The MLS Technology and Emerging Issues Advisory Board, of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), proposed a rule change that is sparking some controversy among its’ members. The proposed “Clear Cooperation Policy” requires that all listings be put in the MLS within 24 hours of “marketing a property to the public“. The policy defines “public marketing” as including, but not limited to, “flyers displayed in windows, yard signs, digital marketing on public-facing websites, brokerage website displays (including IDX and VOW), digital communications marketing (email blasts), multi-brokerage listing sharing networks, and applications available to the general public”.
But, isn’t that how it is now?
Many consumers may having been thinking that this is how it was all along, that new listings were required to go into the MLS but, that is not currently the case. Presently (and going back to the beginning of the MLS here in St Louis, I believe), agents have been able to determine the best marketing methods for their client, as well as allow their client input as to whether they wanted their listing in the MLS immediately, after a period of time or even not at all.
I saw an article recently about the results of a survey done of home sellers that found that nearly half of them didn’t realize they pay the buyers’ agent commission when they sell their home.
Sellers pay the buyers’ agent in almost all home sales in St Louis…
While I don’t know for sure, I would guess that the people surveyed were homeowners that planned to sell their homes, rather than sellers that already had their homes listed for sale. I say this because the standard listing agreement used by St Louis REALTORS® spells out the total commission being charged the seller, as well as the portion of the commission that will be paid to the buyers’ agent which I would think, would cause the seller to realize they are paying commission to the buyers’ agent.
While the seller, when presented with the listing agreement, could opt to not offer to pay commission to the buyer’s agent, the MLS rules require that all listings in the MLS (which is most of the St Louis home sales) include an “offer of compensation” for the buyers’ agent, which will come from the seller. Therefore, the sellers have to either offer to pay the buyer’s agent or forego having their listing in the MLS, hence why sellers pay the buyers agent in nearly all instances. It’s probably worth noting at this juncture that this practice has come under attack in a recent class-action lawsuit filed by Christopher Moehrl against The National Association of REALTORS®, Realogy Holdings Corp, HomeServices of America, Inc, Re/Max Holdings, Inc and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The suit, which can be accessed using the link below, seeks to ban this type of commission arrangement.
In today’s low-inventory real estate market here in St Louis, it’s common for would-be buyers to miss out on a house they want even when they make a strong offer only to find out they got beat out by another buyer offering a higher price or better terms. This is particularly true for people trying to buy a foreclosure with increasing demand and decreasing supply, it is not uncommon to have 5, 10 or even more offers for the newly listed foreclosed property.
Does the listing agent have to inform you of multiple offers?
No one likes to get beat out, particularly on the house of their dreams, so the whole offer and negotiation process can get a little emotional at times. This is particularly true when a buyer, who didn’t even know they were in competition, finds they were beat out by another buyer. This almost always results in the losing buyer asking their agent why they didn’t know there were other offers. This can even get contentious between the agents as well, with the buyers agent often feeling “wronged” if the listing agent didn’t make them aware that they had multiple offers.
There is not one black and white answer as to whether a buyer should be informed they are in a multiple offer situation or not. We have to dig in a little deeper. For starters, if the listing agent is not a REALTOR® then they are just obligated to follow Missouri license law as well as the rules and regulations established by the Missouri Real Estate Commission, both of which are silent on the specific issue of multiple offers. However, the license law and rules are very clear about the fiduciary obligation an agent has to a client, therefore, a listing agent is bound to act in the best interest of their seller. Therefore, if the seller does not want the listing agent to reveal the existence of multiple offers to buyers, then it is not in the sellers best interest for the listing agent to reveal it. If the listing agent is aREALTOR® (as are the majority of real estate agents in the St Louis area) then, in addition to state license law and rules, they are also bound to abide by the National Association ofREALTORS® (NAR) code of ethics. The code of ethics, specifically standard of practice 1-15 states “REALTORS®, in response to inquiries from buyers or cooperating brokers shall, with the sellers approval, disclose the existence of offers on the property.” The key here is “with sellers’ approval”, so, without the sellers approval, the listing agent should not reveal that multiple offers exist to your buyers agent.
(We work hard on this and sure would appreciate a “Like”)[iframe http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FStLouisRealEstateNews&send=false&layout=standard&width=50&show_faces=false&font&colorscheme=light&action=like&height=35&appId=537283152977556 100 35 ]
Don’t I get a chance to increase my offer? What about “highest and best”?
Before I go further, I should mention that it is my belief, the existence of multiple offers is revealed by the listing agent (presumably with the sellers approval) many more times than it is not as, normally, it is generally in the sellers best interest to let buyers know so the “bidding war” can start.
So, speaking of bidding war, the next thing that comes up from buyers in multiple bid situations is the question as to whether they will get a chance to increase their offer. As in the question of whether to reveal multiple offers in the first place, it comes down to what is in the sellers best interest and what the seller has instructed the listing agent to do. Often, particularly on foreclosures, listing agents will employ a “highest and best” strategy in which they generally go back to all buyers that submitted an offer and give them an opportunity to increase their offer realizing they will probably just have one shot at it. Some buyers like this as they have an opportunity to sharpen their pencil and others deplore it feeling like they are bidding against themselves, in any event though, this tactic often works in producing a very good offer for the seller. However, there are many sellers that, in a multiple offer situation, will not go this route and may choose to negotiate with a particular buyer without informing the other buyers. This is often the result of a buyer standing out, usually with the offered price but also terms that the seller finds attractive, such as perhaps a cash deal, short closing, etc. As a result, the listing agent will often go back to one buyers agent and negotiate without going back to the others which, as long as he is acting in the sellers best interest, is fine.
My advice to buyers
Everything I have discussed here are reasons why, when you choose an agent to represent you as a buyer, you want to use better criteria than “they are the cousin of a friend”, “they are a neighbor”, etc. Your buyers agent plays a much more significant role than just “showing you houses” and their experience, knowledge, negotiation skills, reputation within the industry, relationships with the listing agents in the areas you are looking in, etc, will all be critical in the process. A strong buyers agent can make the difference between you suffering many disappointments and securing your dream home on the first try!
At MORE, REALTORS, we have some of the finest agents in town and invite you to check us out. STLRE.com.
Agency relationships between a buyer or seller of a home and the real estate agent are probably one of the most confusing aspects of the real estate transaction for consumers and for many real estate agents as well for that matter. Dual agency takes the confusion to a whole new level though for the parties involved as the issue gets quite complex. At the very basic level, dual agency exists when the same real estate agent represents both the buyer and seller in the same real estate transaction (a bad idea in my humble opinion). At a more complicated level, state law states that dual agency also exists if the agent representing the buyer is with the same firm as the agent representing the seller then dual agency exists as well.
The point of this article is not actually to explain all the nuances of agency relationships, it’s really about a “dual” going on presently between the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) and the The National Association of Exclusive Continue reading “The Dual Agency Dual“
Nationwide 30-year fixed mortgage rates have climbed to their highest level of the last five weeks according to last week’s rate survey conducted by Bankrate.com.
This has spurred concern from many home refinancers and potential homebuyers who “worry the low rates won’t last much longer as they try to beat the clock on rising mortgage fees and policy changes on low down payment loans,” reports Polyana da Costa,Bankrate.com.
National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) President, Ron Phipps, wrote a letter to Shaun Donovan, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury Department and Edward DeMarco, Acting Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency with suggestions on how to improve the Real Estate Owned (REO) asset disposition programs for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHA. NAR, like many other housing related associations and organizations, submitted letters in response to the government’s request for information on how to deal with the REO problem. Continue reading “REALTORS offer suggestions to the Fed on how to deal with the REO problem“
Forty three years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which included Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act which, as described on HUD’s website, “prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).” Continue reading “Undercover Investigation Reveals Possible Discriminatory Treatment of REO’s by Lenders“
Today, CoreLogic released its “U.S. Housing and Mortgage Trends Report” which stated “their research indicates that the most popular measure of existing home sales is overstated by 15 percent to 20 percent. ”
Today Richard W. Northcutt, a California real estate investor, pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. According to the court documents the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at these foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices. Continue reading “Real Estate Investor Pleads Guilty to Bid-Rigging at Foreclosure Auctions“
Last week the co-chairs of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (the group that is supposed to figure out how to rescue our country out of the financial quicksand it’s in) issued a draft proposal of a plan the committee says “will make America better off tomorrow than it is today”.
The National Association of Realtors® announced that it “strongly supports” the proposed guidance from the Federal Housing Finance Agency to prevent government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks from investing in mortgages encumbered by private transfer fee covenants.
In a letter sent to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), NAR reiterated its opposition to these covenants, which developers often attach to a property to require payment of fees back to that developer each time the property is resold. These covenanted mandates are often extremely difficult to reverse once in place, and in many cases are attached to a deed for up to 99 years. Continue reading “REALTORS® Support Proposal to End Private Transfer Fees“
The scorecard points out the success of “The President’s housing market recovery efforts” but does point out that “data in the scorecard also show that the recovery in the housing market continues to remain fragile.” Continue reading “Scorecard on Obama’s Housing Recovery Plans“
According to a press release issued by the FBI, nearly 500 people have been arrested in a nationwide mortgage fraud take-down as part of “Operation Stolen Dreams.” This operation was launched on March 1, 2010 and, according to the FBI, has lead to a total of 485 arrests, 330 convictions and the recovery of nearly $11 million. The FBI estimates that losses from a variety of fraud schemes are estimated to exceed $2 billion.
Operation Stolen Dreams is the government’s largest mortgage fraud take-down to date. But FBI Director Robert S. Mueller cautioned that there is still much work to be done. The Bureau is currently pursuing more than 3,000 mortgage fraud cases, he said, which is almost double the number from the last fiscal year.
“The staggering totals from this sweep highlight the mortgage fraud trends we are seeing around the country,” Attorney General Holder said. “We have seen mortgage fraud take on all shapes and sizes—from schemes that ensnared the elderly to fraudsters who targeted immigrant communities.”
A few examples:
In Miami, on Wednesday two people were arrested for targeting the Haitian-American community, claiming they would assist them with immigration and housing issues. Instead, they used victims’ personal information to produce false documents to obtain mortgage loans.
In California, a prominent home builder used straw buyers to sell his houses at inflated prices. The scheme inflated prices on other homes in the area, creating artificially high comparable sales and affecting the overall new-home market.
And in Detroit yesterday, FBI agents arrested several individuals in a $130 million scheme orchestrated by the local chapter of a motorcycle gang. The conspirators posed as mortgage brokers, appraisers, real estate agents, and title agents and used straw buyers to obtain around 500 mortgages on only 180 properties.
The FBI says to combat the problem, their National Mortgage Fraud Task Force helps identify mortgage frauds such as loan origination schemes, short sales, property flipping, and equity skimming. In addition, they have 23 mortgage fraud task forces in “hot spots” around the country, from California and Texas to Florida and New York.
Unlike previous mortgage fraud sweeps, Operation Stolen Dreams focused not only on federal criminal cases, but also on civil enforcement and restitution for victims. Federal agencies participating included the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the U.S. Secret Service. Many state and local agencies were also involved in the operation.
The FBI has produced a video for consumers to help make you aware of the scams that are out there and show you how to avoid them. To watch the video click the link below:
UPDATE-July 1- GOOD NEWS! I Stand Corrected! Yesterday, before ending session, the Senate did PASS H.R. 5623 by Unanimous Consent…the bill now goes to the President for his signature and then will extend the closing date until September 30th…
Dennis Norman
UPDATE-June 30th-As the Willie Nelson song goes. “Turn out the lights, the party’s over”….well at least for now…Today, the last day the Senate is in session before the 4th of July break, there was yet another motion for cloture (to end debate) on H.R. 4213 and once again, like the previous 2 or 3 attempts, the motion was rejected….The Senate is now on recess until July 12th so nothing is going to happen at least until then….there is still hope with H.R. 5623 …for updates on that bill click here
UPDATE-June 29th – Today the House passed a new stand-alone bill that would extend the closing date for tax credit deals until September 30th…for complete details and future updates on this bill see post by clicking here.
UPDATE-June 28th- While I’m not aware of anything new happening on this in the Senate, I did a press release a little while ago from the National Association of REALTORS which stated if the closing date deadline for tax credits is not extended then up to 180,000 home buyers will lose their tax credit through no fault of their own….this would include buyers in every single state. NAR is strongly urging the Senate and the House to act quickly to pass the legislation to permit the extension…let’s hope they are listening…
UPDATE-June 24th-10:25 pm- Well, so much for my prediction (guess)….The Senate did not make any real progress today on this….there was a motion to end debate on the bill with the Baucus amendment but it did not pass…so at this point, nothing….
UPDATE – June 24th – yesterday there was a vote in the Senate to table the motion to concur on the Baucus amendment (S.AMDT 4369-This has the closing extension in it) that passed which essentially put it out to pasture at that point…However, Sen Reid introduced for Sen Baucus S.AMDT 4386 which also extends the closing date to on or before September 30th in it… Later in the day there was a motion for cloture on the amendment that passed, therefore ending debate on the motion….It is on the calendar today to be taken up so my guess is (and this is just a guess) is they will pass the bill today with the new Baucus amendment…-end of update.
Yesterday I wrote about the possibility of Congress extending the deadline to close on a purchase of a home for the home-buyer tax credit as a result of a Senate Amendment 4344 proposed by Harry Reid to amend Senate Amendment 4301 which amends H.R. 4213. Wow, did you follow all that? The bottom line is the Senate amendments would add to the House Bill that passed an extension of the deadline for purchasers to close on a home purchase to September 30 to qualify for the home-buyer tax credit. It is IMPORTANT to note that this DOES NOT change the deadline of April 30th to have entered into a contract to purchase a home…so if you haven’t bought yet, it’s still too late to get the credit. However, if you are one of the people that did buy but are struggling to get the purchase closed by June 30th to claim your credit, you may be in luck!
Yesterday in the Senate, the underlying amendment, Senate Amendment 4301 was withdrawn however Senator Reid changed his amendment to amend Senate Amendment 4369 (Sen. Baucus) instead. The good news is Senator Reids amendment 4344 did in fact pass yesterday by a vote of 60 to 37 (60 is the minimum number of votes needed to pass). Note, the underlying amendment, Senate Amendment 4369 by Senator Baucus has not passed yet. It is being discussed today in the Senate and if it ultimately passes, it will still require the House of Representatives to accept the Senates amendments to H.R. 4213 before this would be sent to President Obama to sign into law. Therefore, while this is a positive step toward getting the closing date extended, we are not there yet.
I’ll keep following the issue and update this blog as needed.
As the real estate market and industry continues to struggle to try to pull out of the dumps, another blow could come soon from Congress in the form of new tax burdens on real estate.
Congress is proposing that all owners of rental properties be required to complete and file 1099 forms for all service providers that have performed work on their properties, such as electricians, handymen, landscapers, etc. If passed, this would require all landlords, even the smallest of which, to go through additional expense and burden (or face penalties themselves from the IRS) to comply with this requirement.
The second issue, and perhaps one with a bigger negative impact, is to tax “carried interest” at ordinary income rates instead of the lower, capital gains rate. This would affect landlords and other investment/income property owners when they sell their property and realize the profit from their investment.
The National Association of REALTORS has come out in opposition to these two changes and has summoned their members to contact their Congressmen and Senators and urge them to oppose these two changes, hopefully Congress will listen.
The United States Attorney’s Office announced today that Aaron Duncan, the former CEO and owner of The Duncan Group, has pleaded guilty to fraud charges involving a $3.9 million investment scheme.
According to court documents, Duncan represented that The Duncan Group was involved in real estate investments, including buying, rehabilitating, and selling residential real estate. Duncan solicited investors in Missouri and around the United States to participate in his real estate projects through The Duncan Group by making false representations regarding the security of investments and the rates of returns promised. Bank records revealed that Duncan operated The Duncan Group investment program as a Ponzi scheme. Investors who were repaid on their principal investments were paid from funds obtained from other investors, rather than from returns on investments in real estate projects as promised and represented. At no time did Duncan advise investors that their returns, if paid at all, would be paid from other investors’ principal. Typically, Duncan falsely told investors that their principal investments were secured by a specific property. For example, some investors were told that an investor’s name would be placed on a particular deed or that investors were “securitized” by first mortgages on properties.
Bank records show that beginning no later than December 2005, Duncan was experiencing personal financial problems and was often late on his home mortgage payments.
The scheme operated from roughly January 2006 until Duncan advised investors of his intention to declare bankruptcy in October 2008. During the scheme, Duncan received investment principal from more than 50 investors who ultimately lost a total of approximately $3.9 million. Records recovered during the investigation revealed that Duncan only bought approximately 10 properties and that these ten properties lost money in total. Investor money was not used as promised and represented, instead, investor money was routinely used to pay other investors, pay routine expenses of the business, and to pay Duncan’s personal expenses.
Duncan, 33, Defiance, Missouri, pleaded guilty to one felony count of mail fraud and one felony count of money laundering before United States District Judge Carol E. Jackson. Sentencing has been set for July 27, 2010.
“Promoters of Ponzi schemes prey upon trusting investors and then steal their hard earned money. Investors should be wary that programs promising unbelievable returns on investment should be looked at carefully,” said Toni Weirauch, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation, St. Louis Field Office.
“Mr. Duncan conned potential investors by promising a high rate of return on real estate and a fast turnaround,” said Michael Kaste, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI St. Louis Division. “Anytime before investing, people should do their homework and check with agencies like the Secretary of State, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Better Business Bureau and other court records. But even then, con men will build a 12-foot ladder to climb an 11-foot wall.”
Mail fraud carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000; money laundering carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000.
This case was investigated by Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, the Postal Inspection Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities Division of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s Office. Assistant United States Attorney John Bodenhausen is handling the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have published a report about common real estate scams and rental scams they are finding and how to avoid them. Like most scams there are warning signs and red flags that can help you avoid falling victim; knowing what to look for is key.
The IC3 reminds people to be cautious when using the internet to either advertise real estate for sale or rent or to find a property to rent or buy.
For Landlords and Sellers of Property:
Look out for: Rental scams occur when the victim has property advertised and is contacted by an interested party. Once the rental price is agreed upon, the scammer sends a check for the deposit. The check covers housing expenses and is either written in excess of the amount required, with the scammer asking for the remainder to be remitted back, or for the correct amount, but the scammer backs out of the rental agreement and asks for a refund.
Because banks do not usually place a hold on the funds, the victim has immediate access to them and believes the check has cleared. In the end, the check is found to be counterfeit and the victim is held responsible by the bank for all losses.
Look out for: The scammer duplicates postings from legitimate real estate sites, alters them, and reposts them. Often, the scammers use the broker’s real name to create a fake e-mail address, which gives the fraud more legitimacy. When the victim sends an e-mail through the website inquiring about the home, they receive a response from someone claiming to be the owner.
The “owner” typically says he and his wife are doing missionary work in a foreign country and need someone to rent their home while they are away. If the victim is interested, he or she is asked to send money to the “owner” in a foreign country. These funds go directly to the scammer, and the would-be renter loses his or her money.
Suggestions from the IC3 and FBI on how to protect yourself from schemes:
Do not accept overpayment for rental properties. If you receive a check that’s for more than the specified amount, return it. Do not deposit it.
Do not wire funds to people you do not know.
Verify potential renters’ income.
Request renters’ personal references and follow up with those individuals.
Check with your county recorder to learn who owns the property you’re seeking to rent.
Call the property manager or association, if applicable, and ask about the landlord.
Ask the landlord for a rental application. It’s a red flag if one is not available; most managed properties require an application.
Find out how much of a security deposit may be requested in your state. Scammers will often ask for extra money in the form of a deposit.
The following requests can be indicators of fraudulent activity:
The would-be tenant wants to rent or purchase the property sight unseen.
The potential tenant says he or she is out of the country and he or she would like to send you a cashier’s check.
The payment is for more than the agreed upon amount.
There’s an urgency to the entire process. For example, the tenant says he or she is arriving in the country next week and needs to establish residency right away.
If you feel you have been a victim of an Internet real estate scheme, you can file a complaint with the IC3 by clicking here.
Last week a friend emailed me a link to a video titled “The Indymac Slap in Our Face” that was created by Think Big Work Small. I watched the video which gave a recap of the failure of Indymac bank back resulting in it’s seizure by the FDIC in July, 2008, and the ultimate sale by the FDIC of Indymac Bank to One West Bank in March, 2009.
According to the video, One West Bank received a cushy, “sweetheart deal” and implied it was related to the fact that the owners of One West Bank include Goldman Sachs VP, Steven Mnuchin, billionaires George Soros and John Paulsen, and that “it’s good to have friends in high places.” Here is a recap of some of the “facts” of the deal they gave on the video:
One West Bank paid the FDIC 70 percent of the principal balance of all current residential loans
One West Bank paid the FDIC 58 percent of the principal balance of all HELOC’s (Home Equity Lines of Credit)
The FDIC agreed to cover 80 – 95 percent of One West’s loss on an Indymac loan as a result of a short sale or foreclosure.
The kicker is, according to the video, is that the “loss” is computed based upon the original loan amount and notthe amount One West paid for the loan.
On the video the hosts give an example of an “actual scenario” showing how the deal worked, below is a recap:
One West Bank approved a short-sale of $241,000 on one of the Indymac loans it purchased from the FDIC (the total balance owed by the borrower at the time was $485,200).
Based upon the terms of the loss sharing agreement, One West “lost” $244,200 on this transaction, 80 percent of which ($195,360) was paid to One West by the FDIC.
So, One West received $241,000 from the short sale and $195,360 from the FDIC for a total of $436,360 on a loan they bought from the FDIC for $334,600, thereby resulting in a profit of $101,760 on the loan to One West.
One last kicker, the video claims, in addition to making over $100,000 on the loan, since the house was sold for less than what the borrower owed, One West also made the borrower sign a promissory note for $75,000 of the short-fall.
Below is a link to the video if you want to watch it for yourself.
The video got me pretty fired up like I imagine it did most people that saw it. Afterall, our federal government is running up debt faster than ever before, the FDIC has had to take over a record number of banks in the past year and now a sweetheart deal for people that are “connected.” OK, I’ll admit it, I was a little jealous….a 30 percent profit, guaranted by the FDIC? And all I have to do is discourage borrowers from doing loan modifications and force short-sales and foreclosures? Easier than taking candy from a baby, huh?
Hmm….wait a minute though, the skeptic in me (especially when it comes to anything distributed via email) made me wonder if the video was accurate or was it misunderstanding the facts, taking facts out of context or simply just wrong? To the credit of Think Big Work Small they did have links on their site to the loss-sharing agreement they were referencing.
Following are some highlights from the FDIC “Fact Sheet” on the sale of IndyMac:
The FDIC entered into a letter of internt to sell New IndyMac to IMB HoldCo, LLC, a thrift holding company controlled by IMB Management Holdings, LOP for approximately $13.9 billion. IMB holdCo is owned by a consortium of private equity investors led by Steven T. Mnuchin of Dune Capital Management LP.
The FDIC has agreed to share losses on a portfolio of qualifying loans with New IndyMac assuming the first 20 percent of losses, after which the FDIC will share losses 80/20 for the next 10 percent and 95/5 thereafter.
Under a participation structure on approximately $2 billion portfolio of construction and other loans, the FDIC will receive a majority of all cash flows generated.
When the transaction is closed, IMB HoldCo will put $1.3 billion in cash in New IndyMac to capitalize it.
In an overview of the Consortium it does identify “Paulson & Co” as a member as well as “SSP Offshore LLC”, which is managed by Soros Fund Management.
Just about the time I finished researching everything for this article I received a press release from the FDIC in response to the video which stated “It is unfortunate but necessary to respond to the blatantly false claims in a web video that is being circulated about the loss-sharing agreement between the FDIC and One West Bank.” The press release goes on to give these “facts” about the deal:
One West has “not been paid one penny by the FDIC” in loss-share claims.
The loss-shre agreement is limited to 7 percent of the total assets that One West services.
One West must first take more than $2.5 billion in losses before it can make a loss-share claim on owned assets.
In order to be paid through loss share, One West must have adhered to the Home Affordable Modification Plan (HAMP).
The last paragraph starts with “this video has no credibility.”
My Analysis
Before I get into this, I need to point out that while I have reviewed the sale agreement between the FDIC and One West as well as the loss-sharing agreement, watched the video above and read the FDIC’s press release, this is complicated stuff and not easy to understand. However, I think I have my arms around the deal somewhat so the following is my best guess analysis of the IndyMac deal with regard to the loss-sharing provision:
The FDIC says the loss sharing agreement only applies to 7 percent of the IndyMac Loans serviced by One West. It appears there is $157.7 billion in loans serviced, 7 percent of that amount is about $11 billion. So my guess is the loss-share applies to about $11 billion worth of loans.
One West agreed to a “First Loss Amount” of 20 percent of the shared-loss loans. The attachment for this was blank but the FDIC’s press release indicates this amount is $2.5 Billion. If that is the case then the total amount of loans the loss-share provision applies to is $12.5 billion. Obviously there is a $1.5 billion discrepancy between my calculation above and here (what’s $1.5 billion among friends?) but I’m going to go with the $12.5 billion because the amount of loans serviced I referenced may have been adusted at closing.
One West purchased the $12.5 billion in loans covered by the loss-sharing agreement for less than$8.75 billion. I say “less than” $8.75 billion as that is 70 percent of the loan amount which represents the amount One-West paid for residential loans that were current. The amount paid for current HELOC’s was only 58 percent and the price for delinquent mortgages went as low as 55 percent and as low as 37.75 percent for delinquent HELOC’s. Therefore I would assume the actual price paid by One-West was less than the $8.75 billion.
Once One West has covered $2.5 billion in losses, then the FDIC starts covering 80 percent of the losses up to a threshold at which time the FDIC covers 95 percent of the losses. Figuring out the threshold was a little trickier…I see a reference to 30 percent of the total loans covered by the loss-share so I’m going to use that which works out to $3.75 billion.
Now let’s figure the profit One West stands to make on the loans covered by the Loss-Share agreement;
If all the borrowers would pay off their loans in full, not less than $3.75 billion (not likely though that all borrowers will pay off in full).
Let’s be real pessimistic and look at the “worst-case” scenario: Lets say 100 percent of the loans bought by One West (covered by the loss-share) go bad and have to be short-sales or foreclosures at a loss. For the sake of conversation lets say the losses equal 40 percent of the loan amount, or $5 billion ($12.5 billion times 40 percent).
One West would have to cover the first $2.5 billion at which time the 80/20 rule would kick in for the next $1.25 billion in losses resulting in One West recovering $1.0 billion of those losses from the FDIC. Then for the next $1.25 billion ($3.75 to $5 billion) One West would recover 95 percent of the loss fro the FDIC or $1.1875 billion.
Recap: Of the $12.5 billion in loans, under the scenario above, One West would have realized $7.5 billion from foreclosures or short sales (60 percent of the debt) and would have recovered $2.1875 billion from the FDIC of the $5 billion in losses, for a total to One West of $9.6875 billion for loans they paid not more than $8.75 billion for a profit of a little less than $1 billion.
Keep in mind, my analysis above is based somewhat on fact and some on speculation and my “profit” scenario is based purely on speculation and pretty negative assumptions as to loan losses. This coupled with the fact that, as I stated above, One West probably bought the loans for less than I indicated, probably makes this a better deal with more than the $1 billion profit at the end of the day.
So is is a sweetheart deal or not? You be the judge…
One thing to keep in mind is the investors only put $1.3 billion cash into the deal to buy IndyMac, and they got a lot more than just the loans covered by the loss-sharing agreement. I’m thinking it’s a pretty good deal and one I probably would have jumped on…well, if I had $1.3 billion sitting around doing nothing…
The newly expanded first-time homebuyer and repeat homebuyer tax credit was signed into law a few months ago, but many married, unmarried, or soon to be married tax filers, are confused about claiming these credits. Understandably so. There are numerous scenarios that can come up, e.g. “I am a long-time principal homeowner but my spouse has lived there for only 3 years. Can we qualify for the long-time homeowner’s credit if we purchase a new principal residence?” Marcy Stolle, Sr. Mortgage Banker at Paramount Mortgage Company recommends to her clients and prospects to “make sure” and consult with their tax professional or check with the IRS if they are not clear about their eligibility.
The IRS website is very helpful and addresses these questions and various scenarios.
There’s not much time left. If you are seriously considering a home purchase, April 1st is coming fast.
St. Louis Mortgage Rates – February 2, 2009 *
30-year fixed-rate mortgage 5.00% no points
15-year fixed-rate mortgage 4.375% no points
5/1 adjustable rate mortgage 3.875% no points
3/1 adjustable rate mortgage 3.750% no points
FHA/VA 30-year fixed rate mortgage 5.250%
Jumbo 5/1 ARM 4.125% no points
For more information or if you have questions on mortgage rates in St. Louis you may contact me by phone at my direct line, (314) 372-4319, email at rfishel@paramountmortgage.com or you can visit our company website at http://www.paramountmortgage.com.
*Note- The above rates are based upon a typical sale price of $187,500 with a 20% percent down payment leaving a loan amount of $150,000 to a borrower with a 720 credit score for a loan with no discount points charged. Rates and terms will vary depending upon loan amount, home value, credit and income of borrower.
This information is provided by this author and this site for informative purposes only and is not warranted or guarteed in any way.
UPDATE 11/06/09 5:14 p.m. – Thanks to Denis T who was commenting on this post, click here to go to the IRS site with information on the new tax credits.
UPDATE 11/06/09 1:00 p.m. – I just heard that a short while ago President Obama signed the bill into law. IT’S OFFICIAL! So if you are in the market for a home .. Go For It!
In yesterday’s update I had some rather encouraging news about the possible extension of the first-time home buyer tax credit of $8,000 that has stimulated some home buying but is set to expire on November 30th. The good news was that there is an agreement amongst the powers that be with regard to extending the home buyer tax credit, which in itself is a HUGE step toward getting the credit extended, but as I said yesterday, “the fat lady hasn’t sang yet”.
Based upon the latest news I just received in an email update from the National Association of REALTORS(R) I would say the lady has not quite taken the stage yet. The Dodd-Lieberman-Isakson Amendment (the agreement I was referring to above by the “powers that be”) ended up being added to the Unemployment Insurance bill. As I mentioned yesterday they were deciding whether to add it as an amendment to this bill or make it a stand-alone bill. Obviously they made the decision. Apparently the Senate needs to reach an agreement on procedure in order to schedule a vote on the Unemployment Insurnace extension and they were not able to do that yet. NAR is reporting that the next action is expected to be: Continue reading “Home buyer tax credit update-October 30, 2009“
The best available tool for sustaining the still-fragile housing market is the $8,000 homebuyer tax credit, (expires November 30) and it is essential that Congress extend the credit into 2010, the National Association of Realtors® testified at a hearing of the U.S. House Small Business Committee yesterday.
NAR Regional Vice President Joseph L. Canfora said “the credit is working,” pointing out that the 355,000 to 400,000 transactions directly attributable to the credit made a significant dent in the housing inventory and will help to stabilize home prices. Further, the credit has provided a huge indirect benefit to local governments, shoring up property tax bases in particularly hard-hit areas. Continue reading “Homebuyer Tax Credit Best Tool for Sustaining Housing Recovery, Says NAR“
Missouri Online Real Estate, Inc. 3636 South Geyer Road - Suite 100, St Louis, MO 63127 314-414-6000 - Licensed Real Estate Broker in Missouri
The owner and authors this site are providing the information on this web site for general informational purposes only and make no representations, warranties (expressed or implied) or guarantees of any kind whatsoever, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or of any information found by following any link on this site. Furthermore, the owner and authors of this site will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any errors or omissions in information on this site, nor for the availability of this information. Additionally the owner and authors of this site will not be liable for for any losses, injuries or damages in any way from the display or use of this information or as the result of following external links displayed on this site, or by responding to advertisements displayed, or contained, on this site
In using this site, users acknowledge and agree that the information on this site does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind nor should it be construed as such. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action on this information, you should consult a qualified professional adviser to whom you have provided all of the facts applicable to your particular situation or question. None of the tax information on this web site is intended to be used nor can it be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All of the information on this site is provided as is, with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
This site contains external links to other sites not owned or controlled by the owner of this site, therefore the owner of this site does not control or guarantee in any manner the accuracy or relevancy of any information obtained through following such links. Links contained on this site are for users convenience and users should exercise extreme caution when following links. Including a link on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the site linked to or any views or opinions expressed on the site, products or services offered on outside sites or the companies or organizations that own and operate outside sites.
This site may accept payment for advertising, for displaying advertisements, through affiliate relationships with companies or may receive referral fees or commissions from companies as a result of recommending or referring people to a website. This site may also accept free product samples, free services, gift cards or cash to review a product or service. All paid and sponsored content may not always be identified as such. Any product claim, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
Forty three years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which included Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act which, as described on HUD’s website, 
Today, CoreLogic released its “U.S. Housing and Mortgage Trends Report” which stated “their research indicates that the most popular measure of existing home sales is overstated by 15 percent to 20 percent. ” 
Today Richard W. Northcutt, a California real estate investor, pleaded guilty to conspiring with a group of real estate speculators who agreed not to bid against each other at certain public real estate foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County. According to the court documents the primary purpose of the conspiracy was to suppress and restrain competition and to obtain selected real estate offered at these foreclosure auctions at non-competitive prices. 
“The staggering totals from this sweep highlight the mortgage fraud trends we are seeing around the country,” Attorney General Holder said. “We have seen mortgage fraud take on all shapes and sizes—from schemes that ensnared the elderly to fraudsters who targeted immigrant communities.”
According to the video, One West Bank received a cushy, “sweetheart deal” and implied it was related to the fact that the owners of One West Bank include Goldman Sachs VP, Steven Mnuchin, billionaires George Soros and John Paulsen, and that “it’s good to have friends in high places.” Here is a recap of some of the “facts” of the deal they gave on the video:
