, including higher credit scores and larger down payments. Steve McNally, a hotel manager from Vancouver, said he had only about 20 percent to put down on a new home in Monterey County.

If a bigger deposit were required, Mr. McNally said, “I’d wait and rent.”

Even those who bought ahead of the changes, scheduled to take effect Sept. 30, worry about the effect on values. Greg Peterson recently purchased a house in Monterey for $700,000. “That doesn’t get you a palace,” said Mr. Peterson, a flight attendant.

He qualified for government insurance, which meant he needed only a small down payment. If that option is not available in the future, he said, “home prices all around me will plummet.”

The National Association of Realtors, 8,000 of whom have gathered in Washington this week for their midyear legislative meeting, is making an extension of the loan guarantees a top lobbying priority.

“Reducing the limits will put more downward pressure on prices,” said the N.A.R. president, Ron Phipps. “I just don’t think it makes a lot of sense.” But he said that in contrast to last year, when a one-year extension of the higher limits sailed through Congress, “there’s more resistance.”

Federal regulators acknowledge that mortgages will get more expensive in upscale neighborhoods but say the effect of the smaller guarantees on the overall housing market will be muted.

A Federal Housing Administration spokeswoman declined to comment but pointed to the Obama administration’s position paper on reforming the housing market. “Larger loans for more expensive homes will once again be funded only through the private market,” it declares.

Brokers and agents here in Monterey said terms were much tougher for nonguaranteed loans since lenders were so wary. Borrowers are required to come up with down payments of 30 percent or more while showing greater assets, higher credit ratings and lower debt-to-income ratios.

In the Federal Reserve’s quarterly survey of lenders, released last week, only two of the 53 banks said their credit standards for prime residential mortgages had eased. Another two said they had tightened. The other 49 said their standards were the same — tough.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has opposed letting the limits drop, although a spokesman said its members were studying the issue.

“I don’t want to sugarcoat this,” said Mr. Barr, the former Treasury official. “The housing finance system of the future will be one in which borrowers pay more.”

The loan limits were $417,000 everywhere in the country before the economy swooned in 2008. The new limits will be determined by various formulas, including the median price in the county, but will not fall back to their precrisis levels. In many affected counties, the loan limit will fall about 15 percent, to $625,500.

Monterey County, however, will see a much greater drop. The county is really two housing markets: the farming city of Salinas and the more affluent Monterey and Carmel.

Real estate records show that 462 loans were made in Monterey County between the current limit and the new ceiling since the beginning of 2009, according to the research firm DataQuick. That was only about 1 percent of the loans made in the county. But it was a much higher percentage for Monterey and Carmel — about a quarter of their sales.

Heidi Daunt, with Treehouse Mortgage, said loans too large for a government guarantee currently carried interest rates of at least 6 percent, more than a point higher than government-backed loans.
MORE LIKE 5.25 % which is still historically low
“That can definitely blow a lot of people out of the water,” Ms. Daunt said.



#30 Steve Heard

Steve Heard

    Owner

  • Admin
  • 13,752 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 May 2011 - 07:50 AM

"Great! do you always post the Folsom numbers under a certain title or location, to make searching easier?"

Yes, I publish them in the Real Estate section here.

"Do these people think they are going to make more money on their investment (higher interest) if they keep the money in the bank? The last time I looked the highest interest on a long term (5 year) CD was around 2%. It seems that it would be less expensive in the long run to pay more money down & have a smaller payment."

I can't speak for them, but it seems that people are trying to preserve cash whenver they can.

"The other scenario that this suggests (putting only 3% down) is those who "have little skin in the game" making it much easier to walk, if needed. I think it perpetuates the current housing situation."

I haven't heard that from any buyers, but it has been proven that the less one has invested, they less they fight to keep it.

"Ok, I'm going to play the devil's advocate what is it, specifically, that we have so much more of ?? Thanks!!"

That's easy!

* Folsom was a gold-rush era town and is steeped in the history of the Old West, much of it which is preserved today
* Nature - Two lakes (yes, they are man-made), a river, protected oak trees and miles of trails throughout
* Trails - Speaking of trails, we have won national awards for our bike friendly trails
* Education - Award-winning school district and the fastest growing college in the country
* Hotels - This is the last city before one gets to Tahoe with hotels (there is ONE hotel in Eldo Hills), which can accomodate weary travelers and groups for business and recreation
* Safety - Folsom Police and Fire are among the best, and we get the benefit of population-based Federal funding even though some of our residents (prisoners) never use our services. We have a sense of community which enhances safety
* Entertainment and Events - Three Stages Performing Arts Center is a world class facility. We also have great events such as Folsom Live, Folsom Run with Nature, Folsom Pro Rodeo, Thursday Night Markets, Concerts in the Park, Night of 1000 pumpkins, Second Saturday, Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony, and of course, the Folsom Jazz Fest drawing High School Jazz performers from all over the country.

I could go on and on and on!

Steve Heard

Folsom Real Estate Specialist

EXP Realty

BRE#01368503

Owner - MyFolsom.com

916 718 9577 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users