Mortgage rates ticked slightly up, still hovering within the 6% to 7% range, but home sales show buyers are shrugging off the more expensive borrowing costs, according to Freddie Mac.

The average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased to 6.71% for the week ending June 29, according to Freddie Mac’s latest Primary Mortgage Market Survey. That’s up from the previous week when it averaged 6.67%. A year ago, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 5.7%. 

The average rate for a 15-year mortgage was 6.06%, up from 6.03% last week and up from 4.83% last year.   

The slight shift marks another week that rates remain within the 6% to 7% range. However, a recovery in home sales may indicate that buyers are accepting the higher borrowing costs as the new normal, according to Freddie Mac Chief Economist Sam Khater.

“Mortgage rates have hovered in the six to seven percent range for over six months and, despite affordability headwinds, homebuyers have adjusted and driven new home sales to its highest level in more than a year,” Khater said. “New home sales have rebounded more robustly than the resale market due to a marginally greater supply of new construction. 

“The improved demand has led to a firming of prices, which have now increased for several months in a row,” Khater continued.

If you are looking to buy a home, you can take advantage of lower mortgage rates and shop for the best rate on a loan. You can visit an online marketplace like Credible to compare rates, choose your loan term and get preapproved with multiple lenders at once.

THESE TWO FACTORS COULD BE DRIVING YOUR CAR INSURANCE COSTS UP

Interest rates could move higher

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in a recent statement that inflation remains high and the process of getting it to a 2% target rate “has a long way to go.”

The central bank has already raised rates 10 times in 2022 and 2023 to bring inflation down to a 2% target. In June, it announced a much-anticipated pause on interest rate increases following continued moderation in inflation.

The interest rate increase means the federal funds rate will remain in a targeted range of 5% to 5.25%, the highest level in 16 years.

“With the Fed taking a breather from monetary tightening until its July meeting, capital markets are assessing the outlook for the second half of 2023,” Keeping Current Matters Chief Economist George Ratiu said in a statement. “On the upside, even with interest rates more than double what they were at the start of 2022, the economy continues to expand as consumers – buoyed by jobs and rising wages – manage to spend more on goods and services.

“On the downside, the Federal Reserve has been clear that inflation is still hotter than desired, and additional rate hikes are on the table,” Ratiu continued. “Based on the central bank’s forward guidance, we can expect two more rate increases in the months ahead.”

Despite the continued pressure on interest rates, mortgage rates are still expected to drop near 6% by the end of 2023, Realtor.com Chief Economist Jiayi Xu said in a statement.

If you’re trying to find the best mortgage rate, it can help to shop around. Visit the Credible marketplace to compare options from different lenders at once without affecting your credit score.

MORE STUDENTS TURNING TO FEDERAL AND PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS TO FINANCE COLLEGE: SURVEY

Construction of more affordable homes, increasing

Demand for affordability is driving the construction of more homes priced under $300,000, according to a report by Realtor.com. Early estimates in May indicate that homes within this price range constituted approximately 17% of total sales, marking the highest share since December 2021 (18%).

“Despite this encouraging news, there remains an urgent need for more homes at the most affordable price points, where the shortage of available inventory is most severe,” Xu said.

If you are ready to shop for a mortgage, you could get a better rate by looking at several lenders. Credible can help you compare interest rates from multiple mortgage lenders and choose the one with the best rate for you.

HOMEBUYERS ARE FINDING BETTER DEALS IN THESE CITIES, SURVEY SAYS

Have a finance-related question, but don’t know who to ask? Email The Credible Money Expert at [email protected] and your question might be answered by Credible in our Money Expert column.

Source: foxbusiness.com

Apache is functioning normally

America is strongest when her people are strong. Therefore, when considering policy to improve our nation, we should always incentivize striving with an emphasis on equality of opportunity, understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats.

In my role as president of the Jack Kemp Foundation, I moderated an “Innovations in Affordable Housing” webinar.  The webinar featured a panel of nationally known affordable housing experts, hosted by affordable housing developer National CORE, with the Sarasota Housing Authority, the National Multi Housing Council (NMHC) and the Housing Partnership Network (HPN) as panelists.

These policy leaders highlighted innovative solutions being pursued across the country to combat homelessness, house low-income families, and use affordable housing as a tool to improve the lives of those who need a hand up, not a handout.

What did we learn?

First, skyrocketing rents are placing a severe strain on families, seniors, and disabled persons of limited financial means as they seek affordable places to live. The most obvious impact is an increase in homelessness – which creates a host of additional community challenges. But this crisis also saps families’ resources for basic necessities and limits economic mobility.

We learned that the costs to build affordable housing rental units are also soaring. This makes it more difficult than ever to meet housing demand for lower-income families, since the rents they can afford do not cover the capital and operating costs of building new housing.

But one thing we have learned over the last 50 years is that we cannot just throw money at the problem. The cost of having federal taxpayers fund the full cost of needed affordable housing units – or subsidizing rents – is prohibitive and unrealistic. So, we need to be wise. We need to leverage our limited federal funding sources to access private sources of capital, using market-based approaches that maximize efficiency of the federal dollars being spent.

We need to prioritize local solutions.

Top-down federal grant programs, in silos separated by federal agencies and hampered by cumbersome rules, are not the answer. The housing tax credit program is a good model. Funds are competitively allocated by states to individual developments, ongoing accountability is maximized by the need to maintain tax eligibility for investor tax deductions and local developers compete for scarce dollars based on need and the merit of their proposals.

We also need to focus on people, not just buildings. Our affordable housing programs cannot just be about warehousing people living in poverty. They need to be about promoting the health, well-being and economic mobility of low-income families living in affordable housing. Our policies should focus on root causes of homelessness, such as mental health and addiction, as well as accessing health care and other community services.

Unfortunately, our housing policies are often grounded in the distant past.

HUD funds over $200 million a year for service coordinators to help families and seniors access services in their local communities. But these programs are arbitrarily limited to public and Section 8 housing units. This means that almost 100% of the new affordable housing built in the last 50 years – and the residents they serve – are ineligible for these grants. And there are no federal programs that directly fund resident services in federally funded affordable housing.

Congress should expand eligibility for resident services for low-income families – a good investment of federal funds. Accessing local health care services can help seniors avoid the alternative of nursing homes, which cost taxpayers considerably more as they pick up the tab through Medicaid.

Family self-sufficiency resident services are also a good investment. Such programs help low-income residents gain educational and occupational skills – which can help them take the step to affording market-price homes. Each time this happens, it’s the equivalent of building a new affordable housing unit for another low-income family.

The April 13 panel also explored other priorities that Congress should pursue. There is an almost universal consensus among housing advocates that the volume of low-income housing tax credits must be boosted. One panelist argued for adoption of the Neighborhood Homes Act, which would establish a federal tax credit for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable, owner-occupied housing in distressed urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods.

Another panelist suggested creating tax incentives for the long-term preservation of affordable housing units owned by qualified nonprofits, a far more cost-effective approach than building new units.

There is no shortage of ideas for meeting the modern-day challenges of affordable housing. I hope the ideas circulating in our webinar can spur further national discussion and debate in Congress about the most effective ways to modernize policy prescriptions and meet that challenge in a way that helps all Americans flourish.

Jimmy Kemp is the President of the Jack Kemp Foundation.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Jimmy Kemp at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Sarah Wheeler at [email protected]

Source: housingwire.com

Apache is functioning normally

So you want to build a new home — but you’ve got sticker shock. In researching cost-effective options, you may have discovered modular and manufactured homes.

These home types are typically more affordable than traditional new construction, known as “site-built” homes. The Manufactured Housing Institute reports that a manufactured home costs half as much per square foot as a site-built home. For modular builds, a 2017 study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley estimates construction savings of at least 20%.

Depending on land costs and the model you choose, a new manufactured or modular build might even cost less than the average existing home.

Modular and manufactured homes are both types of prefabricated, or “prefab,” homes. That means they’re built indoors at a factory, then transported to the building site. But just because they both start out in a factory doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.

Let’s explore the differences between these two home types.

Definitions: Modular vs. manufactured homes

What is a modular home?

A modular home is factory-built in large, three-dimensional pieces known as modules. When the modules leave the factory, they are up to 90% complete. The finishing touches happen at the building site, where the modules are attached to a permanent foundation and each other. Then, the finished home is inspected to ensure it meets local building codes.

What is a manufactured home?

A manufactured home is what you might think of when you hear the term “mobile home” or “trailer.” However, that terminology is considered outdated. Today’s manufactured homes come in a wide range of designs and styles.

Like modular homes, manufactured homes are built in factories. Depending on their size, they are transported to the building site in one piece, known as a single-wide, or several pieces, known as a double- or triple-wide.

Unlike modular homes, manufactured homes are attached to a permanent chassis. This is a metal frame that can be attached to wheels; that’s where the term “mobile home” comes from. The chassis cannot be removed, but you can remove or cover up the wheels.

Manufactured homes are built to national building standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), called the HUD Code.

Did you know…

Technically, the term “mobile home” only applies to factory-constructed homes built prior to June 15, 1976. That’s when the HUD Code went into effect. The HUD Code set federal standards for safety and durability of manufactured homes.

Pros, cons and differences

Compared to new site-built construction, modular and manufactured homes are a more affordable path to homeownership. Here are some things to consider when deciding between the two:

  • Cost and resale value: A manufactured home typically costs less than a modular home. While manufactured homes have come a long way in terms of quality, they still can depreciate in value over time, similar to an automobile. Modular homes generally change in value with the market similar to site-built homes.

  • Building codes: Manufactured homes are built to the HUD Code. Modular homes follow the same state and local building codes as site-built houses.

  • Size and durability: Available sizes vary, although modular homes offer more ability to customize layouts. Manufactured homes don’t hold up as well in high winds or hurricanes compared to modular homes. 

  • Portability: Manufactured homes must be affixed to a steel chassis. Depending on their size, they can be built and transported in full from the factory. Modular homes do not have a chassis. They are built in pieces, transported and assembled on-site.

  • Construction efficiency: Modular and manufactured homes share some advantages over site-built homes. Indoor construction pretty much eliminates weather delays. Assembly-line construction is also faster and cheaper. Less construction waste saves home buyers money, and with efficiency gains, you’ll likely move in sooner.

Loans and financing

Modular homes

While a modular home is being built, you might have to make up-front or installment payments to the builder. These can be paid in cash or through a construction loan. Once construction is complete on a modular home, it can be financed with a traditional mortgage — just like a site-built home.

Manufactured homes

Manufactured homes are not always eligible for traditional mortgages. Here are some options:

  • Traditional mortgages: To qualify for a mortgage, you must own the underlying land and have the manufactured home titled as real property. 

  • FHA Title 1 loans: If your home doesn’t qualify for a mortgage, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) offers Title 1 loans to finance manufactured homes. With an FHA Title 1 loan, the buyer is permitted to lease the land where the home resides, such as in a manufactured home community — sometimes called a mobile home park.

  • Chattel loans: Often, buyers finance manufactured homes using chattel loans. A chattel loan is a direct form of financing for personal property, similar to an auto loan. However, these loans typically have higher interest rates than traditional mortgages. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reports that around 42% of manufactured home owners use a chattel loan to finance their purchase.

Summary: Key differences

Manufactured home

Modular home

Site-built home

Cost to build

Type of foundation

Semipermanent (e.g. pier and ground anchors) or permanent.

Permanent.

Permanent.

Portability

Yes. (Has a chassis that can be attached to wheels to move the home.)

No. (Once modules are delivered, they are permanently attached to each other and the foundation.)

No. (Built entirely on-site.)

Building code

International Residential Code (local building codes).

International Residential Code (local building codes).

Options to customize

Durability

Financing (after construction)

Chattel loan, FHA Title 1 loan or traditional mortgage.

Traditional mortgage.

Traditional mortgage.

Value over time

Typically decreases.

Typically increases.

Typically increases.

Modular vs. manufactured: Which is right for me?

A manufactured home is less expensive and can get you to your goal of homeownership sooner, especially if you live in a rural area where affordable housing is scarce. Citing January 2023 data, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the average cost of a new manufactured home is $126,100. However, future home equity is less predictable for manufactured homes. Typically, their value depreciates over time. But it also could hold steady, depending on your local real estate market. Other factors, such as if you own the land underneath — and how you landscape it — affect long-term value, too.

A modular home is a larger up-front investment, but the home value typically grows over time, like that of a site-built home. Modular construction is sturdier than that of manufactured homes, too. If you finance a modular home using a construction loan, you might need a higher credit score and lower debt-to-income ratio to qualify, compared to credit score requirements to buy an existing home. That’s because you don’t have a finished home to use as collateral, like you can in a traditional mortgage.

Alternatives to modular and manufactured homes

If you’re looking for an affordable path to homeownership, here are other options to consider:

  • Townhouses or condominiums: If you don’t mind sharing walls with your neighbors, buying a townhouse or condo can help you build equity at an affordable price point. You might have to pay homeowners association fees, though, so account for that when budgeting.

  • Site-built homes: If you’re committed to a new build, you’ll pay more per square foot for traditional construction compared to a modular or manufactured home. However, you can cut costs by building a smaller home and opting for modest finishes.

  • Tiny houses: Sized around 400 square feet or less, tiny houses can be set on wheels or a permanent foundation. Minimalist living is a lifestyle shift, so consider the pros and cons before you downsize.

Source: nerdwallet.com

Apache is functioning normally

Even as California’s population took a hit during the pandemic, new data show the state experienced a boom in home building the likes of which has not been seen since the Great Recession.

The rise in new construction — including increases in multiunit dwellings in some areas — comes as California faces a housing crisis that has sparked a push at the city and state levels to build more homes.

Experts say that although the ramped-up construction has helped, it is not enough — at least yet — to seriously reduce high rents and housing prices.

The data from the California Department of Finance show statewide housing production in 2022 increased 0.85%, the highest figure since 2008. That growth could eventually help combat the high cost of housing in California, demographic experts say, and plug the population drain.

Home construction rose in 2020 and 2021 but really took off in 2022, showing the biggest jump since 2008.

Advertisement

Though 2008 — the year a housing-driven financial crisis plunged the United States into the Great Recession — may be an ominous comparison, lawmakers have stated that additional housing is key to solving the state’s affordability crisis, with Gov. Gavin Newsom pledging when he first entered office in 2019 that 3.5 million new homes would be built by 2025.

“When it takes a decade of really massive economic growth in this state for housing production to catch up to the prerecession levels, that says as much about the depths of our production crisis as it does about some kind of recent victory,” said Michael Lens, a professor of urban planning and public policy at UCLA.

Lens did point to some policy changes, including those governing accessory dwelling units, as positive steps. “Some of this is the result of smarter policy,” he said, “but it’s also a really slow rebound.”

A Times analysis of county-level data showed that between 2021 and 2022, Central and Northern California counties saw the biggest housing growth. Placer, Yuba, Butte, San Joaquin, Merced and San Benito counties led the state in growth, all above 3%.

“That’s not what we would hope,” Lens said of more rural areas adding the most housing, as Central California is “not where housing is most expensive” and “not the most economically productive area of the state.”

“The battle that we’re facing on a land-use front,” he said, is the prevalence of “overly restrictive coastal areas.”

“We still haven’t found a way to make San Francisco and the surrounding areas, and Los Angeles and its surrounding areas, build more housing more quickly,” said Lens, adding that the housing crunch has driven population loss.

Advertisement

Unaffordability and the pandemic have driven several years of population loss in California, a trend that continued in 2022, when the state lost around 138,400 people, a 0.35% loss. The decline was less than in the prior years, a slowdown partially attributable to skyrocketing foreign immigration.

During the pandemic, foreign immigration plummeted, but 2022 saw levels recover to near pre-pandemic rates. California had a net gain from immigration of 90,300 people last year, almost three times the total of 31,300 the year before.

The increase in immigration, however, was not enough to stop California’s three largest counties from experiencing population loss yet again.

Los Angeles County’s population declined by 73,293 people, or 0.75%, San Diego County’s by 5,680 people, or 0.2%, and Orange County’s by 14,782 people, or 0.5%, according to the state Department of Finance report.

Overall, 46 of California’s 58 counties lost population last year. Of 482 cities counted, 356 lost population, or 74%.

“Hundreds of thousands more people would desire to live in the Bay Area — if not millions — and Southern California, if we made it easier to accommodate those people through more housing units and presumably more affordable housing,” Lens said.

A Times analysis showed that after rising steadily in the 2010s, the number of people per household dropped significantly in 2020 and has stayed low.

Overcrowding, which may have contributed to the high 2010s numbers, is “a predictable byproduct of very expensive housing,” according to Lens.

“A lot of the declines in the pandemic had to do with people needing to separate from multigenerational living,” he said, and may not reflect better housing outcomes for people overall.

While losing population, major cities built the majority of new multifamily housing, the data show. Los Angeles added 12,074 multifamily units, which accounted for 62% of net housing growth, and San Diego added 4,568 such units for 65% of net growth.

Oakland and San Francisco skewed even more toward multifamily development, adding 3,880 and 2,573 units, respectively, which accounted for 97% and 91% of growth.

Suburban cities, on the other hand, often prioritized single-family housing. All of the development — 100% — in Roseville and Santa Clarita was single-family housing, the report says. In Fresno, the figure was 92%, and in Irvine, 71%.

The housing crunch was exemplified by a boom in the production of accessory dwelling units. ADU production increased by 61% in 2022 as the state added more than 20,000 units.

In all, the state netted 123,350 housing units in 2022, the most in nearly 15 years.

The state still has a long way to go to meet its housing needs. A Times review found that although Newsom has prioritized housing issues more than his predecessors in office, he’s fallen far short of his goals.

New state-level oversight seeks to ensure that “the total number of housing units that every region is expected to build is rising,” Lens said, as well as enforcing better distribution region by region. Beverly Hills should absorb people, he said, not just the Coachella Valley.

“We expect more equitable and more productive housing construction over the next decade,” Lens said, “but it’s going to take some time and take some diligence on the part of the state.”

Source: latimes.com

Apache is functioning normally

When it comes to purchasing a home, buyers may have difficulty finding financing beyond the conforming loan limit. If this is the case, you may need a jumbo loan. Whether your sights are set on a new construction home in Overland Park or a home in Wichita, let’s break down what a jumbo loan is in Kansas, the 2023 conforming loan limits, and what’s needed to qualify for this type of loan.

What is a jumbo loan?

So what are jumbo loans in Kansas? They are large loans that exceed the loan limits set by the FHFA for conforming loans. Jumbo loans allow borrowers to finance homes that exceed the conforming loan limit, making it possible to buy high-end properties that may not be otherwise affordable.

If you find yourself in a situation where the home you wish to purchase requires borrowing beyond the conforming loan limit (CLL), then you’ll need to pursue a jumbo loan. However, keep in mind that jumbo loans come with higher interest rates and stricter requirements than conventional loans due to the larger loan amounts and risk associated with them. For instance, a larger down payment and a higher credit score may be required to qualify for a jumbo loan in Kansas.

What is the jumbo loan limit in Kansas?

In Kansas, the conforming loan limit is $726,200 across all counties. For example, if you’re buying a home in Johnson County, where the median sale price is $450,000, a loan limit exceeding $726,200 would be considered a jumbo loan.

Keep in mind that the amount being borrowed is what determines whether or not you’ll need a jumbo loan, not the home price. So, if you were to put $100,000 down on a $780,000 home in Olathe, the loan would be $680,000, which is under the conforming loan limit for this area. In this case, your loan wouldn’t be considered a jumbo loan.

You can find more information on the conforming loan limits specific to where you’re looking to buy a home in Kansas by using the FHFA map.

What are the requirements for a jumbo loan in Kansas?

To qualify for a jumbo loan in Kansas, borrowers must meet stricter requirements than they would for a conforming loan. The specific requirements may vary from lender to lender, but below are the typical requirements for borrowers seeking a jumbo loan.

Higher credit score: In order to have your loan application approved for a jumbo loan, most lenders will require a credit score of 720 or higher. While some lenders may be more lenient and accept a score as low as 660, a score below this is generally not accepted. In contrast, a credit score as low as 620 could suffice for a conforming loan with some lenders.

Larger down payment: Jumbo loans are a popular financing option for homebuyers looking to buy higher-priced homes. However, compared to conventional loans, jumbo loans typically require a larger down payment. While the exact amount varies depending on the lender and the borrower’s financial profile, down payment requirements for jumbo loans can be as high as 20% or more. It’s worth noting that putting down a larger sum upfront can often help borrowers secure a better interest rate on their jumbo loan.

More assets: Jumbo loan borrowers are typically required to have additional assets. In particular, lenders may require borrowers to demonstrate sufficient liquid assets or savings to cover one year’s worth of loan payments.

Lower debt-to-income ratio (DTI): Mortgage lenders consider a borrower’s debt-to-income ratio (DTI) when evaluating their eligibility for a jumbo loan. To qualify for a jumbo mortgage in Kansas, borrowers typically need a DTI below 43%, though closer to 36% is preferred. The DTI represents the borrower’s monthly debt payments divided by their gross monthly income.

Additional home appraisals: For a jumbo loan, mortgage lenders may require a second home appraisal to ensure that the property’s value is accurate. This is particularly true in regions where there are few comparable property sales. The  appraisal acts as a second opinion and helps the mortgage lender to mitigate their risk. It’s important to note that the cost of a second appraisal may be higher than a typical home appraisal, particularly in areas with fewer sales.

Source: redfin.com