Comments on: Your Word is Golden…or not

By: Matt Carter

Matt Carter — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:38:55 +0000

The uncertainty about how this would actually work has been resolved with the issuance of the FHA letter to mortgagees on May 29 spelling out the rules.

The bottom line is that the tax credit can be “monetized” and applied to the down payment or to cover closing costs on an FHA-backed loan — but the money can’t be used to meet the FHA’s 3.5 percent minimum down-payment requirement.

See Mortgagee Letter 2009-15.

However, there are state housing finance agencies that offer soft seconds — including some programs that take the borrower’s anticipated tax credit into account as part of the underwriting process — that CAN be applied to FHA’s minimum down payment requirements.

In other words, you can’t use money obtained solely on your expectation that you will be getting this tax credit to FHA’s 3.5 percent minimum down payment requirement. But you can use it to make an additional down payment and for closing costs.

And your eligibility for the tax credit may help you obtain a soft second loan from a state HFA that you can use to meet FHA’s 3.4 percent down payment requirement.

Here are some states that offer first-time homebuyer tax credit loan programs.

http://www.ncsha.org/section.cfm/3/34/2920

By: Pamela Kabati

Pamela Kabati — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:50:26 +0000

Just wanted to check back in to let you all know that we published the following story in the REALTOR Magazine Online daily news yesterday and also made this information available from the home page of REALTOR.org. The bottom line is that HUD intends to allow the monetization of the first-time homebuyer tax credit, but is still working out the details. They'll spell out these details "shortly," according to the a HUD spokesperson. We're tracking this daily now with HUD and will let you know when the official guidance is released. We'll tweet about it and will also post to our Speaking of Real Estate blog.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:37:11 +0000

I’m newish to the blog world and trying really hard to play by the rules or at least try to learn them for my own site. Like many others, I want to try to get information out to consumers as quickly and accurately as possible and for me, the NAR news feed, HUD website and other “reputable” sources have always been sort of no-brainers. I posted this news right when it hit but since I couldn’t find any additional information at the time I felt compelled to put up a little disclaimer. Since then I’ve been waiting and watching for more clarification but all I’ve seen so far is this latest at http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2009051801. Certainly people make mistakes and information can get leaked but I don’t understand the delay in a recant or clarification from any higher up anywhere. I agree with you, Missy, it has left me all bummed out with a blown up face and has definitely made me question my own response time to their news releases as well.

By: Lani Rosales

Lani Rosales — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:39:26 +0000

So with the same analogy, if the biggest gears are unaware that the others are turning (or want to turn), they lack a response. This whole thing is silly, response time shouldn’t be limited to business hours M-F.

By: Matt Stigliano

Matt Stigliano — Mon, 18 May 2009 01:00:34 +0000

Lani – While I agree that the bigger the machine, the more gears it has theory, I’m not sure if that should be taken into account. If Microsoft said something false and caused an uproar, you can be sure that they’d be making it right as fast as they could. They have a reputation to keep. And Microsoft is a bad example in a sense, because they’re not the association that everyone turns to for information (ok, maybe not everyone turns to them, but they should be able to be considered a trusted source of news for the Realtor® public). This issue is not just about dissemination, but the continued repetition of info that was known to be inaccurate. Three days later NAR sends the email giving out information that we had been discussing was dead on arrival for days? You and I both know how quick it is to send a mass email to fix a problem. Of course, according to Stacey Moncreiff, they didn’t know about the email until they read my blog, which is a little problematic on it’s own.

I hope we will see a retraction of some sort, since without it, many agents will still not know (not every agent reads 50 gazillion blogs a day) or not believe the blogs about it that have corrected their info.

It is a tough spot and I do enjoy seeing the immediate response of certain members of NAR (much like Todd had discussed recently), but I do think we’ve got a long road ahead of us.

By: Lani Rosales

Lani Rosales — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:03:45 +0000

Missy, your greater point is about dissemination of information, right? Sometimes the bigger the machine, the more gears it has and the slower it is to get the gears to move. Tough spot they’re all in, maybe Monday they’ll get to retractin’

By: Matt Stigliano

Matt Stigliano — Sun, 17 May 2009 18:07:40 +0000

Pamela – I would like to also add my thanks to you for stopping by. Stacey Moncrieff (Editor In Chief, Realtor® Magazine) has stopped by my blog post and I’m seeing a lot of positives to NAR’s work to get involved directly with us on issues that we are talking about. While there are still issues at least there’s communication.

By: Missy Caulk

Missy Caulk — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:10:07 +0000

Thanks Pam, appreciate you stopping by.

By: Pamela Kabati

Pamela Kabati — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:57:31 +0000

Just wanted to let you all know that I’m following this thread with interest.

As the VP of Publications for NAR, my staff and I are continually talking about how important it is today to be “fast” with our news, to use Twitter to engage with our readers, AND, clearly, to still be accurate.

We hear what you all are saying, and we certainly apologize for any confusion our reporting caused.

By: Missy Caulk

Missy Caulk — Sat, 16 May 2009 14:58:14 +0000

Paula, you had more important things on your mind. I don’t blame NAR too much he did say it…and the speech was public.

But, it should have been taken down and not sent out yesterday in the weekly newsletter.

Thanks again for all your hard work.