Archive

Posts Tagged ‘homeownership’

Here comes the Senior Tsunami!

September 4th, 2014 No comments

Yesterday, the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and AARP released a major study on the growth of 50+ households. For those in the MH industry, the study is worth a close read.

Of note, in the next 20 years, the population aged 50+ is projected to increase from 109 million to more than 132 million. We knew this was coming.

Shocking to me was that homeownership is more prevalent for those in their 70s, with more than 80 percent of them owning homes, compared to only 70 percent of those in their 50s. Are those in their 50s likely to become homeowners later in life? Will they buy a home in our communities? Perhaps they will.

part2

part3

part5

Given the income levels and retirement plans for most, I’d say this study gives us confidence there are a lot of future customers nearing our doorsteps.

Take note, though. The MH that’s currently in place and with which I’m familiar is not exactly what’s needed. The reports states, “Much of the nation’s housing inventory also lacks basic accessibility features (such as no-step entries, extra-wide doorways, and lever-style door and faucet handles), preventing older persons with disabilities from living safely and comfortably in their homes.”

We know manufacturers can do all of these things. Is that what you’re ordering?

MH is well positioned in terms of entry price. Again, the report says, “High housing costs currently force a third of adults 50 and over — including 37 percent of those 80 and over — to pay more than 30 percent of their income for homes that may or may not fit their needs, forcing them to cut back on food, health care, and, for those 50-64, retirement savings.”

But, many 55+ communities don’t really operate with the level of support and services that the report says will be needed.

The report notes support services of the sort that some MHCs do deliver are too rare. We see informal support services — ride shares, home repairs, checking in, snow removal — in many of the 55+ plus resident-owned communities with which we work. We can do a better job of linking our members to services that are generally available to low-income seniors. I’m guessing most community owners could do better. It will matter more and more; one in eight people will be over 75 in 2040!

The report is long and in depth, but definitely worth reading and sharing. Enjoy! ##

Paul Bradley is the founding president of ROC USA, LLC, which has helped 67 resident groups inpaul-bradley75x75-roc-usa-president-posted-industry-voices-manufactured-housing-mhpronews- 14 states purchase their MHCs from willing sellers since 2008. Contact him at pbradley@rocusa.org.

 

 

(Editor's Note: A video interview with Paul Bradley is found here, and you can find A Cup of Coffee with… Paul Bradley, linked here.)

(Infographic credit: AARP Foundation)

ObamaCare and Manufactured Housing, Take Two

December 19th, 2013 No comments

In Obamacare, a Different Perspective, a well meaning Texas retailer advances his speculation that through the wonder that is Obamacare, fewer of our housing prospects will be forced into medical bankruptcy and a typical manufactured home retailer or stick built homebuilder might enjoy an increase of five or six sales per year. I believe our Texas retailer is well meaning with his speculation but several factors are not included in observation.

First: Having Obamacare does not mean you will be free from a risk of medical bankruptcy. Given the higher premiums being forced onto unwilling buyers along with massive deductibles, the risk of bankruptcy has in all likelihood been increased. Although we encounter very few medial bankruptcies, most of the ones I have encountered are able to find a path to home ownership because the medical burdens of the past are behind them. Under Obamacare the misleading information that premiums would drop has proven to be one more burden on the current administration as it proves to be untrue.

Second: Employers have laid off workers, decided to cancel expansion plans that would have required new workers and cut back the hours of existing workers due to the regulatory burden of complying with Obamacare. I have lost far more sales in 2013 due to these factors than a hypothetical increase in sales might have brought about had Obamacare been in place at the first of the year. We can get the bankrupt prospect past that event in their life and onto a path to homeownership. I can’t say the same for a client whose hours have been significantly reduced to the point of not budgeting for a reasonable house payment or a client who has lost their job.

Third: This same client will now be forced to purchase a federally mandated level of coverage which is an even greater drain on his discretionary income. Lower discretionary income means a lower likelihood of qualifying for the loan.

Fewer jobs, lower income, part time jobs, higher outgo, lower discretionary income will most likely not add up to an increase in business for the housing sector whether it be site built or factory built. Off topic, but to this mix you can add the new Qualifying Mortgage and other Dodd-Frank rules that will further erode sales. We need to dig in and adapt the best we can to all the changing rules that are headed our way. I respectively suggest that Obamacare will not be a boon to sales as was suggested.

doug-gorman.jpgRespectively,
Doug Gorman
Home Mart
Tulsa, OK

Hearing Explores Government Role in Multifamily and Health Care Facilities

May 22nd, 2013 No comments

Even though this hearing and the Chairman’s quoted comments arise within the specific context of multifamily housing, they nevertheless are relevant to manufactured home financing as they reflect broader thinking in Congress regarding federal involvement in the housing market

Most particularly, the comments in paragraphs 3 and 4 once again confirms what MHARR has been saying all along with respect the failure of the FHA (via GNMA) and GSEs to provide adequate securitization and secondary market support for manufactured home loans and especially personal property (chattel loans) –i.e., that FHA and the GSEs have fundamentally departed from their original statutory mission of providing access to credit for lower-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers. That departure has harmed the very consumers that these entities were formed to serve, as well as the manufactured housing industry as a provider of affordable homeownership, with both FHA and the GSEs refusing to provide high-volume securitization for manufactured home loans – citing “risk” and “perceptions” without any hard data on the performance of current-day manufactured home loans – when it was the ventures of FHA and the GSEs in the “exotic” and subprime site-built mortgage market that led to the insolvency of the GSEs and now the near-insolvency of FHA.

Consequently, even though the availability of high-volume securitization for manufactured home loans – and especially chattel loans – has the capacity to turn the industry around virtually overnight and provide access to truly affordable homeownership for the lower-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers that these entities were created to serve, they nevertheless cling to discriminatory policies that have severely restricted such lending through the FHA Title I program and effectively excluded such loans from GSE support, notwithstanding the statutory “Duty to Serve” mandate. These baseless policies, moreover, have enabled the domination of the chattel finance market by a handful of companies with either pre-existing access to that restricted securitization or independent financial backing, further harming both consumers and the industry.

As this demonstrates, expanding the availability of chattel loan securitization and support to high volume levels must be a top priority for the industry in Washington, D.C.

Given the focus of the current Administration on providing fairness and increased access to home financing for the lower-income borrowers that FHA and the GSEs were created to serve, the industryhas a window of opportunity in the coming months to take concrete steps to correct these flawed policies and expand the availability of manufactured home financing. ##

MHARR-logo-posted-on-MhProNews-com

 

 

 

 

Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR)

1331 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 512
Washington, D.C. 20004
Phone: 202/783-4087
Fax: 202/783-4075
Email: MHARRDG@AOL.COM

 

 

 

committee-financial-services-logo-posted-mhpronews-

 

 

 

Press Release

 

For Immediate Release
May 16, 2013

 

Hearing Explores Government Role in Multifamily and Health Care Facilities Mortgage Insurance and Reverse Mortgages

 

WASHINGTON –The Financial Services Housing and Insurance Subcommittee continued its examination of the troubled Federal Housing Administration (FHA) today with a hearing that focused on several of the agency’s programs that operate outside its mission.

This was the subcommittee’s third hearing this year examining FHA and the need to reform the agency.

“FHA runs its operations contrary to the most basic principles of insurance and is nearing insolvency, putting taxpayers at risk of another government bailout,” said Subcommittee Chairman Randy Neugebauer (R-TX). “Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support FHA’s core mission of providing access to credit for lower-income borrowers and first-time homebuyers. There still is a general consensus in favor of strengthening and improving FHA, without risking further taxpayer exposure.”

Today’s hearing examined the mortgage insurance programs the FHA operates for multifamily housing, health care facilities and reverse mortgages – all of which are activities that reach far beyond the agency’s original mission. The FHA’s original mission is to provide mortgage financing opportunities for low-income and first-time homebuyers.

Given that the FHA was designated a “high risk” agency by the Government Accountability Office earlier this year, many wonder whether the FHA can viably carry out its original mission, much less these other programs that are not related to its mission.

In addition to insuring single-family mortgages, the FHA also insures other kinds of mortgages—such as those for multifamily rental housing and health care facilities—through a separate insurance fund called the General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance Fund. While this fund is not projected to incur losses in the near term, many are concerned about the role the FHA plays in the multifamily market and that its policies subject taxpayers to undue risk.

Due to a lack of transparency in the GI/SRI Fund, Congress cannot fully assess the fiscal state of the FHA’s multifamily insurance program.

The FHA also operates an insurance fund for reverse mortgages that enables those aged 62 or older to obtain additional income by borrowing against the equity in their homes. To make these mortgages possible, the reverse mortgage insurance provided by FHA protects lenders from losses due to non-payment.

In recent years, as home prices have fallen, many experts have become concerned about losses in the FHA’s reverse mortgage portfolio. An independent actuarial review released last November estimated that the economic value of the FHA’s reverse mortgage insurance program was negative $2.8 billion.

 

###

Open Letter to CFED regarding Dodd-Frank and its impact on affordable Manufactured Housing

May 24th, 2011 No comments

To: Kathryn Gwatkin Goulding
Cc: CFED Federal Policy

Kathryn,

I am receipt of CFED’s newsletter earlier today in which praises were heaped upon the Dodd-Frank Bill and its related Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Analysis of the bill by numerous manufactured housing industry financial services consultants have concluded that without modifications, this bill could destroy our industry which is currently only hanging on by a thread anyway.

The Dodd-Frank Bill is far too typical of Congress’ meddling with our system with devastating effects on lower income families. While boasting about protection for consumers, the results of the bill without alteration will be to eliminate the availability to finance home loans lower than $78,000. Since our loans average about $60,000, more than half of our market will be eliminated. Those unable to get loans will be the ones at the lower portion of our client base. I don’t think these wanted Congress to legislate them out of the ability to purchase a home. Rather than promoting the infallibility of the Dodd-Frank Bill, CFED should be rallying to support the changes needed to protect the lowest income home purchasers in our nation. Just because they are low income, they should not be forced out of the ability to purchase a home. As I assume you are aware, our industry is already at the lowest level of shipments since record keeping began in 1961. Unmodified, the Dodd-Frank Bill will most likely destroy any hope for a recovery. The sad thing is that the death of the industry will not result from the Free Enterprise rejection by the market; it will be the result of an ignorant Congress legislating low income consumers out of the ability to borrow the funds necessary to finance their home. Of course, Congress did the same thing to the US light bulb manufacturers so maybe we should have seen it coming.

Please note the comments below in a column written by industry expert and Industry Person of the Year, George Allen. Please join our industry to encourage Congress to make the modifications necessary to preserve the ability of our lowest income homeowners to achieve their goal of homeownership. I appreciate the efforts CFED has taken over the years to protect low income families. Removing their ability to purchase a home will not be to their benefit.

George Allen–
Dodd-Frank Fallout. Geesh! This bill isn’t even law yet, and finance-related businesses are closing, simply to avoid having to put up with the more onerous of its proposed/planned regulations. Already, ‘former employees,’ perhaps even potential borrowers, are paying the price for what, to many of us, appears to be excessive regulatory reach into the financial sector. Here’s the plaint of one blog flogger (i.e., reader) writing to us this past week…
‘Dodd-Frank forced us to close our mortgage company in ___________ , and lay off several employees. Reason? Our capitalization with _______________ (a major bank) as our JV partner, was slightly in excess of $1,000,000. We were not a broker, but a direct lender, using the bank’s money. Under Dodd-Frank, unless you have a ten million dollar capitalization, you get classified as a broker. And as a broker, you have additional disclosures, the required language of which pretty much scares your customers away to a direct lender. So, we are out of business. Multiply that many times, in every community in America. An apt example of ‘the law of unintended consequences,’ as well as job and prosperity killing legislation!’ (lightly edited. GFA)

…the Dodd-Frank bill is maybe the ‘final nail in the coffin of chattel finance,’ where manufactured housing is concerned? Whereas the necessity of added fees will necessitate a minimum manufactured housing loan of $78,000.00, to simply ensure the return of basic and added fees to a chattel lender. And outside certain high-priced local housing markets, how many times do we see manufactured home loans, especially on resale homes, in excess of $78,000.00? # #

Thanks,

Doug Gorman
Home-Mart, Inc.
9516 East Admiral Place
Tulsa, OK 74116
800-364-4663 Toll free
918-835-0500 Office
918-835-8146 Fax
918-250-6867 Home
918-640-1357 Cell
doug@homemart.us
www.homemart.us

Editor’s Note: Please click here to read the CFED document.