State Senator briefs REALTORS®: On Friday (3/7), State Sen. Ellen Corbett gave the Valley Marketing Meeting in Pleasanton a behind-the-scenes look at what's happening in Sacramento and legislation she's working on that addresses real estate issues. Corbett represents the 10th Senate district which includes the cities of San Leandro, Fremont, Hayward, Union City, Pleasanton, Milpitas and Newark and part of San Jose, as well as the communities of Castro Valley, San Lorenzo and Sunol.
Here's a quick summary of her comments:
State budget: The governor's plan to deal with the state's multi-billion dollar budget deficit could have major negative consequences for public schools. Corbett urged REALTORS® to oppose these cuts because of the impact they could have on property values. She alluded to the possible formation of a coalition of interest groups that could fight to protect school funding and suggested REALTOR participation.
Foreclosures: Corbett discussed pending legislation that would ease the tax burden for property owners faced with a foreclosure.
Transportation: Commute times and traffic congestion have a direct impact on the quality of life for Alameda County residents. Corbett explained efforts to secure funding to improve I-580 and praised work by Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty to ensure our region gets a share of transportation resources.
Corbett also took questions from the audience. While she's not officially involved with the San Leandro School District, she did an admirable job responding to concerns about out-of-district students attending San Leandro Schools.
REALTOR® Impact: Corbett chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee which reviews legislation that may impact the real estate profession. It is in our interest to cultivate a strong relationship with the senator and ensure she understands REALTOR® issues.
Next Steps: Regarding the senator's comments about a school funding coalition, C.A.R. hasn't been approached to join any such group - yet. However, C.A.R. has historically supported school funding bonds and in 2000 supported Proposition 39, which made it easier for school districts to pass bond measures to finance school construction and improvements by reducing the vote requirement from two-thirds to a 55 percent supermajority.
Senator Corbett really enjoyed speaking at the Valley Marketing Meeting this week and her visit to the Tri-Cities group earlier this year. We're looking forward to hosting her at the Central County Marketing Meeting in the near future.
This information is compliments of David Stark Bay East Association of Realtors
Showing posts with label industry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industry. Show all posts
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Judge throws out ban on down-payment assistance
Federal regulators have not adequately explained their decision to reverse a policy allowing seller-funded down-payment assistance on FHA-backed loans -- or provided sufficient responses to suggestions on ways to mend, rather than end, the practice -- a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will have to reopen an administrative proceeding that culminated in a rule change last October banning seller-funded down-payment assistance on loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (see Inman News story).
Claiming seller-funded down-payment assistance artificially inflates home prices and more than doubles the odds that a loan will end up in default, HUD put forward the proposed rule change last spring. A final rule banning the practice was published in the Federal Register on Oct. 1, after HUD received more than 15,000 comments on the proposal.
Three nonprofits that provide seller-funded down-payment assistance filed separate lawsuits to block implementation of the rule, saying it would have a disproportionate impact on minorities, low-income and single-parent families who rely on the down-payment-assistance programs they provide.
In a Feb. 29 order setting aside the rule change, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton said that although HUD provided a "reasoned basis" for the rule change, it "was not honest with itself or the public that it was reversing course from its prior policy."
In putting forward the proposed rule change, Karlton said, HUD presented evidence that seller-funded down-payment assistance harms consumers by inflating home prices, and that the increased default rates on such loans leads to greater losses. HUD also noted abortive attempts at ending seller-funded down-payment assistance during the Clinton administration.
But more recently, Karlton said, HUD had "warmed" to seller-funded down-payment assistance -- a fact omitted in its arguments for a change in course.
In a 2005 letter, HUD Assistant Secretary for Housing Brian Montgomery defended seller-funded down-payment assistance against calls for a ban by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Although Montgomery recognized problems with the practice, he said those who relied on seller-funded down-payment assistance "are representative of the population that FHA was established to serve."
At the time, Montgomery said that instead of banning the practice, FHA would rather charge higher premiums on loans that relied on seller-funded down-payment assistance.
Karlton said that "while HUD may have set forth good reasons for the rule's adoption, it did not adequately explain why it was changing its mind."
By failing to acknowledge its previous position, HUD violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the process for implementing such changes, the judge said in his order.
Karlton said HUD also failed to provide an adequate response to some arguments put forward by proponents of seller-funded down payment assistance for overhauling, instead of abolishing, the practice.
Those suggestions included the same proposal put forward by Montgomery in 2005 -- that HUD implement risk-based pricing for loans involving seller-funded down-payment insurance -- and require lenders to inform appraisers of the source of down-payment assistance.
HUD maintains that it is implementing risk-based pricing, and that FHA modernization legislation now being considered by Congress will lower or eliminate down-payment requirements for some borrowers.
But Karlton said such an argument is "a non-sequitur" because HUD's intent is to introduce risk-based pricing in conjunction with a ban on seller-funded down-payment assistance, rather than in lieu of a ban, as proposed in 2005.
In ordering the Housing Department to reopen the rulemaking process, Karlton barred HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson from participating in the proceedings because of remarks attributed to him during the public comment period.
In a June 5, 2007, article by Bloomberg News, Jackson was quoted as saying he was "very much against" seller-funded down-payment assistance. "I think it's wrong. I don't want to continue to be a partner in a program where so many people can't afford to keep up their payments."
The article also paraphrased Jackson as saying HUD intended to approve the new rule even if the agency received critical comments.
"Allowing the public to submit comments to an agency that has already made its decision is no different from prohibiting comments altogether," Karlton said.
But Karlton also said courts have found that just because officials take positions or express strong views doesn't mean they are no longer capable of being objective and fair.
Because Jackson was not involved in the original rule-making proceeding -- he had delegated that authority to Montgomery -- it might be "imprudent" to reopen the process simply to exclude him, Karlton said.
But since he had already decided to reopen the process for other reasons -- because HUD failed to provide a reasoned analysis for its departure from prior policy, and did not adequately respond to comments -- disqualifying Jackson "will likely impose little or no burden on the agency," Karlton ruled.
The ruling was made in a case brought by Nehemiah Corp. of America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Two similar lawsuits were filed by AmeriDream Inc. and the Penobscot Indian Nation in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C.
Scott Syphax, the president and chief executive officer of Nehemiah, issued a statement this week saying the company was "thrilled with the Court's decision to support low- to moderate-income families across the country" and looked forward to working with HUD in the future.
The ruling means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will have to reopen an administrative proceeding that culminated in a rule change last October banning seller-funded down-payment assistance on loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration (see Inman News story).
Claiming seller-funded down-payment assistance artificially inflates home prices and more than doubles the odds that a loan will end up in default, HUD put forward the proposed rule change last spring. A final rule banning the practice was published in the Federal Register on Oct. 1, after HUD received more than 15,000 comments on the proposal.
Three nonprofits that provide seller-funded down-payment assistance filed separate lawsuits to block implementation of the rule, saying it would have a disproportionate impact on minorities, low-income and single-parent families who rely on the down-payment-assistance programs they provide.
In a Feb. 29 order setting aside the rule change, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton said that although HUD provided a "reasoned basis" for the rule change, it "was not honest with itself or the public that it was reversing course from its prior policy."
In putting forward the proposed rule change, Karlton said, HUD presented evidence that seller-funded down-payment assistance harms consumers by inflating home prices, and that the increased default rates on such loans leads to greater losses. HUD also noted abortive attempts at ending seller-funded down-payment assistance during the Clinton administration.
But more recently, Karlton said, HUD had "warmed" to seller-funded down-payment assistance -- a fact omitted in its arguments for a change in course.
In a 2005 letter, HUD Assistant Secretary for Housing Brian Montgomery defended seller-funded down-payment assistance against calls for a ban by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Although Montgomery recognized problems with the practice, he said those who relied on seller-funded down-payment assistance "are representative of the population that FHA was established to serve."
At the time, Montgomery said that instead of banning the practice, FHA would rather charge higher premiums on loans that relied on seller-funded down-payment assistance.
Karlton said that "while HUD may have set forth good reasons for the rule's adoption, it did not adequately explain why it was changing its mind."
By failing to acknowledge its previous position, HUD violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the process for implementing such changes, the judge said in his order.
Karlton said HUD also failed to provide an adequate response to some arguments put forward by proponents of seller-funded down payment assistance for overhauling, instead of abolishing, the practice.
Those suggestions included the same proposal put forward by Montgomery in 2005 -- that HUD implement risk-based pricing for loans involving seller-funded down-payment insurance -- and require lenders to inform appraisers of the source of down-payment assistance.
HUD maintains that it is implementing risk-based pricing, and that FHA modernization legislation now being considered by Congress will lower or eliminate down-payment requirements for some borrowers.
But Karlton said such an argument is "a non-sequitur" because HUD's intent is to introduce risk-based pricing in conjunction with a ban on seller-funded down-payment assistance, rather than in lieu of a ban, as proposed in 2005.
In ordering the Housing Department to reopen the rulemaking process, Karlton barred HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson from participating in the proceedings because of remarks attributed to him during the public comment period.
In a June 5, 2007, article by Bloomberg News, Jackson was quoted as saying he was "very much against" seller-funded down-payment assistance. "I think it's wrong. I don't want to continue to be a partner in a program where so many people can't afford to keep up their payments."
The article also paraphrased Jackson as saying HUD intended to approve the new rule even if the agency received critical comments.
"Allowing the public to submit comments to an agency that has already made its decision is no different from prohibiting comments altogether," Karlton said.
But Karlton also said courts have found that just because officials take positions or express strong views doesn't mean they are no longer capable of being objective and fair.
Because Jackson was not involved in the original rule-making proceeding -- he had delegated that authority to Montgomery -- it might be "imprudent" to reopen the process simply to exclude him, Karlton said.
But since he had already decided to reopen the process for other reasons -- because HUD failed to provide a reasoned analysis for its departure from prior policy, and did not adequately respond to comments -- disqualifying Jackson "will likely impose little or no burden on the agency," Karlton ruled.
The ruling was made in a case brought by Nehemiah Corp. of America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Two similar lawsuits were filed by AmeriDream Inc. and the Penobscot Indian Nation in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C.
Scott Syphax, the president and chief executive officer of Nehemiah, issued a statement this week saying the company was "thrilled with the Court's decision to support low- to moderate-income families across the country" and looked forward to working with HUD in the future.
Article is by the US Housing and Urban Development
***
***
Thursday, March 6, 2008
There are Pockets of Pain around the US but Not as if Most Americans are Losing Their Homes!
Sure, there are pockets of pain around the US, but it's not as if most Americans are losing their homes. More than 99% of homes aren't in foreclosure.
By Scott Burns
A recent list of year-end mortgage foreclosure rates in 100 top metropolitan areas drew a lot of attention. Released by RealtyTrac, a company that compiles data on home foreclosures, the list showed the number of foreclosure filings in each metro area, the percentage of homes being foreclosed and the percentage change from the previous year.
Though the report had some dismal news -- such as the nearly 4.9% foreclosure rate in the Stockton, Calif., area -- a close look at the data also provides some reassuring information. It tells me, for instance, that the foreclosure crisis is a regional problem, not a systemic one. It could become a systemic problem, of course, but we're a long way from that now.
This news will disappoint the gloom-and-doom crew and all those seeking the excitement of financial upheaval. But it may be time to temper our worry and take a closer look at some of the year-over-year foreclosure statistics:
Though the national rate of foreclosure increased by a whopping 79% between December 2006 and December 2007, the rate was still only 1.033%. Because about 30% of all homes are owned mortgage-free, this means that for all the noise about a crisis, only seven-tenths of 1% of all homes were in foreclosure.
In the top 100 housing markets, the average foreclosure rate was somewhat higher -- 1.38% -- and it was up 78% over the previous year. But if you rank-ordered the list of the top 100 areas, only 34 had foreclosure rates above the group average. Fifty-one areas had rates of 1% or less.
Foreclosure rates actually fell in 14 of the 100 areas. More important, many of the areas with the highest increases in foreclosure rates were rising off rates that were tiny. The Bethesda, Md., area, to offer the most extreme case, saw foreclosures rise 1,288% -- to a rate of 0.682%. In other words, foreclosures there were virtually nonexistent the year before. Today they are still well below the national average. The same can be said for the Albany, N.Y., area (up 638% to 0.25%), the Baltimore area (up 544% to 0.73%) and the Providence, R.I., area (up 354% to 0.41%).
Another pattern emerges if you cross the foreclosure rates with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) index of home prices. It shows that the top 10 foreclosure areas in America are areas of extreme price change -- changes far from the national average of 46.92% over the past five years. (See the table below.)
Talk back: Do you think the foreclosure crisis is overblown?
Seven of the top 10 foreclosure areas had experienced major price spikes in the past five years. Three of the top 10 foreclosure areas had experienced price increases that were dramatically lower than the national average. That pattern continues when you examine the top 25 foreclosure areas.
A tale of two extremes:
Metro area-Foreclosure rate 12/07 -Year to year increase of foreclosures- 5-year home-appreciation rate
Detroit/Livonia/Dearborn, Mich. 4.92% 68.15% -0.92%
Stockton, Calif. 4.87% 271.3% 65.07%
Las Vegas/Paradise, Nev. 4.23% 169.11% 88.33%
Riverside/San Bernardino, Calif. 3.83% 186.14% 107.80%
Sacramento, Calif. 3.12% 272.54% 56.9%
Cleveland/Lorain/Elyria/Mentor, Ohio 2.97% 112.43% 9.36%
Bakersfield, Calif. 2.96% 244.82% 113.82%
Miami 2.72% 106.13% 114.98%
Denver/Aurora, Colo. 2.64% 27.19% 10.83%
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 2.63% 110.05% 94.29%
National average 1.03% 79.21% 46.92%
Average of top 100 metro areas 1.38% 78.23% Not available
Sources: RealtyTrac, OFHEO
The seven areas with the top price appreciation for the past five years averaged a stunning 91.6% increase, nearly double the national average. The national average, in turn, was about triple the inflation rate for the period.
Small wonder the foreclosure rate is booming as well. Anyone who bought in the past few years with a 5% or 10% down payment has a good chance of being upside down as froth comes off the market. In those areas the problem is about irrational price spikes and the hazards they bring to homeownership.
Some would call this "a Cadillac problem" -- a great problem to have, like having more boats than you have water-skiers. Though 5% of the homeowners may be losing their homes, most of the other 95% probably feel significantly richer.
Smart Spending blog: When is it OK to walk away from your home?
How much richer? Try this. Suppose you paid three times your income for a house and it nearly doubled in value over five years. What does that mean? It means your net worth grew by nearly three years of income. Try achieving that with your 401(k) plan. Even if you bought halfway through the surge, your gain is likely to be well more than one year of income. However you cut it, the change compares quite favorably with working and saving.
Should you rent or buy?Owning your own home is an idea so popular that it's known as the American dream. But as prices fall and foreclosures rise, for many it's become a nightmare instead.
The three metro areas with low price appreciations are a different matter. Homeowners in Detroit have actually lost money on their homes over the past five years. That, in turn, has limited their ability to make up for income shortfalls by borrowing against home equity. Add a shrinking job market, and places such as Detroit are coping with a perpetual surplus of sellers over buyers.
One indication is the cost of renting a U-Haul truck. It recently cost $1,447 to rent a 26-foot truck to move from Detroit to Dallas but only $521 to rent the same truck to move from Dallas to Detroit. The real economic problem, for the most people, isn't the price-spike states. It's the deflation states.
Questions about personal finance and investments may be e-mailed to scott@scottburns.com
Article is Compliments of California Association of Realtors
By Scott Burns
A recent list of year-end mortgage foreclosure rates in 100 top metropolitan areas drew a lot of attention. Released by RealtyTrac, a company that compiles data on home foreclosures, the list showed the number of foreclosure filings in each metro area, the percentage of homes being foreclosed and the percentage change from the previous year.
Though the report had some dismal news -- such as the nearly 4.9% foreclosure rate in the Stockton, Calif., area -- a close look at the data also provides some reassuring information. It tells me, for instance, that the foreclosure crisis is a regional problem, not a systemic one. It could become a systemic problem, of course, but we're a long way from that now.
This news will disappoint the gloom-and-doom crew and all those seeking the excitement of financial upheaval. But it may be time to temper our worry and take a closer look at some of the year-over-year foreclosure statistics:
Though the national rate of foreclosure increased by a whopping 79% between December 2006 and December 2007, the rate was still only 1.033%. Because about 30% of all homes are owned mortgage-free, this means that for all the noise about a crisis, only seven-tenths of 1% of all homes were in foreclosure.
In the top 100 housing markets, the average foreclosure rate was somewhat higher -- 1.38% -- and it was up 78% over the previous year. But if you rank-ordered the list of the top 100 areas, only 34 had foreclosure rates above the group average. Fifty-one areas had rates of 1% or less.
Foreclosure rates actually fell in 14 of the 100 areas. More important, many of the areas with the highest increases in foreclosure rates were rising off rates that were tiny. The Bethesda, Md., area, to offer the most extreme case, saw foreclosures rise 1,288% -- to a rate of 0.682%. In other words, foreclosures there were virtually nonexistent the year before. Today they are still well below the national average. The same can be said for the Albany, N.Y., area (up 638% to 0.25%), the Baltimore area (up 544% to 0.73%) and the Providence, R.I., area (up 354% to 0.41%).
Another pattern emerges if you cross the foreclosure rates with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) index of home prices. It shows that the top 10 foreclosure areas in America are areas of extreme price change -- changes far from the national average of 46.92% over the past five years. (See the table below.)
Talk back: Do you think the foreclosure crisis is overblown?
Seven of the top 10 foreclosure areas had experienced major price spikes in the past five years. Three of the top 10 foreclosure areas had experienced price increases that were dramatically lower than the national average. That pattern continues when you examine the top 25 foreclosure areas.
A tale of two extremes:
Metro area-Foreclosure rate 12/07 -Year to year increase of foreclosures- 5-year home-appreciation rate
Detroit/Livonia/Dearborn, Mich. 4.92% 68.15% -0.92%
Stockton, Calif. 4.87% 271.3% 65.07%
Las Vegas/Paradise, Nev. 4.23% 169.11% 88.33%
Riverside/San Bernardino, Calif. 3.83% 186.14% 107.80%
Sacramento, Calif. 3.12% 272.54% 56.9%
Cleveland/Lorain/Elyria/Mentor, Ohio 2.97% 112.43% 9.36%
Bakersfield, Calif. 2.96% 244.82% 113.82%
Miami 2.72% 106.13% 114.98%
Denver/Aurora, Colo. 2.64% 27.19% 10.83%
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 2.63% 110.05% 94.29%
National average 1.03% 79.21% 46.92%
Average of top 100 metro areas 1.38% 78.23% Not available
Sources: RealtyTrac, OFHEO
The seven areas with the top price appreciation for the past five years averaged a stunning 91.6% increase, nearly double the national average. The national average, in turn, was about triple the inflation rate for the period.
Small wonder the foreclosure rate is booming as well. Anyone who bought in the past few years with a 5% or 10% down payment has a good chance of being upside down as froth comes off the market. In those areas the problem is about irrational price spikes and the hazards they bring to homeownership.
Some would call this "a Cadillac problem" -- a great problem to have, like having more boats than you have water-skiers. Though 5% of the homeowners may be losing their homes, most of the other 95% probably feel significantly richer.
Smart Spending blog: When is it OK to walk away from your home?
How much richer? Try this. Suppose you paid three times your income for a house and it nearly doubled in value over five years. What does that mean? It means your net worth grew by nearly three years of income. Try achieving that with your 401(k) plan. Even if you bought halfway through the surge, your gain is likely to be well more than one year of income. However you cut it, the change compares quite favorably with working and saving.
Should you rent or buy?Owning your own home is an idea so popular that it's known as the American dream. But as prices fall and foreclosures rise, for many it's become a nightmare instead.
The three metro areas with low price appreciations are a different matter. Homeowners in Detroit have actually lost money on their homes over the past five years. That, in turn, has limited their ability to make up for income shortfalls by borrowing against home equity. Add a shrinking job market, and places such as Detroit are coping with a perpetual surplus of sellers over buyers.
One indication is the cost of renting a U-Haul truck. It recently cost $1,447 to rent a 26-foot truck to move from Detroit to Dallas but only $521 to rent the same truck to move from Dallas to Detroit. The real economic problem, for the most people, isn't the price-spike states. It's the deflation states.
Questions about personal finance and investments may be e-mailed to scott@scottburns.com
Article is Compliments of California Association of Realtors
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
California Statewide MLS?
The Boards of Directors of the Contra Costa and Bay East Associations of REALTORS® have signed Statements of Intent to participate in a statewide Multiple Listing Service (MLS) being created by the California Association of REALTORS®. Both organizations have been working with neighboring MLSs for over three years to expand access to property information for their members and believe this approach is the best long term solution.
A solution to the problem of having several MLSs serving a local region has been long sought by larger real estate brokerage companies. They typically must join several MLSs if their business serves more than just a small, local area. The real winner with this initiative, however, is the general public, who would have the ability to access statewide information through their real estate agent.
"This action is consistent with our commitment to giving our MLS users access to the widest geographic range of quality MLS data," said CCAR President Moses Guillory.
"A statewide MLS would not only give real estate agents and brokers access to comprehensive property information, it would also give them a standard MLS database with a single set of rules, policies and data display requirements" according to Melrose Forde, the Bay East Association of REALTORS® president. "This is something the real estate community has been seeking for many years, and we encourage our neighboring REALTOR® associations and MLSs to participate in the statewide MLS initiative" .
It is anticipated that under the statewide MLS, the local Associations will be the point of contact for members to subscribe to and participate in the California MLS, and, in turn, enhance the level of MLS services to agents and brokers.
A solution to the problem of having several MLSs serving a local region has been long sought by larger real estate brokerage companies. They typically must join several MLSs if their business serves more than just a small, local area. The real winner with this initiative, however, is the general public, who would have the ability to access statewide information through their real estate agent.
"This action is consistent with our commitment to giving our MLS users access to the widest geographic range of quality MLS data," said CCAR President Moses Guillory.
"A statewide MLS would not only give real estate agents and brokers access to comprehensive property information, it would also give them a standard MLS database with a single set of rules, policies and data display requirements" according to Melrose Forde, the Bay East Association of REALTORS® president. "This is something the real estate community has been seeking for many years, and we encourage our neighboring REALTOR® associations and MLSs to participate in the statewide MLS initiative" .
It is anticipated that under the statewide MLS, the local Associations will be the point of contact for members to subscribe to and participate in the California MLS, and, in turn, enhance the level of MLS services to agents and brokers.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Economic Stimulus
President Approves Higher Loan Limits: On Wednesday (2/13), President Bush signed the economic stimulus package that includes a temporary increase in the conforming loan limits for mortgages backed by the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the FHA. The new loan limits could rise to $729,750 in high-cost regions.
According to NAR, more than 85,000 REALTORS® contacted their senators urging them to support the increased loan limits and to pass the stimulus package.
REALTOR® Impact: Higher loan limits will have a direct positive impact on REALTORS®. The policy change will allow more buyers (both first-time and move-up buyers) to access loans with lower interest rates. Currently, most home buyers in high-cost regions (such as the SF Bay Area) must finance their purchases with non-conforming "jumbo" loans. The interest rates on these loans can be up to one percentage point higher than those that fall within the current $417,000 limit. Higher rates mean higher payments which could keep potential buyers out of the market. Lower raters will make access to capital easier and provide the incentive for buyers to get off the fence and into real estate.
Next Steps: We may see new loan products as soon as late April or early May. According to sources at C.A.R., the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will have up to 30 days to finalize the actual amount of the regional loan limits. Once the limits are set, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will need to update their procedures to reflect the changes. Shifting from a national loan limit to region limits is a major change for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regardless, our sources tell us that both GSEs want to implement the new limits as soon as possible.
CAR is not sure when the FHA will respond. However, they may be able to implement the new limits quicker than the GSEs.
This report is compliments of Bay East's Governent Affairs Director David Stark!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
