Zillow study illustrates home value disparity between races

Typical values for Black and Latinx-owned homes still lag behind overall U.S. home values, but the gap is narrowing.

A new Zillow analysis shows homes owned by Black and Latinx households are worth 16.2% and 10.2% less, respectively, than the typical U.S. home. Homes owned by non-Hispanic white and Asian families, meanwhile, have typical values 2.9% and 3.7% higher than the typical U.S. home.

While inequity in home values continues to persist, the data show them steadily, albeit slowly, converging. Since homeownership is the single largest driver of wealth for many households, the value and appreciation of a home is extremely impactful for families.

Before the Great Recession, the gap between Black-owned home values and all home values was about 15%, but grew to 20% by March 2014. Similarly, Latinx-owned homes saw the largest home value gap in May 2012 at 14% — 2 percentage points larger than before the housing bubble. Now, nearly a decade later, home values for Black- and Latinx-owned homes are back at pre-bubble levels, and continue to narrow despite the current economic crisis.

One reason for the wide gap is that the housing bust hit communities of color especially hard. Subprime loans were targeted to take advantage of the most vulnerable communities, and the ensuing wave of foreclosures hurt homeownership and home values disproportionately for Black and Latinx homeowners. Fast forward 12 years, and homeownership rates and home values are still recovering for these communities. While home value growth turned positive for U.S. homes in August 2012, it took an additional two years for Black and Latinx homes to see this same growth.

“It has taken nearly a decade for the home value gap to return to pre-recession levels, but still, the gap remains very large,” says Zillow economist Treh Manhertz. “With Black and brown communities and jobs hit disproportionately hard in the pandemic, there has been reason to worry another dip may be on the horizon that could slow or stop the progress. However, this is not the case, as the same factors that widened the gap in the Great Recession are not surfacing this time. Thanks to rock bottom rates on the most secure mortgages, extended forbearance programs, and rising home prices, there are no signs of another widening of the gap coming this year. However, through these turbulent times, continued vigilance and targeted intervention by policymakers is crucial to keep the progress going for communities of color.”

Home value inequality varies greatly in different states and metropolitan areas. Large metros with the smallest spread between Black-owned home values are Riverside (1% value gap), San Antonio (3%), Las Vegas (3%), and Portland (4%). Among the most unequal are Detroit (46% value gap), Buffalo (43%) Birmingham (43%), St. Louis (41%), and Milwaukee (40%).

Black homeownership rates are also on the rise since the Great Recession, despite challenges for Black homebuyers to secure a mortgage. Telework has the ability to expand the opportunity for homeownership even further for Black and Latinx renters, providing the flexibility to own a home in a less-expensive area.

The post Zillow study illustrates home value disparity between races appeared first on RealtyBizNews: Real Estate News.

Source: realtybiznews.com

Social media influencers are being paid to promote real estate

Some real estate agents have had the novel idea of partnering with social media influencers in order to get younger, first-time buyers checking out their listings.

A story in Bloomberg last week revealed that agents are turning to social media influencers to sell the idea of a better lifestyle, with Instagram posts or YouTube videos featuring some of their listings to help prospective buyers picture themselves living there.

Christine Blackburn, a sales director with Compass, told Bloomberg that she believes younger home buyers “trust these influencers – that’s what it comes down to.”

Blackburn has used the tactic herself, teaming up with three well known Instagram influencers to decorate condo units she is selling in Brooklyn, N.Y. One influencer, who’s known for her houseplant tips, helped to outfit the condo with various potted plants and shared the photos on her profile. Some influencers have hundreds of thousands of followers that will see such images.

The National Association of Realtors says its data suggests that younger buyers are more likely to take advice from close friends and relatives when it comes to buying a home. And they’re also more likely to respond to word-of-mouth marketing, and the NAR includes social media influencers in that category.

“We’re seeing that social media has played quite a big role in home shopping,” StreetEasy Economist Nancy Wu told Bloomberg. StreetEasy has taken it onboard, and recently launched its own TikTok account that features home tours.

Bloomberg said the real estate pros it interviews that have used social media influencers declined to say how much they paid to get their listings featured. But they unanimously said that the posts resulted in a big increase in the number of people who viewed their listings.

It’s likely that real estate agents will leverage content creators more often in the coming years, Thomas Fialo, vice president of Douglas Elliman Development Marketing, told Bloomberg.

“People can identify with them,” Fialo said, referring to social media influencers. “It’s about thinking outside the box and bringing a home to life.”

The post Social media influencers are being paid to promote real estate appeared first on RealtyBizNews: Real Estate News.

Source: realtybiznews.com

Fannie, Freddie Overseer Looks to End Federal Control Before Trump Leaves

Mark Calabria, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, testified before a Senate committee in June.Astrid Riecken/The Washington Post/Bloomberg via Getty Images

WASHINGTON—The federal regulator who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is pushing to speed up the mortgage giants’ exit from 12 years of government control but has yet to reach an agreement he needs with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mark Calabria, a libertarian economist who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has made it a priority to return Fannie and Freddie to private hands, a goal shared by Mr. Mnuchin. How that is done could affect the cost and availability of mortgages backed by the companies, which guarantee roughly half of the $11 trillion in existing home loans.

Completing the complex process before President Trump’s term ends on Jan. 20 is a long shot, and President-elect Joe Biden is considered unlikely to continue the effort. But Messrs. Calabria and Mnuchin could succeed in taking steps that would be difficult to reverse, such as significantly restructuring the government’s stakes in the firms.

The Treasury secretary must agree to any move to alter the terms of either the companies’ bailout agreement or the government’s stakes. One person familiar with the effort said Mr. Mnuchin is supportive of locking in a path to private ownership but mindful of steps that could disrupt the housing-finance market.

Mr. Calabria has met twice recently with Mr. Mnuchin to discuss an expedited exit of the companies from government control, most recently the week of Nov. 9, according to people familiar with the meetings, which also involved Larry Kudlow, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council. Mr. Mnuchin was noncommittal about the push, the people said.

Fannie and Freddie don’t make home loans. Instead, they buy mortgages and package them into securities, which they then sell to investors. Their promise to make investors whole in case of default keeps down the price of home loans and underpins the popular 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

The government seized control of Fannie and Freddie to prevent their collapse during the 2008 financial crisis through a process known as conservatorship, eventually injecting $190 billion into the companies. In exchange, the Treasury received a new class of so-called senior preferred shares that originally paid a 10% dividend. It also received warrants to acquire about 80% of the firms’ common shares.

One option under discussion would entail a complex capital restructuring that would eventually reduce the government’s stakes in the firms. Such a move would be aimed at opening the door to new, private investment.

Still, it is a delicate issue because U.S. officials don’t want to cause investors to doubt the government’s backing of the firms, which have helped pin mortgage rates at record low levels during this year’s pandemic-induced economic slump. Moreover, it is politically sensitive because depending on the design, it could effectively move Wall Street investors ahead of taxpayers in line to receive any future profits.

As part of that set of decisions, Mr. Mnuchin would have to determine whether to write down the government’s more than $220 billion of senior preferred shares in the firms. Because those shares give the Treasury first claim on profits, private investors will have little incentive to take new stakes in Fannie and Freddie as long as they exist in their current form.

Such a move would likely push up the value of shares that investors acquired at fire-sale prices after the 2008 crisis. Some lawmakers are worried taxpayers would be short-changed.

In a letter to Messrs. Calabria and Mnuchin last month, Sens. Mark Warner (D., Va.) and Mike Rounds (R., S.D.) said taxpayers must be paid a fair market value for whatever stake they give up.

“Any other means of reducing their investment would be tantamount to a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers who stepped in to save [Fannie and Freddie] to private investors looking for a windfall,” they wrote.

It is unclear how seriously officials are considering another legal move that Mr. Calabria has raised in the past: an order formally ending the conservatorships but requiring the companies to operate with significant limitations on their businesses until they raise enough capital to operate independently through retained earnings and possible future stock sales. Supporters say the move would be akin to downgrading a sick patient from the emergency room to a regular hospital room.

One person familiar with the matter said the policymakers aren’t considering such an order, fearful it could upend markets.

Any single step, such as restructuring the government’s stakes in the firms, would normally require dozens of employees across the White House, Treasury and other agencies many months to complete, according to current and former government officials.

Industry officials warn that an abrupt overhaul to the company’s legal status could spook risk-averse investors in mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, which are seen as nearly as safe as Treasurys.

“An end to conservatorship would be a material change from what we’ve had, and it will take time to explain to investors what risks do and do not exist,” said Michael Bright, CEO of the Structured Finance Association, whose members include investors in Fannie and Freddie securities.

In a sign that Mr. Calabria is eager to complete unfinished work quickly, the FHFA on Wednesday completed a rule requiring the companies to hold as much as $280 billion in capital once they exit conservatorship, up from $35 billion currently.

The post Fannie, Freddie Overseer Looks to End Federal Control Before Trump Leaves appeared first on Real Estate News & Insights | realtor.com®.

Source: realtor.com

Orchard expands to Houston, East Coast

Orchard announced Tuesday its immediate availability to consumers in Houston, as well as future expansion into Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and the Washington, D.C. suburbs in the upcoming months.

Court Cunningham, chief executive officer and co-founder, said he’s excited for Orchard to help consumers in the new markets, where demand has outpaced inventory.

“We’ll make it easier for home buyers in these markets to secure their dream home as soon as they see it, while still selling their old home for top dollar,” he said.

Cunningham added that the Move First initiative, Orchard’s program allowing homeowners to buy their next home before selling their old one, proved popular during the COVID-19 pandemic because it let consumers avoid living in their old home while potential homebuyers toured it.

“Buying and selling homes the traditional way isn’t sufficient in today’s hyper-competitive market,” he said. “With demand at an all-time high, people need to make offers – ideally in cash – without contingencies.”

Houston, according to multiple listing service data, is selling homes above price at triple the rate of 2019, and Cunningham added that the number of homes going under contract within 30 days of listing has increased by 50%.

Orchard adds Houston to a service area that includes Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, Denver, and Atlanta.

Originally called Perch, Orchard branched into the lending business in July. This followed the creation of a title and escrow unit, dubbed Orchard Title, in the fall of 2018. It also closed on a $69 million Series C round led by Revolution Growth in September.

In October, Orchard announced the launch of a digital platform that enables homeowners to manage the entire real estate transaction in one place.

The post Orchard expands to Houston, East Coast appeared first on HousingWire.

Source: housingwire.com

Coliving amidst the challenges of COVID-19

There is no other way to say it: Real Estate as an industry did not have it easy in 2020. Big plans had to be put on hold, and business growth shrunk. The sub-segment of coliving within the Real Estate industry was especially susceptible to the damage that the world-wide lockdown did to businesses.

At the beginning of this month, my team and I at TheHouseMonk launched the Global Coliving Report 2020. It was the culmination of several months of research within the coliving industry around the world, and us trying to understand how the industry dealt with this impact.

We found comfort in data that we collected directly from operators, and our analysis of geographies and their markets. There are three big takeaways from the report to touch upon here.

Coliving industry growth slowed down

The industry which was estimated to be worth $7.5B in 2019 stood at a market value of $7.9B in 2020. The industry was growing steadily at a pace of 20% YoY but slowed down to 6% this year.

We found that both occupancy rates and rental prices reduced across most parts of the world, giving rise to the new ‘revenue-sharing’ model between operators and landlords to help soften the blow of sudden churn, and also reduce liabilities.

China sustains its position as the largest coliving market, followed by the USA and India respectively. While Europe as a collective region presents a reasonably large market, no individual country within the EU presents a large opportunity by itself.

Drop in the occupancy rates and rental prices around the world

The USA and India experienced high drops in occupancy rates and were worst impacted, but South East Asia and China have shown remarkable stability in times of tough lockdowns. Their occupancy rates have remained nearly stable, and they have shown the lowest drop in rental prices.

Funding and IPO news

The year opened up with IPOs for Chinese industry leaders Danke & Qingke, but now their market value is shrinking significantly. This combined with the pandemic slowed the movement of late-stage PE capital into the coliving industry by the end of this year.

On the bright side, multiple companies raised Series B, C, and D rounds of financing. About $200M was invested in coliving companies across the globe this year.

Most early-stage companies pushed their growth plans to 2021, hence seed and Series A rounds were infrequent this year.

The Coliving industry is still bullish on growth

We knew that Global Coliving Report needs a direct connection with operators to represent their voice in all its authenticity. The Coliving Operators Survey featured in the report does just that.

The survey observes that despite stiff challenges, the sentiments of over 100 operators from around the world suggest they are still confident that the industry is going to bounce back, albeit in its own time.

48% of respondents in the survey said they were as bullish about the industry as they have ever been, with another 45% suggesting that they remain confident in the long-term prospects.

It also noted that 48% of coliving operators continued to expand their portfolio in 2020, while 20% had to let go of certain properties and reduce their portfolio size. The remaining 32% of respondents had neither increased nor decreased their footprint this year.

Further, 72% of coliving operators feel that it would take more than 1 year for the industry to recover and get back to pre-Covid growth levels.

For those interested, the full Global Coliving Report goes to the depths of the market, understanding the industry and its major players to analyze growth in the year of the pandemic, and also what the future looks like for the coliving industry.

The post Coliving amidst the challenges of COVID-19 appeared first on GeekEstate Blog.

Source: geekestateblog.com

New Report Reveals Massive Shifts in Tenant

A recent study by Zumper, an online rental marketplace, reveals massive shifts in renter behavior and historic market changes for renting in 2020.

The company’s “State of the American Renter” report for 2020 was based on surveys of more than 14,000 Americans conducted between June 2020 and August 2020. It demonstrates how the coronavirus pandemic is altering renter behavior and reversing rental market trends. Key findings include:

  • Renters are moving back in with mom and dad. Nearly 50% more renters are moving back in with their parents, with Millennials moving most often.
  • The majority of renters are under financial stress, with tenant unemployment at 12.7%.
  • Renters are moving more than ever before. A quarter reported moving to a new city within the past year, up 33% from 2019.
  • Renters are abandoning expensive cities in favor of cheaper, often neighboring, markets. For example, Bay Area residents are moving to Sacramento.
  • The country’s priciest cities are seeing the sharpest rent declines. The median rents in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Oakland, San Jose, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and Seattle declined 15% from the start of 2020.

The post New Report Reveals Massive Shifts in Tenant first appeared on Century 21®.

Source: century21.com

How to Make Tough Decisions as a Couple

Marnie and Tom live in a nice suburb in the Midwest with their two young children. Marnie’s mother, Elaine, lives about an hour away.

When the kids were babies, Marnie's mother used to drive to Marnie and Tom's every day to see her grandkids and help out. But lately, Marnie's mother's health has been declining, so she can’t drive over anymore.

One day Marnie gets an idea: What if she and Tom sell their house and move closer to her mother? Then the kids would be able to see their grandmother more often. Plus, Marnie would be able to keep a closer eye on her mother in case her health gets worse. Seems like a perfect solution.

There’s only one problem—Tom doesn’t want to move. Tom likes the neighborhood they’re in. He thinks he and Marnie paid too much for their house, but other than that he’s very comfortable.

Tom says no.

Tough decisions and zero-sum situations

Faced with big decisions like this, a couple will ordinarily try to compromise. But in this case, there’s really no half-way. Economists call this kind of thing a zero-sum situation. Someone’s going to win, and someone’s going to lose.

For over thirty years, I’ve watched couples struggle with zero-sum problems. Some more successfully, and some less so.

Some classic zero-sum problems for couples involve whether or not to move—often for one partner’s career—and whether or not to have another child. But there are lots of others.    

For thirty years, I’ve watched couples struggle with zero-sum problems. Some more successfully, and some less so. Today, we’re going to talk about what works, and what doesn’t, when you’re faced with one of these situations.

Three ways not to make tough decisions as a couple

 First, let’s talk first about what doesn’t work. There are three main approaches that don’t work. Unfortunately, most couples try all three:

Mistake #1 – Trying to convince your partner they'll be better off

The first mistake is to try to convince your partner that they’ll be much happier if they do things your way. In Marnie’s case, this might involve demonstrating to Tom all the wonderful things about the neighborhood she'd like to move to. Wouldn't Tom be better off there? 

No one likes to be told they’ll be happier if they just do things your way.

 Here’s the problem: No one likes to be told they’ll be happier if they just do things your way. It's better to assume each person has good reasons for feeling the way they do. And that those reasons aren’t likely to change. In couples therapy, we call this "staying in your own lane."

Mistake #2 – Suggesting there's something wrong with your parnter for disagreeing

The second thing that doesn’t work is to suggest there’s something wrong with your partner. Otherwise, they'd see it your way. If only they were less anxious, less obsessive-compulsive, less oppositional, less stuck in their ways, or less damaged by unresolved childhood trauma. Then they’d surely agree with you!

A lot of people get sent to my office for therapy by their spouses for just this reason. Believe me when I tell you, it doesn’t work.

A lot of people get sent to my office for therapy by their spouses for just this reason. Believe me when I tell you, it doesn’t work. It usually just leads to a lot of bad feeling.

Mistake #3 – Appealing to your partner's love

The third thing that doesn’t work is to appeal to your partner’s love and insist that if they really love you as much as they say they do, they’ll give you what you want. Almost every couple tries this.

Marnie is no exception.

“Tom,” she says, one night as they're getting ready for bed, “Don’t you see how I can’t sleep at night worrying about my mother? I can't stop thinking about how she’s missing out on so much of our kids’ lives. Can’t you see what this is doing to me? Don’t you love me?”

 “The answer’s still no,” says Tom. “And it has nothing to do with whether I love you or not.”

I'd be inclined to agree. Just because you love someone, that doesn't mean you're responsible for giving them everything they want. 

A better way to make tough decisions as a couple

The good news is there’s a much better method. There are three steps involved.

Step One:  Let’s make a deal

In business, this would be a no-brainer, right?  You’d never ask someone to give you something you want for free. Instead, you’d find out what their price is.  

In marriage, it’s the same thing. The main question is: What’s going to motivate the other person to do a deal?

Let’s see what happens when Marnie tries this approach.

One night in bed, just before they turn off the lights, Marnie turns over to face Tom.

“Tom, what can I give you to make you agree to move?” she asks.

Tom is silent.

“A promise to never complain ever again about you watching TV?”

Tom smiles. “It’s going to cost a lot more than that,” he says.

Marnie thinks some more. “How about if I agree to spend every Thanksgiving and Christmas with your family?”

Tom shakes his head. But now Marnie has the idea. She’s not asking for favors anymore. She just wants to do this deal.         

“I'll do all the cooking and cleanup three times a week,” she says. "And we spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with your family."  

Tom raises an eyebrow. Now he knows she's serious. "Let me think about it,” he says, and turns off the light.

Time for Step Two.

Step Two:  The $64,000 Question

The following night, Tom is sitting at his laptop paying bills. Suddenly it hits him. “Marnie,” he says, “I think I see a way to do this. If we’re going to move, let’s get a smaller house and start saving money again. What do you think?”    Marnie’s actually been hoping for a bigger house. It’s painful to hear that this is what Tom wants. But hey, now he’s named his price. That means he’s in the game.

To me, this looks promising. Marnie gets something she wants very much. And she pays for it, fair and square. Same thing on Tom’s side.

Marnie thinks for a minute.  

“Let’s see what we can find,” she says.

Step Three: The Price is Right

Now comes the fun part.

The following Sunday, Marnie and Tom drop the kids off with her mother and start house-hunting in earnest. After a few weekends, they find a house they both like well enough. It breaks Marnie’s heart to be downsizing, but it was the only way to make things work. And it helps that once they find a place Tom likes, Marnie gets him to agree to new cabinets and closets.

Decision making builds strong relationships

 A good deal will have both of your dreams in it. That’s important, because it means you’re both fully in. You never know how a move like this is going to work out. If it goes well, you both share the satisfaction. If not, you share the blame.

A good deal will have both of your dreams in it.

One sign of a good deal is that in the end, neither of you got everything you wanted. The final result didn’t look exactly like what either of you originally had in mind.

But hey, isn’t that the case with anything creative? Eventually you have to face reality. And in a couple’s relationship, reality often takes the form of the person next to you in bed.

Sometimes life brings you to a fork in the road, where no compromise is possible. When that happens, assume you’ll need to do some serious deal-making—as if your relationship depended on it. Which in fact, it will.

Eventually, you have to face reality. And in a couple’s relationship, reality often takes the form of the person next to you in bed.

As Yogi Berra famously said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it!”

In the long run, how you settle the issue may matter more than which fork you take.

Source: quickanddirtytips.com