Blog
April Market Statistics
May 10, 2012 | Comments Off
The San Diego County April market statistics are out and have been updated on the website. To download a PDF copy, please click here.
These statistics are based on the County’s performance as a whole. There can be large variations when you look at individual zip codes. Here is a quick summary of a few of the zip codes in North County:
Carlsbad Real Estate Statistics: The Carlsbad zip codes showed a mix of results for the second month in a row. Here is a breakdown by zip code:
- 92008: This zip code had a 100% increase in the number of sales when compared to the prior month and is reporting significantly more year-to-date sales than April 2011. The average days-on-market were down when compared to the prior month and the prior year. This should indicate a lot of activity in the market. However, the median sales price was down 2.76% from the previous month and 8% from the prior year.
- 92009: The number of sales in 2009 remained fairly stable when compared to the prior month and the prior year. The number of days-on-market increased slightly in both cases. The median sale price showed a small decline but it was minimal (.7% from the prior month and 1.8% from the prior year).
- 92010: The number of sales in 92010 was down significantly in April (just 5 sales in total). When compared to the prior month, the number of days-on-the-market was up but the median sales price increased by $22,000 as well. When compared the prior year, the number of days-on-the-market was down slightly and the median sales showed a 4.2% decline. Because there were so few sales to reference in this month’s report, the report may not provide an accurate picture of the market in this area.
- 92011: The number of sales in 92011 more than tripled from the month before (and is leading the April 2011 year-to-date by 17 sales). However, the number of days-on-the-market was up in both cases. The median sales price declined 3.5% from the prior month but is up 1.8% over April 2011.
Encinitas Real Estate Statistics: Encinitas again showed a large increase in median sales price when compared to the prior month (over 36%) and the prior year (over 17%). This is the second month of an abnormally large increase median sales price. Don’t be surprised if we see some declines in the next few months! The number of sales held steady with last month (35 sales in both March and April) and is on par with 2011. The average days-on-market is almost unchanged in both cases.
Oceanside Real Estate Statistics: The Oceanside zip codes 92054, 92056, and 92058 showed a decrease in median sales price when compared to the prior month and prior year (ranging from 2.6% – 14.25% depending on the scenario). The 92057 zip code also showed a decline over the prior month but was the only Oceanside zip to show an increase in median sales price when compared to April 2011 (.7% increase in median sales price). In all cases, the number of sales showed improvement (in some cases large improvement). The number of days-on-the-market increased over the prior month and year in almost all scenarios.
Please view the report to see the statistics broken down by zip code for the rest of the County.
March Foreclosure Statistics
April 24, 2012 | Comments Off
We watch San Diego County and the State of California new filings, outcomes and inventory on a monthly basis. Here’s a quick summary of the March foreclosure report:
Filings:
San Diego County had an 18% increase in Notice of Default (NOD) filings between February 2012 and March 2012 but is down 17% from March 2011. The State had a 21% increase in NOD filings between February 2012 and March 2012 but is down 18% from March 2011. The month-over-month increase in NOD filings is a reverse of the downward trend we have been seeing. However, even with the increase, the year-over-year numbers continue to show a significant decline. The Notice-of-Trustee Sale (NTS) filings continued in their downward movement. NTS filings in San Diego County were down 15% from the prior month and 21% from the prior year. NTS filings in the State were down 10% from the prior month and 20% from the prior year.
Outcomes:
Cancellations at the County level were up 2% from the prior month and down 26% from the prior year. At the State level, cancellations were up 1% from the prior month and were down 33% from the prior year.
At both the County and State levels, there was an approximately 18% decrease in the number of homes that went back to the banks when compared month-over-month and 62% decrease in the number of homes that went back to the banks when compared year-over-year.
The number of properties purchased at auction by 3rd parties (generally investors) showed County and State decreases month-over-month (14% and 13% respectively) and year-over-year (37% and 24% respectively).
Inventory:
In general, all inventories were fairly flat in the month of March. These include preforeclosure, scheduled for sale, and bank owned inventories. Preforeclosure inventories were up 3% in the County and 7% in the state when compared to the prior month. These were down 9% and 13% when compared to the prior year. The scheduled for sale inventory was essential unchanged over the prior month (in both the County and State) and was down approximately 24% from the prior year (in both the County and State). The bank owned inventories were down 5% over the prior month (in both the County and State) and were down 20% in the County and 25% in the State over the prior year.
For a glossary of foreclosure terms, questions on the foreclosure procedure or to get a copy of the full February report, please email a request to: emily@capstonerealtycorp.com
To look for foreclosures in your area, please use our Foreclosure Search page (direct access to Foreclosure Radar records at no cost to you).
March Market Statistics
April 10, 2012 | Comments Off
The San Diego County March market statistics are out and have been updated on the website. To download a PDF copy, please click here.
The number of sales and the total volume of sales have both increased again (25% and 30% over the previous year; 8.8% and 2.8% over the previous month). Again, the average sales price was down 5.5% from the prior year but showed an increase of 5.6% over the prior month. The median sales price reported similar numbers.
These statistics are based on the County’s performance as a whole. There can be large variations when you look at individual zip codes. Here is a quick summary of a few of the zip codes in North County:
Carlsbad Real Estate Statistics: The Carlsbad zip codes went off trend and showed a decline in median sales price across the board when compared to the prior month AND the prior year (92008 fared the worst). The 92011 zip code was the only exception; showing a 6% increase in median sales price when compared to the prior month and a 5% increase in median sales price when comparing the prior year. The number of sales and days on market showed improvement in almost all cases.
Oceanside Real Estate Statistics: The Oceanside zip codes 92054, 92056, and 92058 showed a decrease in median sales price when compared to the prior month and prior year (ranging from 3.5% – 14% depending on the scenario). The Oceanside zip code 92057 showed a slight increase in both categories. In almost all cases, the number of sales showed improvement.
Encinitas Real Estate Statistics: Encinitas showed large increases in median sales price when compared to the prior month (over 19%) and the prior year (over 11%). There was also a significant increase in the number of sales. The average days on market had improved over the prior month (a decrease of 10 days) but was slightly worse than the prior year (an increase of 7 days).
Please view the report to see the statistics broken down by zip code for the rest of the County.
Robo-Signing Settlement: San Diego’s 1.5 Billion
April 5, 2012 | Comments Off
Earlier this year, 5 major servicers agreed to a settlement of at least $25 billion with state and federal officials. The settlement stemmed from claims related to the infamous “Robo Signing” foreclosure practices. The settlement covers 49 states and has the possibility of rising if other banks sign on.
So, what is Robo-Signing? This is probably old news to you, but in case it isn’t… The lenders have been flooded with foreclosures and understaffed. Rather than upping the staff (let’s not get crazy), they allegedly had bank employees, servicing company employees and/or 3rd party companies sign thousands of documents and affidavits without verifying the information contained in the document or affidavit. In many cases, the person signing the document was doing so in another party’s name… AND they were notarized. Some reports have revealed that one bank official signed off on almost 10,000 documents in one month. In a nutshell, “Robo-Signing” is the illegal practice of forging mortgage documents. The TV show “60 Minutes” did a great episode on Robo Signing in April 2011. You can watch the 14 minute video here (it gets more interesting from 3 minutes on): 60 Minutes Robo Signing.
When the Robo Signing scandal came out, many of the major lenders put foreclosure proceedings on hold while they “cleaned up” their processes and paperwork. State and federal officials went after the banks in what would become one of the largest settlements involving a single industry since big tobacco. A year later, we have a $25 billion dollar settlement; of which San Diego County is estimated to receive $1.5 billion. Given the fact that 49 states were involved, I’d say our state and sunny city fared well in the grand scheme of things.
You can visit: http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com for all the gritty details of the settlement. You can also click here for their Fact Sheet. Here’s a quick summary of the breakdown of funds:
1) At least $10 billion will be dedicated to reducing principle for borrowers who, as of the date of the settlement, owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth and are either delinquent or at imminent risk of default.
2) At least $3 billion will be dedicated to a refinancing program for borrowers who are current on their mortgages but who owe more than their homes are worth (let me introduce you to the non-GSE version of HARP 3.0).
3) Up to $7 billion will be dedicated to other forms of relief such as forbearance of principle for the unemployed, anti-blight programs, short sale and transitional assistance, service members that are forced to move, etc.
4) The remaining $5 billion will be paid to the states and federal government. Of this money, $1.5 billion will go to a Borrower Payment Fund that will provide cash payments of approximately $2,000 to borrowers who were foreclosed on after January 1, 2009 and before December 31, 2011 AND who meet other criteria (I have yet to find said “criteria” but I have seen reference to it involving whether the home was actually wrongly foreclosed on).
Loans owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are not involved in this settlement. Non-owner occupied homes (as long as they are occupied by someone) ARE included in this settlement.
Per the NMS website (referenced above), a settlement administrator is being selected now. The next step will then be the administrator, attorney general and mortgage servicers working to identify home owners eligible for cash payments, principle reduction and refinancing. Those eligible are supposed to receive letters but they encourage people to call their servicers to confirm. Contact numbers are listed on the website. The settlement will be executed over the next three years.
Here is my take on the whole deal… The lawsuit was initially started over the fact that lenders were using fraudulent documents in their foreclosure proceedings. The borrowers involved were not making their payments so the problem wasn’t the validity of the foreclosures themselves; it was the paperwork being used. I believe the settlement was intended to punish the lenders for their fraudulent actions and to provide money to the home owners whose loans were involved (let’s call it punitive damages). From what I have read since the settlement has come out, many people are angry that the settlement amount is not sufficient given all the damage the mortgage crisis has caused to the economy. That sounds like a whole different topic to me… Call me crazy but I’m pretty sure they weren’t being sued for causing the recession and the settlement was never intended to fix the economy. While Robo Signing was completely out-of-line and the banks involved should be punished (honestly $25B probably isn’t enough), I would say it’s safe to assume it wasn’t THE cause behind our current economic situation. I would also say it’s safe to assume the settlement wasn’t intended to be THE fix. Through the settlement, the government has opted to use the majority of the funds in an attempt to assist home owners that are currently struggling (rather than giving the majority of the money to the home owners that were involved in the Robo Signing fiasco). The hope is that this will have a positive effect on stabilizing foreclosures (this is a whole different blog topic… The results they are hoping for are unlikely). However, we need to keep in mind, stabilizing foreclosures in an attempt to help the economy was not the original goal or purpose of the lawsuit. Any stabilization they manage to pull off would be a bonus… like the cherry on top. If you are underwater or struggling with payments, it worth a trip to the NMS website to see if you qualify for any of San Diego’s $1.5 billion “bonus”.
CA Property Tax Deduction Changes
March 29, 2012 | Comments Off
It’s tax time again… and the State of California is trying to work its way out of budget crisis. In 2011, the California Franchise Tax Board caught on to a generally overlooked area of the real estate tax deduction. Per California and Federal Law, the real estate tax deduction applies to the amount of real estate tax that is based on the assessed value of your property (your base tax rate x the assessed value of the home). Taxes based on a direct levy or special assessment, such as Mello-Roos, are generally not deductible. The theory behind this is that levies and special assessments are generally for the benefit of the local area only and can improve property values.
In our area, it is common for the deductible portion of the property tax to make up the large portion of the bill. However, it is not uncommon to have some sort of special assessment(s) specific to the area (generally these are relatively low but there are cities and neighborhoods where they can get more expensive). In addition to this, the majority of newer developments in our area have, or had, a Mello Roos tax to supplement the cost of new infrastructure around the development (new roads, traffic lights, schools, etc.).
Currently, the general public is not familiar with the difference in the types of property taxes and the deductibility. In most cases, the full tax bill is being deducted. Until recently, the tax board did not have a way to confirm whether the reported property tax included non-deductible taxes. Rest assured they have found a solution… Per the State of California’s website:
“Beginning with your 2012 California tax return, the reporting requirements for real estate tax deductions will change. This will include reporting your property parcel number, deductible, and nondeductible amounts. Keep a copy of your property tax bill(s) to report this information on your return.”
The tax board originally intended to put the change into effect with the 2011 tax forms but later decided to delay this by a year:
“Important update, November 1, 2011: FTB has decided to put this change to the Schedule CA on hold for a year, therefore, we will not be requesting information about the deductible portion of real property tax on the 2011 Schedule CA.
Instead, we will move forward with education and outreach and include information about this issue in the 2011 tax return instructions and what to expect for 2012. We will also direct taxpayers to our website for more information about deductible and nondeductible real estate taxes and the importance of reviewing the real estate tax bill.”
Here are links to their site for additional details:
CA FTB: Understanding the Real Estate Tax Deduction
CA FTB: Real Estate Tax Deduction Changes
Now, you may be thinking that revised tax forms requiring MORE information, that will allow the IRS to keep a better tab on your bill, is not the best news you have heard this week… but it is worth at least a mental note for 2012. Cindy Adams of the NY Post had a nice take on the subject: But one must take pride in paying up every April 15. Look at it this way: If you don’t spend your dollars on the IRS, you’d probably just squander it on foolish things, like food, rent… (Cindy Adams, NY Post).
Happy tax season. As always, please consult with an accountant regarding anything and everything tax related.
February Foreclosure Statistics
March 19, 2012 | Comments Off
The February foreclosure statistics are out. We watch San Diego County and the State of California new filings, outcomes and inventory on a monthly basis. Here’s a quick summary of the February foreclosure report:
Filings:
The February foreclosure report is full of declining numbers. On both the County and State level we saw LARGE declines in the number of Notice of Default (NOD) filings and Notice-of-Trustee Sale (NTS) filings. Month-over-month, both the County and State filings were down by over 10%. When compared to the prior year, the County filings for both NOD’s and NTS’s were down by approximately 10%. The State filings for NOD’s and NTS’s were down by 22% and 16% respectively. Unlike other years, these significant declines cannot be attributed to a shortened month. Thanks to Leap Year, California’s February business days were short by just 1 day of the average month.
Outcomes:
The foreclosure outcomes followed in the same direction with declining numbers across the board.
Cancellations at the County level were down 22% from the prior month and 13% year-over-year. At the State level, cancellations were down 30% from the prior month and were down 15% from the prior year.
At both the County and State levels, there was an approximately 30% decrease in the number of homes that went back to the banks when compared month-over-month. Following last month’s report, there was also a HUGE decrease in the number of properties that went back to the banks when compared to the prior year. The County showed a decrease of 47% and the State showed a decrease of 40%.
The number of properties purchased at auction by 3rd parties (generally investors) showed County and State decreases month-over-month (26% and 8% respectively). This may be due, in part, to the large uptick in 3rd party purchases reported in January. Year-over-year, the County showed an 11% decrease while the State showed 39% increase (the only increased number in our entire February foreclosure report).
Inventory:
Continuing in the trend over the last 12 months, all inventories (preforeclosure, scheduled for sale, and bank owned) were down again in the month of February. On the County and State levels, the month-over-month changes were minimal (between 1.78% – 4.5%) but the decline ranged from 15% – 33% when compared to the prior year.
For a glossary of foreclosure terms, questions on the foreclosure procedure or to get a copy of the full February report, please email a request to: emily@capstonerealtycorp.com
To look for foreclosures in your area, please use our Foreclosure Search page (direct access to Foreclosure Radar records at no cost to you).
FHA Mortgage Insurance Changes: The Good and The Bad
March 13, 2012 | Comments Off
FHA mortgage insurance rates and fees had major changes last week. It was good news from some and bad news for others. Here is a quick summary of the changes:
Please note these have been rearranged in Bad –> Good order to allow this blog to end on a happy note… no reason to start the week off with the cup half empty…
THE BAD NEWS: FHA mortgages originated on, or after, April 9, 2012 will have a slightly higher monthly mortgage insurance rate (increased by .1% – .35% over the current rate) and a substantially higher upfront mortgage insurance premium (an increase equal to .75% of the loan amount). The monthly mortgage insurance rate is what determines the monthly fee that is paid along with the mortgage. The upfront mortgage insurance premium is a onetime fee paid at the time of getting the loan (and is normally added on to the principle loan amount). With a sample loan amount of $250,000, the increase in monthly payments would be $25 while the upfront premium would be increased by $1,875. The increased fees are in response to the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (I hate to break it you folks but the money has to come from somewhere).
THE GOOD NEWS: FHA mortgages endorsed on, or before, May 31, 2009, will be eligible for streamline refinances with a monthly mortgage insurance rate of .55% (.65% – .95% LOWER than the rate for new loans) and a nominal upfront mortgage insurance premium of .01%. There have been several increases in FHA mortgage insurance rates and upfront fees in the last few years. The FHA Streamline program has allowed borrowers to refinance their homes into lower interest rates regardless of their current value (similar to the HARP program for conventional loans) but has not been effective because the new loans were subject to the current, higher mortgage insurance rates and fees. The new guideline is meant to allow the FHA Streamline program to perform a similar function as the HARP 2.0 program. It should give FHA borrowers the opportunity to access current, ridiculously low interest rates while maintaining their current mortgage insurance payment, with a nominal upfront mortgage insurance premium. These changes are effective on FHA case numbers assigned of, or after, June 11, 2012 (this essentially means refinances started on or after this date).
THE TAKE HOME: If you are considering a new FHA Loan or the refinance of an FHA loan that was endorsed AFTER May 31, 2009, if would be worth getting that going ASAP to avoid the new fees that will come into effect on April 9th. If you currently have an FHA loan that was endorsed on, or before, May 31, 2009, it would be worth looking into a streamline refinances in the next few months.
February Market Statistics
March 8, 2012 | Comments Off
The San Diego County February market statistics are out and have been updated on the website. To download a PDF copy, please click here.
As expected, the number of sales has picked up speed over the previous month. January is a notoriously slow months of the year and we saw that in last month’s statistics. Total February sale’s volume was up 11% from the prior year and up almost 10% from the prior month. Following suit, the total number of sales was up almost 18% over the prior year and up almost 11% over the prior month. The average sales price was down almost 6% from the prior year but was essentially unchanged from the prior month. The median sales price was essential unchanged in both scenarios.
The total sales volume year-to-date is up significantly over 2011 while the year-to-date average and median sales prices are down 4% and 2% respectively.
These statistics are based on the County’s performance as a whole. There can be large variations when you look at individual zip codes. Please view the report to see the statistics broken down by zip code.
HARP Program Updates
February 23, 2012 | Comments Off
Drum roll please… The Home Affordable Refinancing Program 2 is here. As addressed in my December blog, HARP 1 did not have the effect the government was going for (less than 25% of the anticipated use). The new version has been put on steroids and was rolled out by lenders this week. This juiced up version has some real potential!
The HARP program is directed towards underwater homeowners that are NOT behind on their mortgage. It is meant to provide a way for home owners with negative equity to refinance at current rates. Two major problems with HARP 1 were that it did not provide enough room in the allowable negative equity to help the target audience and the lenders were too scared to offer it with all of it’s bells and whistles. The original HARP program was intended to allow up to 25% negative equity but many lenders capped that internally in the 5% – 10% range. With the new program, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have removed the cap on negative equity all together. The potential liability for lenders that fund these loans has been reduced significantly as well. The combination of these two factors is expected to open this program on a dramatic scale and make it a realistic option for a large group of underwater home owners. Home owners will be required to document enough income to qualify for the loan, document a good payment history on the subject property, etc. However, the qualification terms are generally more lenient than if the home owner were applying for a standard refinance with 20% equity.
We are working with lenders that are underwriting HARP 2 right now. The automated underwriting system that goes along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans will not be updated for the new program until March 17th. That means that loans currently being manually underwritten will have to wait until March 17th to be run through the automated system, lock rates and proceed to closing.
The HARP program is NOT the fix to our troubled economy but, with the new guidelines, it will give many underwater home owners one less reason to consider walking away from their home.
Here is a quick reminder of the basic HARP 2 guidelines:
- Your mortgage must be owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.
- The mortgage must have been sold to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae on or before May 31, 2009.
- The mortgage cannot have been refinanced under HARP previously unless it is a Fannie Mae loan that was refinanced under HARP from March-May 2009.
- You must be current on your mortgage at the time of the refinance with a good payment history over the last twelve months.
- The current loan-to-value (LTV) ratio must be greater than 80%.
- If your current mortgage requires Private Mortgage Insurance, your mortgage insurance carrier must agree to the carry over with the new loan. As of now, most mortgage insurance companies are working with the lenders on this.
Here are links to see if your mortgage is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac:
Fannie Mae: http://www.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/
Freddie Mac: https://ww3.freddiemac.com/corporate/
We can confirm HARP program eligibility with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac directly. Give us a call if you would like us to check the eligibility of a specific loan.
January Foreclosure Statistics
February 17, 2012 | Comments Off
The January foreclosure reports are out. We watch San Diego County and the State of California new filings, outcomes and inventory on a monthly basis. Here’s a quick summary of the January report:
Filings:
As we expected, on both the County and State level we saw a significant increase in the number of Notice of Default (NOD) filings in the month of January. Many of the lenders put a hold on NOD filings for the holidays (we saw the effect in the December stats) and had to play “catch up” in January. Comparing January 2011 to January 2012 gives us a more accurate idea of the current status of the market (the lenders put a similar hold on filings for the 2010 holidays). When comparing January 2011 to January 2012, the County showed an 11.22% decline in filings and the State showed a 23.19% decline in filings.
Year-over-year, both the County and State Notice-of-Trustee Sale (NTS) filings decreased again (9.64% at the county level and 5.1% at the state level). The prior month NTS filings showed an even larger decrease but we need to remember that December had a larger-than-normal number of NTS filings in preparation for post-holiday catch up.
Outcomes:
The auction outcomes are the most interest portion of the January statistics.
Cancellations at the County level were up 11% from the prior month but were almost unchanged year-over-year. At the State level, cancellations were down 23% from the prior month but were up almost 11% from the prior year. The State’s 23% decrease from the prior month takes into account the abnormally high number of cancellations in December (they were up 61% over the prior year and 45% over the prior month).
At both the County and State levels, there was a small increase in the number of properties that went back to the banks when compared month-over-month. However, there was a HUGE decrease in the number of properties that went back to the banks when compared to the prior year. The County showed a decrease of 41.48% and the State showed a decrease of 37.58%. These decreases are due to the abnormally large number of homes that were purchased by 3rd parties.
The number of properties purchased at auction by 3rd parties (generally investors) showed a large increase both month-over-month and year-over-year. Month-over-month, the County had a 51% increase and the State had a 26% increase. Year-over-year, both the County and State showed 20% increases. In the State of California, 3,964 homes were sold to investors for $766.2 million. This large increase in investor purchases has made headlines and is a good indicator of two things: the banks are getting more aggressive in their auction pricing (to avoid bringing on more inventory) and a lot of investors are comfortable putting money into this section of the market right now.
Inventory:
Following the trend over the last 12 months, all inventories (preforeclosure, scheduled for sale, and bank owned) were down again in the month of January. On the County and State levels, the month-over-month changes were minimal but the decline ranged from 11% – 35% when compared to the prior year.
For a glossary of foreclosure terms, questions on the foreclosure procedure or to get a copy of the full January report, please email a request to: emily@capstonerealtycorp.com
To look for foreclosures in your area, please use our Foreclosure Search page (direct access to Foreclosure Radar records at no cost to you).
