However, here’s a brief excert from a Mercury News Article discussing how different School Districts are handling the swinging budget cuts they are getting as the State works on cutting it’s huge deficit. http://www.mercurynews.com/cupertino/ci_15090121

“The exception to continued cuts is the Cupertino Union School District. A teacher union agreement to take furlough days, plus an unprecedented community campaign that raised more than $2 million, saved 107 teacher jobs and will preserve 20-to-1 class-size ratios in primary grades”.

Anyone aware of other school districts where all interested parties are co-operating to ensure the level of education is treated as the most important factor?

While 90% of mortgage lenders resist  handing out any type of loan modifications, despite being advised and even pressured by the government to do so, Bank of America claims it is now taking the lead. The initial B of A model seeks to conditionally (read: unlikely) cut up to 30% off the principal of 45,000 home mortgages nationally. Note: This is not the same as a reduced payment.

This program is very limited in breadth and scope. It applies only to those homeowners with negative amortizing ARM’s.  The principal reduction program will not be available to underwater homeowners with fixed rate mortgages or ARMs with amortized payment schedules. B of A claims their goal is to reduce homeowners’ monthly payments to an amount equal to 31% of their household income – the parameter set by the federal government two years ago, in 2008, based on long-standing fundamentals of mortgage lending.

In practise this program will apply only a few of the loans B of A inherited when it took over Countyrywide; specifically (negative amortization loans), where the Borrower is at least 60 days late!!

A more important problem is that the proposed modifications will usually result in a HIGHER MONTHLY PAYMENT for people already unable to make the current minimal payment.

For a delailed analysis of this Public Relations Excercise check http://blog.firsttuesdayjournal.com/2010/04/lenders-attempt-to-lock-homeowners-into-paying-underwater-homes/

California is a virtually bankrupt State with the 3^rd worst educational system in the Country.

To be allocating $200 million to such a program, while simultaneously imposing huge cuts on education, seems to me the height of irresponsibility.

In practice this program will chiefly benefit people who would be buying anyway, and steer them toward new construction. I don’t see this as anything Realtors should be cheering about.

Banks and Builders however are welcoming it with huge sighs of relief.

Just my opinion.

Our dangerous levels of Public Debt are going to have to be dealt with and The Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction is an obvious and inevitable target.

Even as I type this I can hear the screams of “No Way” they’d never dare touch it.

Having lived through the British “phase out” of mortgage tax relief, and observed it’s results, I am convinced that this unfair tax break will soon join the Dodo, and our society will be the better for it’s going; Indeed, the process has already started, as limits on the total dollar amounts, and number of properties eligible have already been implemented over the past few years. Not all at one go, but little by little, so that in a few years it will, just like the smile on the face of the “Cheshire Cat,”  have totally faded away.

What we currently tell our taxpayers is that if they agree to take on one particular type of debt ( a mortgage) we will lower their taxes. If not we will have to increase their income taxes to make up for what we are losing to their more affluent fellow citizens i.e. Mortgage holders.

Is it good to have a high level of home ownership YES. Should it be done by this type of Social Engineering (Socialism) NO.

Could it be posible that one or more of our currently troubled States might be the 1st to take this path?? Perhaps the one that put in that other masterpiece of tax malpractice, Prop 13.

Already, effective from April 5th, the upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium was increased from 1.75% to 2.25%, (a 29% increase).

Now, in a further attack on the 1st Time Buyer, this misguided lady proposes a 300% increase on the ongoing monthly Mortgage Insurance payment.

To understand the impact of this consider a new $300,000 purchase with a 30 year fixed FHA loan.at 5.5% interest rate. The monthly payment will go from $1,804 up to $2,051. An increase of 12%.

Put another way; If the maximum you could qualify for was $300,000 before, it would now be only $270,000.

At one fell stroke this bill would eliminate an enormous number of willing buyers at the bottom end of the market.

When you consider that each 1st Time Buyer potentially creates a move up Buyer we can’t afford  this kind of interference in this very fragile recovery.

Details here are for Santa Clara County but other Counties and Cities also operatate these programs.

The County of Santa Clara has been awarded a new MCC Allocation in the amount of $3,031,944.

This award should serve approximately 70 Households.

MCC Applications will be accepted beginning February 12, 2010, until the allocation is depleted.

MCC PROGRAM: The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program is available for first-time home-buyer’s purchasing their first home in participating cities in Santa Clara County. The Mortgage Credit Certificate Program gives first-time home-buyer’s a federal income tax credit of up to 15% of the interest paid on their first mortgage loan each year the home-buyer keeps the same mortgage loan and lives in the same property as their primary residence.

The Maximum Income Limits for 2010:

Effective February 12, 2010:

1 or 2 person household = $102,500

3 or more person household = $117,875

The Maximum Purchase Price Limits are:

Resale/Existing Units = $570,000 and for,

Newly Constructed Units= $630,000

35%- Payment History. Late payment bills such as Mortgage, Credit Cards, Car loans etc will lower a person’s FICO score to drop. Paying bill as agreed over time will improve the score.

30% – Credit Utilization. The ratio of current revolving debt (Credit Card and Charge Account balances) to the total available credit (Credit Limits). Consumers can improve their FICO scores by paying off debt and reducing balances to less than 50% of the available credit. Closing existing revolving charge accounts can have a negative effect on this ratio and lower your score. Before closing accounts be sure to do some more research, or get qualified advice.

15% – Length of Credit History. Time improves FICO scores without any action other than paying all bills on time.

10% – Types of Credit Used. FICO scores are improved by having a record of good history of managing multiple types of credit (Installment, Revolving, Consumer finance etc).

10% – Recent Credit Applications. Multiple requests to obtain new credit over a short period of time can hurt an individual’s FICO score. However, individuals shopping for the best rate for a Mortgage or Auto Loan over a short period will not see any negative impact on a FICO score. All such enquiries will be counted as just one.
 http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/

1. Buyer Only Brokers.

2. Buyer Rebate (Kick Back) Brokers.

3. Virtual Office Brokers. No physical location.

4. Reduced Commision Brokers.

5. Fixed Price Brokers.

6. Transaction Facilitation Brokers.

Etc, etc.etc ad infinitum.

All of these and many more are proof that we have a lot of competition in our business, and that the Consumer (Buyer or Seller) has lots of choices.

I won’t try to explain the pro’s and con’s of any of these options, but will strongly suggest that whichever of them you choose you  strongly consider working with a REALTOR.

My reason for this specific advice is as follows:

1. There are more than Half a Million Licensed Real Estate Agents in California. This is the minimum required qualification for the job.

2. Only 165,000 of them are REALTORS who have voluntarily agreed to subscribe to a strict Code of Ethics, and are paying members of their Local, State, and National Associations of Realtors.

Amongst many other services Realtors provide to the public is the web site Realtor.com. the most popular of all on-line Real Estate sites. Check out http://www.realtor.com/.

One of these is the proposal to allow a bankruptcy judge to force a bank to reduce the Pincipal amount of the mortgage. This is called a “cram down”.

Rather than giving this power of “Cram Down” to bankrupcy courts” (most “distressed” homeowners do not, and will not want to go the bankrupcy path), I’d rather see the Real Estate and Media industries praising and fighting for the Wells Fargo strategy for dealing with their Wachovia inheritance.

They are actively using Principal Reduction “Cram Down” along with Loan Modification strategies, usually  together, to provide long term solutions to many of their defaulting loans.

With a long history of prudent and pragmatic lending policies Wells Fargo are an excellent example of what the banks could and should be doing to make it possible for responsible homeowners to stay in their homes. By lowering the loan amount and interest rate they minimize the larger loss which they would take in a foreclosure or short sale.

 the short sighted strategies being used by the majority of other banks with similar problems are best described as  re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

A mortgage is the cheapest form of debt for the average homeowner. This is partly because it has a low interest rate, but also brings with it enormous tax benefits. For most people this lowers the actual interest rate by more than a third. The real after tax rate on a 5.5% mortgage is actually 3.625%.

The vast majority of consumer debt is much higher than this. It seems clear to me that no one should be trying to pay off the mortgage with money which would be far better used to pay off a credit card.

Another major consideration should be whether tying up more money in your house is good for your on-going financial security. Once you make that payment you can never get it back without either selling or refinancing the house. Unless you have enough other assetts to handle job loss or other family emergencies you would probably be better served by investing that money where you can quickly get at it in such circumstances.

For a more detailed conversation on this topic check the following link to the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/your-money/mortgages/20money.html?ref=realestate