All Encompassing Mortgage and Real Estate Thread

[LCHorn 2635]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

But that 10% also impacts the rest of the wage world to some extent.  When someone is evaluating union vs non-union jobs, there is no question there is a linkage, so increases in union wages ripple through the economy to non-union jobs as well. As to the impact of tariffs, 2/3 of the economy is services, 1/3 is goods.

This is getting off track from real estate, but your presumption about the down river impact of union pay might seem intuitively true to you, but I can think of at least five rebuttals, also that seem intuitively true, that would refute it.  What is it about this particular conclusion that, lacking data to support it, you find so compelling?

Here’s an easy one that’s going to be wildly deflationary compared to union pay-AI is going to make a ton of jobs pretend work over the next five years.  Employers are going to be doing reduction in force, not because they aren’t making money, but because their employees are idle.  This is going to hugely impact tech and the “new middle class” that’s come to replace industrial work.  
 

I think you’ve mentioned you have your law degree, even if you’re not really practicing-AI is already making paralegals superfluous labor and that’s just with where the technology is today.  

[Dbeasy 15162]

1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

This is getting off track from real estate, but your presumption about the down river impact of union pay might seem intuitively true to you, but I can think of at least five rebuttals, also that seem intuitively true, that would refute it.  What is it about this particular conclusion that, lacking data to support it, you find so compelling?

Here’s an easy one that’s going to be wildly deflationary compared to union pay-AI is going to make a ton of jobs pretend work over the next five years.  Employers are going to be doing reduction in force, not because they aren’t making money, but because their employees are idle.  This is going to hugely impact tech and the “new middle class” that’s come to replace industrial work.  
 

I think you’ve mentioned you have your law degree, even if you’re not really practicing-AI is already making paralegals superfluous labor and that’s just with where the technology is today.  

I'm not a lawyer.  I used to run an AI tech company until I sold it and early retired. I don't disagree with you that AI could be very deflationary. I've just been pointing out the other possible future scenario. Given that the discussion has veered back and forth across a very wide road without a lot of definition to what we are really discussing, a big part of the arguing here could be over people thinking of two different problems.  Here is my framing of the discussion:

1. Time frame - In this whole discussion, I've been thinking about a time frame of 5-10 years and no longer, with a particular emphasis on potential inflation acceleration in the next 12-36 months.

2. Why this 5-10 year time frame - because we are running huge deficits currently that will have an impact on longer term rates for the next several years. The supply of Treasuries will be higher than historically, unless you go back to WW2, where we last ran deficits as high as a percentage of GDP.  Coupled with that is a potentially increasing reluctance of other countries to buy as much Treasuries as historically. It will take 5-10 years of government action to get the debt as a percent of GDP under control. Out past 5-10 years, all bets are off because government actions, AI, and all sorts of other influences come into play.

3. What happens in this 5-10 year time frame - the government will pretty much have to let inflation run a little hot because they will need to get spending as a percentage of GDP down and WW2 is the perfect example of what the US did the last time.  Now Trump and Elon are talking about massive spending cuts and I do believe they will do something meaningful, and that will help interest rates and slow down the economy, but the spending problem is so large letting inflation run a little hot must also be part of the tool kit, in concert with spending cuts and growth initiatives.  Now letting inflation run hot means NOT hiking rates up as high, because you want to let it run a little hot. But the challenge is the risk I keep pointing to below, the 12-36 month inflation risk. By the way, running hot is letting inflation run at ~2.5-3.5%, not 5%, for example.

4. The 12-36 month risk - juggling spending cuts, the current momentum around wage increases, still relatively low unemployment, interest rates, etc. is a tough balancing act. We all learned in the 1970's and 2020's that if you cut rates too much too fast (or not raise them fast enough) that inflation can re-ignite, and then someone has to come in with draconian measures, ala 20% interest rates, to stop the inflation freight train. I put the odds on this scenario pretty low but not 0%.  Conversely, cutting rates too slowly and spending too quickly can put the economy in the ditch, which creates a whole other set of problems that might or might not fuel inflation even more due to even higher deficits. The good news here is that employment is ALWAYS the last to go when you enter a recession, so the current relatively good unemployment numbers really mean nothing.  We could be in a recession right now, for all we know, or just a soft landing growth scenario.

I do think you bring up a good point about AI. It won't suddenly produce a massive spike in unemployment. It will be a steady rise over the next 30 years in reducing resource requirements. So that definitely helps offset the potential inflation issue, and raises the odds of lower rates. I'm sure there are other factors that could slow inflation.

Again, I'll just re-iterate what I've now said at least five times. I'm not saying inflation is definitely going to take off again and rates will remain high. I'm saying that betting all your chips on a big rate drop in the near-term is a really bad bet, especially with an inverted yield curve still. In poker terms, your expected return doesn't justify an all-in bet. I personally own some 10 year bonds because I don't believe inflation will spike, but I only put a portion of fixed income into 10 year, and I'm still not much in longer term bonds. Most financial advisors today are also preaching caution on long term bonds.

 

[Wulaw Horn 19156]

Here is my confidence interval for the next 4 year presidential term. 
I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 3 (right buyer, right loan etc- not run of the mill dude)- 40%

I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 4 (right buyer, right loan etc)- 90%

I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 5 (same caveat)- 99%

I will have less than 10% of my buyers pay a handle that starts with a 7 for more than 6 months (90%)- note- we do 1 year buy down as I mentioned from the national average- so my dudes that are at 7.1 or 7.3 on a jumbo are bought down to 6.1 or 6.3 and they exit within that year or shortly thereafter. 

I think the range for the national average during this presidential term will trade between 4.3 and 7.3.

2025 I think the trading range for the national average will be 5.6-7.1. 

2026 I think it will be 4.75-6.25.

My crystal ball gets a little foggier after that.  

 

[Dbeasy 15162]

21 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Here is my confidence interval for the next 4 year presidential term. 
I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 3 (right buyer, right loan etc- not run of the mill dude)- 40%

I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 4 (right buyer, right loan etc)- 90%

I will put somebody in a rate that starts with a 5 (same caveat)- 99%

I will have less than 10% of my buyers pay a handle that starts with a 7 for more than 6 months (90%)- note- we do 1 year buy down as I mentioned from the national average- so my dudes that are at 7.1 or 7.3 on a jumbo are bought down to 6.1 or 6.3 and they exit within that year or shortly thereafter. 

I think the range for the national average during this presidential term will trade between 4.3 and 7.3.

2025 I think the trading range for the national average will be 5.6-7.1. 

2026 I think it will be 4.75-6.25.

My crystal ball gets a little foggier after that.  

 

It just dawned on me why you are so adamant about the rate direction: you have clients that need to make a decision about buying or not now. 

I don’t think your scenarios are unreasonable, but more importantly if I were a homebuyer I definitely would not sit on the sidelines today, unless the current interest rates strained the finances so badly that it made life unworkable. Why? Because if inflation does run a little hot, it’s far better to own a house than rent one. It’s one of the better inflation hedges you can have. 

[Wulaw Horn 19156]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

It just dawned on me why you are so adamant about the rate direction: you have clients that need to make a decision about buying or not now. 

I don’t think your scenarios are unreasonable, but more importantly if I were a homebuyer I definitely would not sit on the sidelines today, unless the current interest rates strained the finances so badly that it made life unworkable. Why? Because if inflation does run a little hot, it’s far better to own a house than rent one. It’s one of the better inflation hedges you can have. 

Exactly. And, you don’t need to have rates be perfect for a year or forever. You just need a trading range and dip into that area at a time you are paying attention (and I always pay attention for them). 
Best day to buy is always yesterday. Next best day is today. Once you are locked into a rate your life can only improve it can never get worse. It’s a fundamental lesson that buyers have a hard time internalizing because they are seldom making these kind of decisions.  

[UTPhil2006 3824]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Exactly. And, you don’t need to have rates be perfect for a year or forever. You just need a trading range and dip into that area at a time you are paying attention (and I always pay attention for them). 
Best day to buy is always yesterday. Next best day is today. Once you are locked into a rate your life can only improve it can never get worse. It’s a fundamental lesson that buyers have a hard time internalizing because they are seldom making these kind of decisions.  

It's the refinances where it gets tricky. 

[Dbeasy 15162]

https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/22/business/home-buying-interest-rates?amp_js_v=0.1&amp_gsa=1#webview=1&cap=swipe

nar believes rates will stay high for two years. 

Edited November 23 by Dbeasy

[Captainant 27884]

Yeah it may be the best time to buy for a while, if things happen as they have been promised to happen. Gutting the labor force for construction is not gonna help the lack of new builds

[UTPhil2006 3824]

10 year down .11 so far today. 

[horn4life 3785]

1 hour ago, UTPhil2006 said:

10 year down .11 so far today. 

That blip moved the S&P homebuilders index 5% this morning. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/sphome?countrycode=xx

Toll Bros up in a similar chart from $110 in early July to $168+ today November 25th, up over 6% today.  

As I have said before I come here almost to do research and look for contrarian thinking.  My view is that is that I am having a very difficult time seeing the levels of rate cuts that WuLaw sees.  Doesn't mean he isn't right, but I am not yet convinced I am wrong.  The excitement of investors for home stocks, clearly shows that more folks at this point are betting on and upwards trajectory for builders as an industry.   Rocket Cos up over 9% today.  All related to that downward move in the 10 year.  Those are big fucking moves in stock values, on very small hints at a change of trajectory.  Seems too good to be true to me, so I started buying UVIX this morning as a hedge against my Palantir AI gains.  I honestly want to cut my PLTR exposure down to my options but hoping this market rallies a bit more and I can shift that gain into 2025.

AGAIN - not rooting against rates falling.  As I want all you guys in the industry to make money, but I view political uncertainty as huge, and rate cuts as less certain than even I had thought.  I still think the FED nearly has to cut in December to maintain a degree of consistency in direction.  But the economic data they have prioritized of late, barely suggests that cut is needed? So are some of these stock run ups justifiable?

SO IF - you thought that builders were going to have potential issues if rate cuts do not materialize, are there any particular publicly traded builders you think are weaker than the others?

 

[UTPhil2006 3824]

I think todays movement is 2 fold - was a little too high and has been stagnant/slow upward for 10-14 days and then the other being the Bessent Treasury pick. 

[horn4life 3785]

21 minutes ago, UTPhil2006 said:

I think todays movement is 2 fold - was a little too high and has been stagnant/slow upward for 10-14 days and then the other being the Bessent Treasury pick. 

correct I forgot to mention that as well as a potential factor.  Market liked him.  Still big moves.  Unbridled optimism and animal spirits?  I am more looking to hedge after the first of the year.  I honestly think the market is going to rally going into December.  But like I heard a guy say the other day about stocks and the market.  "The trees don't grow to the sky."   If the market rolls and I do nothing I will be in great shape.  But valuations and Buffett having so much cash on the sidelines makes me nervous.  Just not nervous enough to take a huge short term cap gains hit in the last 35 days of the year.  

 

Edited Monday at 05:12 PM by horn4life

[Muny_Tex 298]

Austin condo market seems pretty bad; at least at the entry-level.  There's a lot of seemingly nice stuff in 78756 / 78757 / 78759 / 78731 for under $250k, and several perfectly decent 1/1's under $200k (thought those days were over)....nearly all of which have been steadily price-dropping for a while.  Several of the lowest-price also seem to have already tried to lease at $1350ish to no avail. 

Back of envelope appears to be about a ~25% drop in market value versus the 2021 peak.  I'm surprised there is such tepid demand for what is rapidly becoming normal-ish prices.  Even with the shitty rates that's still a pretty good proposition for anyone who plans to own/occupy for 3-5 years.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 03:49 AM by Muny_Tex

[gmr548 16617]

1 hour ago, Muny_Tex said:

Austin condo market seems pretty bad; at least at the entry-level.  There's a lot of seemingly nice stuff in 78756 / 78757 / 78759 / 78731 for under $250k, and several perfectly decent 1/1's under $200k (thought those days were over)....nearly all of which have been steadily price-dropping for a while.  Several of the lowest-price also seem to have already tried to lease at $1350ish to no avail. 

Back of envelope appears to be about a ~25% drop in market value versus the 2021 peak.  I'm surprised there is such tepid demand for what is rapidly becoming normal-ish prices.  Even with the shitty rates that's still a pretty good proposition for anyone who plans to own/occupy for 3-5 years.

 

 

The math on jumping from renting to buying in Austin is just really tough right now. Rents are down quite a bit too. You almost have to justify buying for lifestyle and/or long game reasons. Fair or not, people don't really view condos like that. When you can rent a comparable apartment for cheaper, buying a condo doesn't feel very attractive. With a house, at least you're paying more for a SFH. Also millennials/Gen Z are a lot less amenable to HOA bullshit.

However I will say I have seen a similar trend of seemingly attractive condo product lingering on the market at pretty good prices in our market (Seattle metro). Can get an entry level unit that's at least decent on both sides of the location/unit quality scale as low as the mid 300s. Wasn't really on my radar but if this trend continues into Q2 when we start looking for a more permanent arrangement that could be intriguing.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:48 AM by gmr548

[UTPhil2006 3824]

11 hours ago, Muny_Tex said:

Austin condo market seems pretty bad; at least at the entry-level.  There's a lot of seemingly nice stuff in 78756 / 78757 / 78759 / 78731 for under $250k, and several perfectly decent 1/1's under $200k (thought those days were over)....nearly all of which have been steadily price-dropping for a while.  Several of the lowest-price also seem to have already tried to lease at $1350ish to no avail. 

Back of envelope appears to be about a ~25% drop in market value versus the 2021 peak.  I'm surprised there is such tepid demand for what is rapidly becoming normal-ish prices.  Even with the shitty rates that's still a pretty good proposition for anyone who plans to own/occupy for 3-5 years.

 

 

Yeah same here in Houston for the most part.  For a younger couple/professional who doesn't want the hassle of a yard and such quite yet it's not a bad deal.  Just a matter of us seeing what the HOA is monthly, what that actually encapsulates, etc to see if it's a good fit.  But you are correct definitely some deals out there in that arena currently.

[Dbeasy 15162]

11 hours ago, Muny_Tex said:

Austin condo market seems pretty bad; at least at the entry-level.  There's a lot of seemingly nice stuff in 78756 / 78757 / 78759 / 78731 for under $250k, and several perfectly decent 1/1's under $200k (thought those days were over)....nearly all of which have been steadily price-dropping for a while.  Several of the lowest-price also seem to have already tried to lease at $1350ish to no avail. 

Back of envelope appears to be about a ~25% drop in market value versus the 2021 peak.  I'm surprised there is such tepid demand for what is rapidly becoming normal-ish prices.  Even with the shitty rates that's still a pretty good proposition for anyone who plans to own/occupy for 3-5 years.

 

 

The problem with condos is HOA fees. Insurance rates are going thru the roof, forcing major increases in hoa rates, making them financially unattractive. 

[horn4life 3785]

34 minutes ago, UTPhil2006 said:

Yeah same here in Houston for the most part.  For a younger couple/professional who doesn't want the hassle of a yard and such quite yet it's not a bad deal.  Just a matter of us seeing what the HOA is monthly, what that actually encapsulates, etc to see if it's a good fit.  But you are correct definitely some deals out there in that arena currently.

 

12 hours ago, Muny_Tex said:

Austin condo market seems pretty bad; at least at the entry-level.  There's a lot of seemingly nice stuff in 78756 / 78757 / 78759 / 78731 for under $250k, and several perfectly decent 1/1's under $200k (thought those days were over)....nearly all of which have been steadily price-dropping for a while.  Several of the lowest-price also seem to have already tried to lease at $1350ish to no avail. 

Back of envelope appears to be about a ~25% drop in market value versus the 2021 peak.  I'm surprised there is such tepid demand for what is rapidly becoming normal-ish prices.  Even with the shitty rates that's still a pretty good proposition for anyone who plans to own/occupy for 3-5 years.

 

 

Isn't the biggest problem with Condos that it's more difficult to get conventional financing?  

Might the new administration loosen the lending rules?  

[UTPhil2006 3824]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

 

Isn't the biggest problem with Condos that it's more difficult to get conventional financing?  

Might the new administration loosen the lending rules?  

It's not so much the qualifications, they still go down to low (if not 0%) % down on condo, it's just about a .375 or so hit on rate for condo, so it's slightly higher (plus higher HOA can inhibit some buyers on DTI)

[Wulaw Horn 19156]

It’s hard to pencil out as an investment when there’s a 400 HOA fee per month too. 

[Muny_Tex 298]

Good insights all around.

Continuing the thought experiment: Let's take a $190k condo in Central/West; with a $350/mo HOA.  Presuming 10% down with a 30-year fixed at ~7.0%, that puts you right around $1750/mo "all-in" including taxes, HOA, and walls-in coverage.  Meanwhile, market rent for the same exact unit is $1350/mo...so your "paid premium" to own is essentially $400/mo (or more generously $250 if you apply payment toward principal), plus another $20k cash upfront needed just to get the ball rolling.  Certainly easy to understand the lack of enthusiasm among younger buyers under those conditions.

The problem then for incumbent owners (and perhaps on some level, the market writ large), is how much price AND rate correction is still needed to swing those scales back in favor of buying from the cost/benefit perspective.  For the sample unit noted above, rough math says it will takes a $170k sale price at a 4.0% rate to get the monthly 'out-the-door' south of $1400....so another -10% price drop (nearly 40% off the peak!) plus meteoric rate improvement.....notgreatbob.gif

On related note, this is why I also think TCAD/CoA are gonna have a reckoning of their own once these "fully normalized" sale prices finally come across the desk and require across-the-board markdowns of anticipated property taxes.

 

 

 

[gmr548 16617]

8 hours ago, horn4life said:

 

Isn't the biggest problem with Condos that it's more difficult to get conventional financing?  

Might the new administration loosen the lending rules?  

It's not that much harder. You'll probably pay a rate premium, all things equal, and for conventional/FHA the HOA needs to meet some financial requirements (ones you should be looking at in your own DD anyway). I don't think that's been a back and forth with presidential administrations thing, more a GSE's managing risk thing.

 

59 minutes ago, Muny_Tex said:

Good insights all around.

Continuing the thought experiment: Let's take a $190k condo in Central/West; with a $350/mo HOA.  Presuming 10% down with a 30-year fixed at ~7.0%, that puts you right around $1750/mo "all-in" including taxes, HOA, and walls-in coverage.  Meanwhile, market rent for the same exact unit is $1350/mo...so your "paid premium" to own is essentially $400/mo (or more generously $250 if you apply payment toward principal), plus another $20k cash upfront needed just to get the ball rolling.  Certainly easy to understand the lack of enthusiasm among younger buyers under those conditions.

The problem then for incumbent owners (and perhaps on some level, the market writ large), is how much price AND rate correction is still needed to swing those scales back in favor of buying from the cost/benefit perspective.  For the sample unit noted above, rough math says it will takes a $170k sale price at a 4.0% rate to get the monthly 'out-the-door' south of $1400....so another -10% price drop (nearly 40% off the peak!) plus meteoric rate improvement.....notgreatbob.gif

On related note, this is why I also think TCAD/CoA are gonna have a reckoning of their own once these "fully normalized" sale prices finally come across the desk and require across-the-board markdowns of anticipated property taxes.

 

 

 

Don't forget easing of the rental supply wave removing downward pressure on rents. Sale prices can stay static and if rents start growing again the math looks different.

[Gil Bang 26070]

10 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

The problem with condos is HOA fees. Insurance rates are going thru the roof, forcing major increases in hoa rates, making them financially unattractive. 

And special assessments.   Since that collapse in FL, units all over the country are stepping up on maintenance, deferred and otherwise. 

10 hours ago, horn4life said:

 

Isn't the biggest problem with Condos that it's more difficult to get conventional financing?  

Might the new administration loosen the lending rules?  

CONV not so much.  VA and FHA?  The complex has to be approved.  Many entry-level buyers are VA/FHA.

[Gil Bang 26070]

Check this bullshit:  got in the truck to run an errand, and tuned into Finebaum (Hey Paaauuuuullll). 

Heard a commercial for "redy.com".  

It's a website where sellers can "list" a property that they want to sell, and agents "buy" the listing...pay the seller cash up front for the privilege of listing their home. 

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

[UTPhil2006 3824]

8 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Literally perfect gif 

[Mother mopar 3326]

10 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Check this bullshit:  got in the truck to run an errand, and tuned into Finebaum (Hey Paaauuuuullll). 

Heard a commercial for "redy.com".  

It's a website where sellers can "list" a property that they want to sell, and agents "buy" the listing...pay the seller cash up front for the privilege of listing their home. 

We back to sellers market?  I was unaware by all the stale for sale houses sitting, atleast around here. 

[horn4life 3785]

Isn't this mostly a play on the "greater negotiability" of commissions, as well as competency?  The only way I guess it would work is if as an agent you can get the owner to list for a lower price you are certain will move in the market? How many agents list too high, simply because they owner won't listen to the advice of the agent.  Then the owner complains about the listing sitting on the market?

I think the shocking thing here is the bidding and up front money aspect.  Better damn sure have a sales price that will close!  

I know in Austin on the radio that some agents guarantee the price or they will buy the house.  So the concept of a locked in sale price guarantee is not unique in the marketplace.  I wonder if the concept will survive or not?  If I was a very successful agent, might it "be worth it" to pay for listings if you were very confident in your ability to sell the house at the listing price?  You would eliminate wasting time with sellers who insist on pricing too high?  Only successful agents with high liquidity, could use this sort of strategy.  But is there any argument to be made, that waking up every morning to a slew of potential listings? To listings you can price correctly, or move on from?  

Anyhow interesting concept that is way outside the norm.  But as an eternal contrarian, you often don't know what will or will not work until it hits the marketplace?

Of course Zillow thought they could become house flippers...  Using a lot of the same (I know I can sell it at X logic) thinking I listed as a possibility for the agent bidding site.  

[jimmyjazz 46352]

24 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I know in Austin on the radio that some agents guarantee the price or they will buy the house.

I sold a house through one of those Realtors.  The "guaranteed price" was such a lowball number that it was a non-starter.  I just chose them because they moved a lot of houses.  Probably wasn't my best home-selling experience.

[UTPhil2006 3824]

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I sold a house through one of those Realtors.  The "guaranteed price" was such a lowball number that it was a non-starter.  I just chose them because they moved a lot of houses.  Probably wasn't my best home-selling experience.

Chris Watters? Yeah he and their whole operation is awful 

[jimmyjazz 46352]

12 minutes ago, UTPhil2006 said:

Chris Watters? Yeah he and their whole operation is awful 

Yup.  Not my best decision.

[UTPhil2006 3824]

On 11/25/2024 at 9:19 AM, UTPhil2006 said:

10 year down .11 so far today. 

Another nice little .06 down today 

[StassneyHorn 6674]

Does something like a restaurant receiving a Michelin star rating have any possible effect on a home value? Or only if it attracts more restaurants to the area? Just saw Leroy and Lewis picked one up. Between Moreno's BBQ, Tuk Tuk Thai, Conan's South and L&L there's a pretty good growing list of spots along with the Mexican staples down there 

[LCHorn 2635]

3 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Does something like a restaurant receiving a Michelin star rating have any possible effect on a home value? Or only if it attracts more restaurants to the area? Just saw Leroy and Lewis picked one up. Between Moreno's BBQ, Tuk Tuk Thai, Conan's South and L&L there's a pretty good growing list of spots along with the Mexican staples down there 

Good luck trying to tease that out of the data.  It’s probably more measurable in a place like Lexington, which is really only memorable because of Snow’s.  

[Gil Bang 26070]

Dear members,

 

I am following up on my note from yesterday on the final approval of the settlement agreement in the Sitzer/Burnett case. As promised, I am sharing the formal written order from the Court, which you can read here.

 

One point I would like to call attention to is the Department of Justice’s role in our settlement approval process. As I have said throughout my term as President, we have always sought to find common ground with the DOJ on topics that define how we do business and support the dream of homeownership in America. Both our leadership team and members have had numerous meetings and extensive dialogue with DOJ over the past year.

 

How does the DOJ respond to our good faith engagement? By filing a last-minute objection less than 48 hours before our settlement approval hearing, raising a misguided concern about written buyer agreements, and attempting to disrupt our settlement at the eleventh hour. In the filing, the DOJ does not seem to be concerned about the use of written buyer agreements, as many states require these agreements as a matter of law. Rather, the DOJ takes issue with the practice change that requires the use of written buyer agreements as a part of the settlement. But the filing was vague and unclear so their exact intentions are unknown. Regardless, we fully disagree with the DOJ’s position and stand behind written buyer agreements as a tool to create transparency and empower consumer choice in residential real estate transactions. 

 

Additionally, as expected, the DOJ included its position on offers of compensation—it wants a total decoupling of compensation between buyer and seller brokers. Offers of compensation are explicitly or implicitly allowed by law in most, if not all states. We continue to believe that offers of compensation are critical to help make professional representation more accessible, decrease costs for home buyers to secure these services, and increase fair housing opportunities and the potential buyer pool for sellers. That’s why NAR fought to explicitly preserve offers of compensation in the settlement agreement.

 

This tactic by the DOJ was deeply disrespectful of our members, the court, and the entire approval process. DOJ has had months since we first announced our settlement to make their opinions known, and this late filing shows that DOJ has nothing meaningful to say about it.

 

After considering the DOJ’s point of view, along with those of other objectors to our settlement, Judge Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ultimately granted final approval.

 

I say this to underscore the fact that while we remain open to dialogue and common ground, NAR will always fight for the interests of our members across the country. Our focus as REALTORS® should be to continue working with our clients to navigate the new industry landscape – this means continuing to follow the practice changes in good faith and keeping in mind the dos and don’ts of working with buyers and sellers. This is how we will demonstrate our value to clients each and every day.

 

Thank you again for your membership and support, and I wish you and your families a happy Thanksgiving.

 

Sincerely,

 

Kevin Sears

President

National Association of REALTORS® 

[UTPhil2006 3824]

On 11/27/2024 at 11:01 AM, UTPhil2006 said:

Another nice little .06 down today 

Another .066 down today to finish off a very good Turkey week. Down to 6 week lows. 

[bluto 4945]

4 hours ago, UTPhil2006 said:

Another .066 down today to finish off a very good Turkey week. Down to 6 week lows. 

What’s that meaning for prime rate on 30 yr, non jumbo. 

[Wulaw Horn 19156]

4 minutes ago, bluto said:

What’s that meaning for prime rate on 30 yr, non jumbo. 

National average 6.88% today. You can do better of course, that’s the average. 

[Dbeasy 15162]

On 11/27/2024 at 8:41 AM, horn4life said:

Isn't this mostly a play on the "greater negotiability" of commissions, as well as competency?  The only way I guess it would work is if as an agent you can get the owner to list for a lower price you are certain will move in the market? How many agents list too high, simply because they owner won't listen to the advice of the agent.  Then the owner complains about the listing sitting on the market?

I think the shocking thing here is the bidding and up front money aspect.  Better damn sure have a sales price that will close!  

I know in Austin on the radio that some agents guarantee the price or they will buy the house.  So the concept of a locked in sale price guarantee is not unique in the marketplace.  I wonder if the concept will survive or not?  If I was a very successful agent, might it "be worth it" to pay for listings if you were very confident in your ability to sell the house at the listing price?  You would eliminate wasting time with sellers who insist on pricing too high?  Only successful agents with high liquidity, could use this sort of strategy.  But is there any argument to be made, that waking up every morning to a slew of potential listings? To listings you can price correctly, or move on from?  

Anyhow interesting concept that is way outside the norm.  But as an eternal contrarian, you often don't know what will or will not work until it hits the marketplace?

Of course Zillow thought they could become house flippers...  Using a lot of the same (I know I can sell it at X logic) thinking I listed as a possibility for the agent bidding site.  

Listing houses this year was tough because dumb agents with poor math skills weren’t able to analyze recent comps properly so they were listing properties too high (or low in a few cases).

In addition, owners had seen houses down the street a year or two earlier sell for high prices. As a result, a lot of stuff was listed too high and sat. 

With my sellers, I carefully walked them thru the math of appropriate comps and recommended listing prices below nearby properties. But to make sure they weren’t selling below market, I monitored the market in their area for 9 months after they sold to verify my analysis. In every case, nearby properties either didn’t sell, or dropped their prices 10%+ BELOW what we sold for. 

I can’t emphasize enough how critical it is that you hire an analytical strong math oriented agent. A good analysis is hard to do, and most agents have personality but limited analytical skills. That’s a painful financial combination.   

 

[UTPhil2006 3824]

46 minutes ago, bluto said:

What’s that meaning for prime rate on 30 yr, non jumbo. 

Quoted a 6.375 earlier for a girl with 25% down and great credit so in that arena 

[horn4life 3785]

16 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

...

With my sellers, I carefully walked them thru the math of appropriate comps and recommended listing prices below nearby properties. But to make sure they weren’t selling below market, I monitored the market in their area for 9 months after they sold to verify my analysis. In every case, nearby properties either didn’t sell, or dropped their prices 10%+ BELOW what we sold for. 

I can’t emphasize enough how critical it is that you hire an analytical strong math oriented agent. A good analysis is hard to do, and most agents have personality but limited analytical skills. That’s a painful financial combination.   

 

LOVE THIS!  Heck any after the sale contacts are basically networking towards a future sale via referral or future move of the client.  When I was trying to do research on an area I was interested in I would basically tag the houses as priced right, or lingerers with future reductions.  One is a lot better than the other.  Coming back and showing them you were correct in your listing advice (especially to the more resistant clients) is even better.