ONE Solution
to the
New Homes Market?
Try taking different things out of the toolkit!
Based in Irvine, John Burns Real Estate Consulting, represents almost all of the major builders in the nation. They are a housing market analyst. The really don’t use the term “economist.”) Every week, they survey up to thousands of builders and sales platforms around the country. Because they are retained by so many, they get a high level of cooperation and consumer reaction.
It is worth seeing John’s webinar at: http://www.realestateconsulting.com/video/housingrecovery.aspx
Their most current data show us that we are providing solutions to problems that don’t exist…and are ignoring some solutions that are available to us.
As reported by 240 nationwide housing executives, the reasons given for consumers not buying…
36% say concern about the economy and jobs
29% cannot sell their existing house
20% fear that home prices could decline further
10% worry about credit and qualification issues
5% lack the necessary down payment.
So, our attempts to solve the problem by creating more down payment assistance programs (DPA’s) will have a marginal impact, if any.
To many builders, DPA is the solution because it is something they understand. And, maybe because it is something where the cost can be off-loaded to someone else. Usually government.
Could home builders not follow the lead of Hyundai Motors?
Hyundai has a program that will protect its buyers if they lose their jobs and cannot make payments on a new car purchased from Hyundai. There is fine print, etc., but the essence is that you have coverage if you make the first two payments. If you lose your job after that, you cover the first $7500 of loss, turn the car back in and suffer no harm to your credit status.
As of New Year 2009, our unemployment rate was about 6.9%. It will certainly grow in the first half of 2009 and maybe beyond. But in the meantime, how many of the employed freeze their major purchases by wondering?
Some homebuilders had similar programs for homebuyers in the late 1990’s and it looks like they should come back. These are steps that builder associations could tackle, particularly if their member builders are too small to get decent pricing from insurance companies. Right now, builder associations don’t really need to spend political capital on holding back cities’ and counties’ regulation of new developments that may come out of the ground in five years.
We are trying to manage our way out of what we have. TODAY!
What we may build in a few years is a theoretical exercise. If we don’t solve our current problems, easier zoning, quicker building inspections, and contained permit fees are totally irrelevant. We may not be alive to see them.
Someone has to pay the “premium.” I believe it becomes a cost of the sale, borne by the seller. Builders would need to promote and advertise the program, but the best news is that only the successful sale needs to pay the premium. User pay.
And, there is some risk to the insurer, of course. But will our unemployment grow to 10%? 11% Perhaps. Will all of them be homebuyers…or even Hyundai buyers? The carriers can evaluate the risk and determine the premium.
So, the solution is to bring more confidence to the market, and more reasons to the lending community to provide purchase money loans.
Think about this.
If we/someone/someone ELSE/they provide(s) down payment assistance, we are asking a lender to make a loan to someone with an insufficient down payment. Pretty obvious. And, which lender wants to take on more risk with someone who has little or no skin in the game?
And, even at that, we MAY solve the purchase resistance in 5% of those presently looking at new homes.
However, if we provide some sort of job loss insurance, by definition, we are dealing with people that have jobs. And 36% of the people in sales offices who are not buying today.
We have come to the place that solutions shouldn’t (maybe musn’t!) be limited to one builder who looks at a competitive advantage. If many builders are failing, too often, the consumer reaction is to pause in the buying cycle. Pause from buying from ANY builder.
If the new home industry provides job loss “insurance” it will immediately gain a competitive advantage over existing houses. Standing inventory will be absorbed.
Neighborhoods will “gel.”
Please watch John Burns’ webinar for some macro solutions.
Think about flexing your muscle with politicians to use those ideas in resolving the housing market.
And, leverage the builder associations to find some job loss coverage and resolve the issues holding back 36% of the people in the sales offices.
Let me know if this is of interest to you.
I welcome your feedback.
HARD

1 comment:
Buyers have to be reconditioned to accept the fact they can only buy what they can afford. This is part of the problem - a consumer one, driven by:
- an unrealistic means or improperly used loan products to achieve the American dream of owning a home
- Greed within the market and/or willingness/weakness to turn a blind eye
- Wall Streets demands for Banks and Mortgage companies to produce positive short term results to appease investors - inherently incorporating short term plans that conflict, hinder and curtail long term goals.
Survey of buyers (comments)
1) The Hyundai program or similar one is a good idea; the only other alternative I see is for the buyer to start to work/re-train for a company that has properly re-focused their efforts based on the changing global, national and local economics, and of course does and live their market research. We are moving from the economy of white and blue collar workers to an economy of knowledge workers, according to Peter Druker. Consumers/Buyers may not be aware of and have started to adapt ahead of the changes.
2) A new bank program might work here; essentially the same loan, switch properties, add the loss to the new property, no foreclosure costs, affordable payments, and least likely to default; possibly move into a more undervalued home with higher potential for appreciation. A good use of the stimulus or government bailout instead of prolonging the "bleeding".
3) This is like timing the stock market; it is dangerous and very risky; timing is a short term strategy; buying a home is mostly a long term one. If the home is undervalued and meets the goals of buying a home; there can be more risk to do nothing. The undervalued feature of the home is the icing on the cake. There are many tax advantages of owning a home compared to saving and investing long-term.
4) If consumers are not qualified to buy existing housing stock; then there is an unmet demand. A home program similar to auto programs for higher risk buyers could help qualify buyers with credit issues qualify, with contract terms to offset the risks. This is were the state and government would be able to also step in and add value to the problem; provide government loans for that 10% required for a down payment to buyers that have been properly qualified by a state licensed “financial”/loan consultant. If loan consultants are licensed by the State and trained based on also personal financial consulting guidelines, there would be more accountability and would also force developers and builders to focus their efforts toward more realistic demand; there would likely be more competition and possible more innovative product and added value.
Post a Comment