March 3, 2015
HSH.com has posted a study to answer the question — How much salary do you need to earn in order to afford the principal, interest, taxes and insurance payments on a median-priced home in your metro area? The study opens,
HSH.com took the National Association of Realtors’ fourth-quarter data for median-home prices and HSH.com’s fourth-quarter average interest rate for 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages to determine how much of your salary it would take to afford the base cost of owning a home — the principal, interest, taxes and insurance — in 27 metro areas.
We used standard 28 percent “front-end” debt ratios and a 20 percent down payment subtracted from the NAR’s median-home-price data to arrive at our figures. We’ve incorporated available information on property taxes and homeowner’s insurance costs to more accurately reflect the income needed in a given market. Read more about the methodology and inputs on the final slide of this slideshow.
The theme during the fourth quarter was increased affordability.
Home prices declined from the third to the fourth quarter in all of the metro areas on our list but one. But on a year-over-year basis, home prices have continued to trend upward.
“Home prices in metro areas throughout the country continue to show solid price growth, up 25 percent over the past three years on average,” said Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist.
Along with affordable home prices, mortgage rates fell across the board which caused the required salaries for our metro areas to decline (again, except for one).
“Low interest rates helped preserve affordability last quarter, but it’ll take stronger income gains and more housing supply to help meet the pent-up demand for buying,” said Yun.
On a national scale, with 20 percent down, a buyer would need to earn a salary of $48,603.82 to afford the median-priced home. However, it’s possible to buy a home with less than a 20 percent down payment. Of course, the larger loan amount when financing 90 percent of the property price, plus the need for Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI), raises the income needed considerably. In the national example above, a purchase of a median-priced home with only 10 percent down (and including the cost of PMI) increases the income needed to $56,140.44 – just over $7,500 more.
This sounds like a pretty reasonable methodology, but there are a lot of assumptions built into the ultimate conclusions. They are generally conservative assumptions — buyers will get a 30 year fixed rate mortgage instead of an ARM, buyers will have 28% debt ratios. I would have liked to see some accounting for location affordability, because transportation costs can vary quite a bit among metro areas, but you can’t have everything.
As always, I am particularly interested in NYC, the 24th most expensive of the 27 cities. NYC requires an income of $87,535.60 to buy a median home for $390,000. By way of of contrast, the cheapest metro is Pittsburgh, which requires an income of $31,716.32 to buy a median home for $135,000 and the most expensive was San Francisco, which requires an income of $142,448.33 to buy a median home for $742,900.
- H.R. 1142 was introduced in Congress to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent and expand the temporary minimum credit rate for the low-income housing tax credit program, an identical bill was introduced into last year’s Congress (text of H.R. 1142 is not yet available).
- HUD waives Rental Assistance Demonstration 20% Cap on Project Basing for the San Francisco Housing Authority
March 2, 2015
A NYC Housing Court judge issued a Decision/Order in 42nd and 10th Associates LLC v. Ikezi (No. 85736/2014 Feb. 17, 2015) that resulted in the eviction of a rent stabilized tenant who had rented his apartment through Airbnb at a rate much in excess of the rent approved by the NYC’s Rent Stabilization Board.
The Decision makes for a pretty good read in large part because of the incredible testimony of the tenant:
When questioned on Petitioner’s case whether Respondent charged anyone money to stay in the subject premises, Respondent first testified that he could not recall if he ever charged anyone money to stay in the subject premises for a tenancy, and then testified that he does not know if he ever charged anyone money to stay in the subject premises. Given that Respondent was being sued for eviction, that Respondent testified as such on January 21, 2015, and that Respondent’s tenancy commenced on October 10, 2014, three months and eleven days before his tenancy, Respondent’s inability to remember or know if he had charged anyone to sleep in the subject premises defies common sense. Such incredible testimony was of a piece with other testimony Respondent offered, such as his response to a question about how many nights he has slept in the subject premises with the answer that he does not keep a log of where he sleeps, Respondent’s inability to determine whether a photograph of a comforter on a bed in the ad was a comforter that he owned, Respondent’s lack of knowledge as to other addresses that might be his wife’s address, and Respondent’s testimony that he does not have an email address at the company that he is the president of. If Respondent was actually profiteering by renting out the subject premises as a hotel room, wanted to avoid testifying as such, and was trying to be clever about technically avoiding committing perjury, it is hard to imagine how Respondent would testify differently. (9-10)
The defendant’s testimony demonstrates what happens when the profit motive hits smack up against rent regulation’s policy goal of protecting tenants from large rent increases. Without defining it precisely, the Court refers to this as profiteering which it finds to be inconsistent with the goals of rent regulation and incurable to boot. Thus, the Court issued a warrant of eviction.
This seems like the right result on the law and as a matter of policy. Otherwise, more and more apartments would be informally removed from the regulated housing stock. Moreover, landlords and neighbors would be stuck with the costs of short-term stays while tenant scofflaws would get all the benefit.
- Morgan Stanley agrees to pay the DOJ $2.6 billion to end investigation about its mortgage-backed securities deals during the financial crisis.
- MetLife settles with DOJ for $123.5 million for issuing mortgages that did not meet underwriting standards.
- State Farm will refund $352.5 million to customers for overcharging them for homeowners’ insurance.
- New York City apartment owners are suing Lexington Insurance Co. for failing to pay more than a third of its $95.3 million claims from Superstorm Sandy.
- Bank of America moves to dismiss Ambac’s $600 million claim that Countrywide issued faulty residential mortgage-backed securities.
- U.S. Census Bureau/U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Joint Release – New Residential Construction January 2015
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report, Credit Supply and the Housing Boom - provides a novel perspective on the possible origins of the Great Recession.
- Freddie Mac – Fourth Quarter 2014 Financial Results
- Freddie Mac – Refinance Report Concludes that Borrowers who Refinanced in 2014 will Save Approximately 5 Billion in Interest Payments
February 26, 2015
Judge Demarest issued a Decision and Order in 650 Brooklyn LLC v. Hunte et al. (No. 504623/2013 Feb. 5, 2015). The defendants moved for dismissal because the foreclosing plaintiff failed to comply with a relatively new NY statute that requires that the “foreclosing party in a mortgage foreclosure action, involving residential real property shall provide notice to: (a) any mortgagor if the action relates to an owner-occupied one-to-four family dwelling; and (b) any tenant of a dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of this section . . ..” (12, citing NY RPAPL section 1303(1))
The Court dismissed defendants’ motion, relying on the plain language of the statute. The Court also noted that the purpose of the RPAPL notice provision, according to the 2009 Sponsor’s Memorandum, was to “establish protections for tenants residing in foreclosed properties” and noting that
20% of all foreclosure filings across the country were in non-owner occupied properties . . . Often, renters have been unaware that their landlords are in default until utilities are shut off or an eviction notice appears on their door . . . This [notice] provision will allow tenants to be fully aware of the status of the property and allow them to make informed decisions about whether they should remain in such property. (15)
Given the straightforward language of the statute, this seems like the right result as a matter of law. It also seems like the right result as a matter of policy. Certain dense jurisdictions, like NYC, have a lot of of tenants living in 2-4 family buildings. Many of these buildings are in areas that have been hard hit by the foreclosure epidemic. Indeed, according to the State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2013, “most of the foreclosure filings in 2013 and other recent years have been on 2–4 family properties.” (3) Many foreclosures have unnecessary collateral damage and improving notice to affected parties like tenants seems like a small and reasonable step for any jurisdiction to take.