Tag Archives: FHA

Breaking: HUD To Raise Premiums, Tighten Limits On Reverse Mortgages

The Department of Housing and Urban Development on Tuesday will formally announce plans to increase premiums and tighten lending limits on reverse mortgages, citing concerns about the strength of the program and taxpayer losses.

Mortgage insurance premiums on Home Equity Conversion Mortgages will rise to 2% of the home value at the time of origination, then 0.5% annually during the life of the loan, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday morning. In addition, the average amount of cash that seniors can access will drop from about 64% of the home’s value to 58% based on current rates, the WSJ said.

“Given the losses we’re seeing in the program, we have a responsibility to make changes that balance our mission with our responsibility to protect taxpayers,” HUD secretary Ben Carson told the WSJ via a spokesperson.

The HECM program’s value within the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund was pegged at negative $7.72 billion in fiscal 2016, and the WSJ noted that the HECM program has generated in $12 billion in payouts from the fund since 2009. The value of the HECM program fluctuates over time, however: In 2015, the reverse mortgage portion of the fund generated an estimated $6.78 billion in value; in 2014, the deficit was negative $1.17 billion.

Unnamed HUD officials told the WSJ that without this change, the Federal Housing Administration would need an appropriation from Congress in the next few years to sustain the HECM fund. The officials also said that the drag created by reverse mortgages has prevented them from lowering insurance premiums on forward mortgages for homeowners.

“You have this cross-subsidy from younger, less affluent people who are trying to achieve homeownership,” HUD senior advisor Adolfo Marzol told the WSJ.

The move took the industry by surprise, with the WSJ reporting that leaders were not briefed on the changes beforehand. 

By Alex Spanko | Reverse Mortgage Daily

Advertisements

Big Banks Have Nearly Abandoned the FHA Market

Big banks have drastically reduced their share of the Federal Housing Administration market, a massive shift that has big implications, according to new analysis by the American Enterprise Institute.

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mwfdirect.com%2Fimages%2FFHAStreamline.gif&sp=911bbc329a64dd47563c35569c214b30

Large banks — which had a 60% share of FHA refinancings in late 2013 — had a 6% share as of May 31, according to Stephen Oliner, a resident scholar at AEI. Nonbank lenders currently originate 90% of FHA-insured refinancings, according to new data released by the group.

Large banks also had a 65% share of the FHA purchase market in 2012, which is now down to 20%, according to AEI.

“The shift away from large banks to non-banks and mortgage brokers has been truly massive,” Oliner said.


The recent drop in interest rates is expected to spur another surge in refinancings due to Britain’s unexpected decision to leave the European Union.

But the large banks have decided that refinancing FHA loans is “not a good business” due to the regulatory environment and litigation risk, Oliner said.

“They are getting out,” he said, noting that many FHA lenders have been sued under the False Claims Act and had to pay huge fines to the Justice Department.

Banks also don’t get Community Reinvestment Act credit for refinancings. “So this is pretty much a lose-lose business for them,” Oliner said.

by Brian Collins | National Mortgage News

Can FHA Lending Be Saved from the Department of Justice?

The purpose of the Federal Housing Administration is “to help creditworthy low-income and first-time home buyers“, individuals and families often denied traditional credit, to obtain a mortgage and purchase a home.” This system has been successful, and has aided in promoting home ownership. However, the FHA loan program and its related benefits are under threat as the Department of Justice continues to bring investigations and actions against lenders under the False Claims Act.

Criticism of the DOJ’s approach is that the department is using the threat of treble damages available under the False Claims Act to intimidate lenders into paying outsized settlements and having lenders admit guilt simply to avoid the threat of the enormous liability and the cost of a prolonged defense. If the DOJ wanted to go after bad actors who are truly defrauding the government with dishonest underwriting practices or nonexistent quality control procedures, then that would be acceptable to the industry.

But the DOJ seems to be simply going after deep pockets, where the intentions of the lenders are well-placed and the errors found are legitimate mistakes. Case in point: as of December 2015, Quicken Loans was the largest originator of FHA loans in the country, and they are currently facing the threat of a False Claims Act violation. To date Quicken has vowed to continue to fight, and stated they will expose the truth about the DOJ’s egregious attempts to coerce these unjust “settlements.”

Shortly after filing a pre-emptive lawsuit over the matter last year, Quicken Loans CEO Bill Emerson said the DOJ has “hijacked” the FHA program, adding its pursuits are having a “chilling effect on the market.” (A judge dismissed the primary claims in Quicken’s initial lawsuit earlier this year.)

When an originator participates in the FHA program, they are operating under the Housing and Urban Development’s FHA guidelines. As HUD cannot, and does not, check each and every loan guaranteed by FHA to confirm unflawed origination, the agency requires certification that the lender originating the file did so in compliance with the applicable guidelines. If the loan defaults, the lender submits a claim and the FHA will pay out the balance of the loan under the guarantee.

The False Claims Act provides that any person who presents a false claim or makes a false record or statement material to a false claim, “is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000…plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of the act.”

The DOJ argues that when a loan with known origination errors is certified by the lender to the FHA, with a subsequent claim submitted by the lender to the FHA after a default, the lender is in violation of the False Claims Act — because they knew or should have known the loan had defects when they submitted their certification, and yet still allowed the government to sustain a loss when the FHA paid out of the loan balance.

In the mortgage space the potential liability is astronomical because of the aforementioned penalties. The major issues in a False Claims Act violation can be boiled down to two major points: lack of clarity and specificity around what the DOJ considers “errors;” and what constitutes knowing loans were defective under the DOJ’s application of the act.

To the first point: are the errors of the innocuous, ever-present type found in a large lender’s portfolio, or egregious underwriting errors knowingly committed to increase production while offsetting risk through the FHA program? Obviously, lenders are arguing the former.

Prior to Justice’s aggressive pursuit of these settlements, if the FHA identified an underwriting error the lender would simply indemnify the FHA and not process the claim, effectively making it a lender-owned loan. This was an acceptable risk to lenders, as an error in the origination process could not become such an oversized loss. The liability would be capped to any difference between the borrower’s total debt at the time of foreclosure sale and what the lender could recoup when the property was liquidated. The DOJ’s use of the False Claims Act now triples a lender’s risk when originating FHA loans by threatening damages that are triple the value of the amount paid out by FHA.

In his letter to all JPMorgan Chase & Co. shareholders in April, Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon outlined the bank’s reasons for discontinuing its involvement with FHA loans. This perfectly illustrates how the DOJ is basically restoring all the lender risk to FHA-backed originations. Banks originating FHA loans are left with two choices: price in the new risk of underwriting errors into and pass the cost to the end borrower, making the product so costly it becomes pointless to offer; or cease or severely limit FHA offerings. If lenders take either approach, the DOJ will have negated the purpose of the FHA by limiting borrowers’ access to credit.

Walking away from FHA lending is not as simple as it sounds. Most FHA borrowers tend to have lower credit scores and/or require lower down payments. Most FHA loans also tend to be for homes located in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Any decline in an institution’s FHA offerings most likely will have a negative impact on an institution’s Community Reinvestment Act ratings. One has to think the DOJ is well aware of this fact and believes it will keep lenders in the FHA business even with the elevated risk, and can simply continue to strong-arm lenders into settlements.

If the Justice Department continues to aggressively utilize the False Claims Act, originators will be forced to evolve and create a product that they can keep as a portfolio loan or sell privately that can reach the same borrowers the FHA-insured products currently do. Again, there is a high likelihood that these products will not have as attractive terms as the FHA loans that borrowers are currently enjoying.

Large lenders will continue to step away from FHA originations, and smaller lenders originating FHA loans should be strongly aware of the risk they are taking on by continuing to originate FHA loans and increasing their portfolios as the larger banks exit the FHA market. Many large lenders have faced or are currently facing these actions, and from the Justice Department’s recent statements it does not appear they will abate anytime soon.

by Craig Nazzaro | National Mortgage News

Final Obama Budget Banks On Siphoning Millions Off Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac For Years to Come

It is audacious that President Obama’s fiscal 2017 budget proposal released Tuesday counts income from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as just another revenue stream – not only for the coming year but for the next ten years.

The Administration has long shown it has a hearty appetite for the mortgage giants’ revenues. The two companies have already sent a combined $241.3 billion to the government since being placed in conservatorship 2008 – over $50 billion more than the $187.5 billion in taxpayer funds they received at that time. Should the “temporary” conservatorship and Third Amendment Sweep remain in force for at least another ten years the White House estimates the GSEs will send another $151.5 billion to the U.S. Treasury.  That could mean these privately-owned mortgage giants will have sent nearly an astounding $400 billion to Treasury while needed reforms were put on hold.

The revenue projections in the budget proposal justify assumptions about why the Administration has had much less of an appetite for recommending ways to reform and recapitalize Fannie and Freddie and ensure they could provide liquidity and stability in the mortgage market for years to come.  Why sell a cash cow? The Administration effectively yielded its statutory authority – and obligation – to end the conservatorship with the enactment of a massive spending bill late last year that included provisions of the so-called “Jumpstart GSE Reform.” Despite the bill’s name, it put Congress in the driver’s seat and all but guaranteed no additional action will be taken to end the conservatorship this year or perhaps not until well in 2017.

The proposed fiscal 2017 budget, like all blueprints before it, makes no room for the inevitable recession and market correction. Should a downturn occur in the next year or so, taxpayers will be obligated to provide additional bailout funding because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been prohibited from building up adequate capital levels.

In a nod to the persistent problem of access to affordable housing, the budget proposal estimates Fannie and Freddie will provide another $136 million to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2017. This money is provided to states to finance affordable housing options for the poor. The Administration reports this would be added to the $170 million set to be distributed this year. But here’s the catch: those funds derive from a small fee on loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac help finance but only as so long as they don’t require another infusion of public money.

In essence, President Obama’s final budget proposal counts money to which it was never entitled; it flaunts a disregard for the Housing and Economic Recovery Act’s requirement that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be made sound and solvent; and it takes a cavalier stance to the fact that under capitalized GSEs could have negative consequences for taxpayers and working Americans striving for home ownership. After eight years, the Administration’s parting message is that needed reforms in housing finance policy will simply have to wait for another president and another Congress.   There is not urgency of now, just the audacity of nope.

Source: ValueWalk

FHA 203(k) Home Improvement Loan

Planning to buy a fixer-upper, or make improvements to your existing home? The FHA 203k loan may be your perfect home improvement loan.

In combining your construction loan and your mortgage into a single home loan, the 203k loan program limits your loan closing costs and simplifies the home renovation process.

FHA 203k mortgages are available in California in loan amounts of up to $625,500.

About FHA Mortgages

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a federal agency which is more than 80 years old. It was formed as part of the National Housing Act of 1934 with the stated mission of making homes affordable.

Prior to the FHA, home buyers were typically required to make down payments of fifty percent or more; and were required to repay loans in full within five years of closing.
The FHA and its loan programs changed all that.

The agency launched a mortgage insurance program through which it would protect the nation’s lenders against “bad loans”.

In order to receive such insurance, lenders were required to confirm that loans met FHA minimum standards which included verifications of employment; credit history reviews; and, satisfactory home appraisals.

These minimum standards came to be known as the FHA mortgage guidelines and, for loans which met guidelines, banks were granted permission to offer loan terms which put home ownership within reach for U.S. buyers.

Today, the FHA loan remains among the most forgiving and favorable of today’s home loan programs.

FHA mortgages require down payments of just 3.5 percent; make concessions for borrowers with low credit scores; and provide access to low mortgage rates.

The FHA has insured more than 34 million mortgages since its inception.

What Is The FHA 203k Construction Loan?

The FHA 203k loan is the agency’s specialized home construction loan.

Available to both buyers and refinancing households, the 203k loan combines the traditional “home improvement” loan with a standard FHA mortgage, allowing mortgage borrowers to borrow their costs of construction.

The FHA 203k Loan Comes In Two Varieties.

The first type of 203k loan is the Streamlined 203k. The Streamlined 203k loan is for less extensive projects and cost are limited to $35,000. The other 203k loan type is the “standard” 203k.

The standard 203k loan is meant for projects requiring structural changes to home including moving walls, replacing plumbing, or anything else which may prohibit you from living in the home while construction is underway.

There are no loan size limits with the standard 203k but there is a $5,000 minimum loan size.

The FHA says there are three ways you can use the program.

1. You can use the FHA 203k loan to purchase a home on a plot of land, then repair it
2. You can use the FHA 203k loan to purchase a home on another plot of land, move it to a new plot of land, then repair it
3. You can use the FHA 203k loan to refinance an existing home, then repair it

All proceeds from the mortgage must be spent on home improvement. You may not use the 203k loan for “cash out” or any other purpose. Furthermore, the 203k mortgage may only be used on single-family homes; or homes of fewer than 4 units.

You may use the FHA 203k to convert a building of more than four units to a home of 4 units or fewer. The program is available for homes which will be owner-occupied only.

203k Loan Eligibility Standards

The 203k loan is an FHA-backed home loan, and follows the eligibility standards of a standard FHA mortgage.

For example, borrowers are expected to document their annual income via federal tax returns and to show a debt-to-income ratio within program limits. Borrowers must also be U.S. citizens or legal residents of the United States.

And, while there is no specific credit score required in order to qualify for the 203k rehab loan, most mortgage lenders will enforce a minimum 580 FICO.

Like all FHA loans, the minimum down payment requirement on a 203k rehab loan is 3.5 percent and FHA 203k homeowners can borrow up to their local FHA loan size limit, which reaches $625,500 in higher-cost areas including Los Angeles, New York City, New York; and, San Francisco.

Furthermore, 203k loans are available as fixed-rate or adjustable-rate loans; and loan sizes may exceed a home’s after-improvement value by as much as 10%. for borrowers with a recent bankruptcy, short sale or foreclosure; and the FHA’s Energy Efficiency Mortgage program.

What Repairs Does The 203k Loan Allow?

The FHA is broad with the types of repairs permitted with a 203k loan. However, depending on the nature of the repairs, borrowers may be required to use the “standard” 203k home loan as compared to the simpler, faster Streamlined 203k.

The FHA lists several repair types which require the standard 203k:

• Relocation of loan-bearing walls
• Adding new rooms to a home
• Landscaping of a property
• Repairing structural damage to a home
• Total repairs exceeding $35,000

For most other home improvement projects, borrowers should look to the FHA Streamlined 203k . The FHA Streamlined 203k requires less paperwork as compared to a standard 203k and can be a simpler loan to manage.

A partial list of projects well-suited for the Streamlined 203k program include :

• HVAC repair or replacement
• Roof repair or replacement
• Home accessibility improvements for disabled persons
• Minor remodeling, which does not require structural repair
• Basement finishing, which does not require structural repair
• Exterior patio or porch addition, repair or replacement

Borrowers can also use the Streamlined 203k loan for window and siding replacement; interior and exterior painting; and, home weatherization.

For today’s home buyers, the FHA 203k loan can be a terrific way to finance home construction and repairs.

Explore all your individual options in California here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mhladyniuk

Gov Jumbo vs. Private Jumbo Loans Today

Government-backed jumbo loans can be cheaper and easier to get than jumbos that exceed the $625,500 federal limit

https://i0.wp.com/si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-JS449_JCONFO_M_20150805104039.jpgSave Money With Smaller Jumbos by Anya Martin in The Wall Street Journal

Home buyers trying to purchase a pricey property will probably need a jumbo loan—a mortgage that exceeds government limits. But there are different types of jumbos, and some are a little easier and cheaper to get than others.

But first, a handy breakdown for those befuddled by the confounding terminology of the mortgage business:

Conforming mortgages are capped at $417,000 and backed by government agencies, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA).

Conforming jumbo mortgages exceed $417,000 and can go up to $625,500—the exact limit depends on housing costs in your area. The loans are sometimes called “super conforming loans” or “agency jumbos” because they’re still guaranteed by government agencies.

Jumbo mortgages exceed government limits and, thus, are typically held by the lender as part of its portfolio or bundled and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities.

Borrowers typically pay lower interest rates on conforming loans than on non-conforming jumbo mortgages. (Rates and qualification requirements vary by lender.)

Escalating home-sales prices are pushing more buyers into both conforming and non-conforming jumbos, says Tim Owens, who heads Bank of America’s retail sales group.

Jumbo mortgage volume totaled about $93 billion in the second quarter of 2015, up 33% over the first quarter, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry publication.

The volume of government-backed conforming jumbos also saw brisk growth, increasing 32% between the first and second quarters to $34.2 billion—more than double since a year ago, Inside Mortgage Finance data show.

“The agency jumbo market is firing on all cylinders—purchase, refinance and every loan program,” says Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance. The biggest jump was in FHA jumbo mortgages, with volume up 136% between the first and second quarters, he adds.

The spike in FHA mortgages, in particular, comes after the agency on Jan. 26 reduced its required mortgage insurance premiums, Mr. Cecala says. Premiums dropped from 1.35% to 0.85% of the balance on fixed-rate FHA loans with terms above 15 years.

More lenient credit requirements spur borrowers to prefer agency jumbo mortgages over non-conforming loans, says Mathew Carson, a broker with San Francisco-based First Capital Group. He is working with a professional couple borrowing $511,000 for a home in Petaluma, Calif., where the government’s loan limit is $520,950. The couple, both first-time home buyers, could opt for a conforming or a non-conforming jumbo loan but chose a conforming jumbo backed by the FHA. Why? The FHA mortgage required a 3.5% down payment, whereas lenders for a non-conforming loan could require the standard 20% down payment.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also reduced their minimum down payments to 3.5% of the loan amount in December.

Another benefit to conforming loans is lower credit-score requirements, with minimums in the 600s for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages and in the 500s for FHA loans, says Tom Wind, executive vice president of home lending at Jacksonville, Fla.-based EverBank. Most lenders prefer to see 700 and above for their privately held jumbos, he adds.

An increase in the volume of VA mortgages is most likely due to more awareness of the benefit among active military and veterans, says Tony Dias, Honolulu branch manager of Veterans United, which specializes in VA loans. In Hawaii alone, Veterans United’s loan volume for 2015 is projected to reach $320 million, he adds.

Here are a few more considerations when choosing between a conforming and a non-agency jumbo mortgage:

• Mortgage insurance. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages with less than a 20% down payment require mortgage insurance, but borrowers can drop the insurance once their loan-to-value (LTV) ratio dips below 80%, meaning the loan amount can’t exceed 80% of the value of the home. FHA borrowers must pay the insurance for the duration of the loan, adding to the lifetime cost of the loan, unless they refinance.

• Bonus for veterans. VA jumbos require no mortgage insurance and no down payment unless the amount borrowed exceeds the area’s conforming-loan limit. Even then, the 25% down payment only applies to the amount above the loan limit, so, for example, a borrower would only have to put down $25,000 on an $821,000 loan in Honolulu where the limit is $721,050, Mr. Dias says.

• Additional lender restrictions. Fannie Mae mortgages can have a debt-to-income ratio (DTI) as high as 50%, meaning the borrower’s monthly expenses can be as high as 50% of her gross monthly income. Most lenders typically stick to 43% DTI (prescribed by federal rules for privately held qualified mortgages) for their conforming jumbos as well, Mr. Carson says.

Payment Buyers Picked Up Slack Left By Investors During First Half Of 2015

https://i1.wp.com/nationalmortgageprofessional.com/sites/default/files/All_Cash_Home_Sales_Pic.jpg

RealtyTrac has released its June and Midyear 2015 U.S. Home Sales Report, which shows distressed sales, cash sales and institutional investor sales in June were all down from a year ago to multi-year lows even as sales to first-time home buyers and other buyers using FHA loans increased compared to a year ago in June and reached a two-year high in the second quarter. Buyers using Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans—typically low down payment loans utilized by first-time home buyers and other buyers without equity to bring to the closing table—accounted for 23 percent of all single family home and condo sales with financing—excluding all-cash sales—in the second quarter of 2015, up from 20 percent in the first quarter and up from 19 percent in the second quarter of 2014 to the highest share since the first quarter of 2013.

The report also shows 914,291 single family and condo sales through April 2015—the most recent month with complete sales data available—at the highest level through the first four months of a year since 2006, a nine-year high. 

“As the investor-driven housing recovery faded in the first half of 2015, first-time home buyers, boomerang buyers and other traditional owner-occupant buyers started to step into the gap and pick up the slack,” said Daren Blomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac. “This is good news for sellers in many markets, providing them with strong demand from a larger pool of buyers, and U.S. sellers so far in 2015 are realizing the biggest gains in home price appreciation since 2007. In June sellers sold for above estimated market value on average for the first time in nearly two years.”

Cash buyers down nationwide, up in New York City and 20 other markets
All-cash buyers accounted for 22.9 percent of all single family home and condo sales in June, down from 24.7 percent of all sales in the previous month and down from 29.1 percent of all sales in June 2014 to the lowest share of monthly cash sales nationwide since August 2008. The June cash sales share was almost half the peak of 42.1 percent in February 2011. Metros with highest share of cash sales in June were Homosassa Springs, Florida (53 percent), Naples-Marco Island, Florida (52 percent); Miami (50 percent); Sebastian-Vero Beach, Fla. (50 percent); and New York (49 percent).

“The first six months of sales in South Florida have been at a record pace. The millennials are entering the market along with many home buyers who had difficulty during the last recession while the investor market has quieted,” said Mike Pappas, CEO and president of Keyes Company, covering the South Florida market. “It is a real market with real buyers and sellers. The buyers have many lending options and are still enjoying low interest rates and many sellers are selling at their peak prices.”

In New York and 20 other markets analyzed for the report, the share of cash sales increased from a year ago, counter to the national trend. The New York metro share of cash sales increased from 40 percent in June 2014 to 49 percent in June 2015. Other markets with an increasing share of cash sales included Raleigh, North Carolina; Greenville, South Carolina; Bellingham, Washington located between Seattle and Vancouver, Canada; Knoxville, Tennessee; Providence, Rhode Island; and San Jose, Calif.

“Cash buyers have been a significant player in the Seattle housing market over the past 18 months, but the modest drop in this buyer segment doesn’t come as a surprise given the aggressive rise in home prices in recent months,” said Matthew Gardner, chief economist at Windermere Real Estate, covering the Seattle market. “Higher prices are forcing these buyers to dig deeper into their pockets and this process has started to push some out of the market. The same can be said for first time buyers; many of them are having a hard time qualifying for a loan also due to the rise in home prices in Seattle.”

Institutional investor share in June matches record low
Institutional investors—entities purchasing at least 10 properties during a calendar year—accounted for 1.7 percent of all single family and condo sales in June, the same share as in May but down from 3.5 percent of all sales in June 2014. The 1.7 percent share of institutional investor sales in May and June was the lowest monthly share going back to January 2000—the earliest data is available—and was less than one-third of the monthly peak of 6.1 percent in February 2013.

Metro areas with the highest share of institutional investor sales in June 2015 were Macon, Georgia (10.2 percent); Columbia, Tenn. (9.5 percent); Memphis, Tenn. (8.7 percent); Detroit (7.8 percent); and Charlotte (5.3 percent).

Other major metros with a high percentage of institutional investor sales included Tampa (4.3 percent); Atlanta (4.0 percent); Tulsa, Oklahoma (3.9 percent); Oklahoma City (3.7 percent); and Nashville (3.7 percent).

The share of institutional investors increased from a year ago in just four markets: Detroit; Macon, Georgia; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Birmingham, Alabama.

Distressed sales drop to new record low
Distressed sales—properties in the foreclosure process or bank-owned when they sold—accounted for eight percent of all single family and condo sales in June, down from 10.6 percent of all sales in May and down from 19.0 percent of all sales in June 2014 to the lowest monthly share since January 2011—the earliest that data is available. The share of distressed sales reached a monthly peak of 45.9 percent of all single family and condo sales in February 2011.

Metro areas with the highest share of distressed sales in June were Salisbury, North Carolina (30.6 percent); Gainesville, Ga. (23.8 percent); Jacksonville, N.C. (22.2 percent); Boone, N.C. (22.1 percent); and Marion, Ohio (21.9 percent).

Major metro areas with a high share of distressed sales in June included Chicago (14.7 percent); Baltimore (14.4 percent); Orlando (13.8 percent); Jacksonville, Fla. (13.6 percent); and Memphis (13.4 percent).

Markets with highest and lowest share of FHA loan purchases in first half of 2015
Nationwide, buyers using FHA loans accounted for 22 percent of all financed sales in the first half of 2015, up from 19 percent of all sales in 2014 and up from 20 percent of all sales in 2013.

Among markets with a population of 1 million or more, those with the highest share of buyers using FHA loans in the first six months of 2015 were Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario in inland Southern California (35 percent); Las Vegas (32 percent); Oklahoma City (31 percent); Salt Lake City (30 percent); and Phoenix (29 percent).

Major markets with the lowest share of buyers using FHA loans in the first six months of 2015 were San Jose, California (7 percent); Hartford, Connecticut (10 percent); San Francisco (12 percent); Boston (12 percent); and Milwaukee (13 percent). 

First-half 2015 sellers realized highest home price gains since 2007
Single family home and condo sellers in the first half of 2015 sold for an average of 13 percent above their original purchase price, the highest average percentage in home price gains realized by sellers since 2007, when it was 30 percent.

Major markets where sellers in the first half of 2015 realized the biggest average home price gains were San Jose, Calif. (41 percent); San Francisco (37 percent); Denver (29 percent); Portland (25 percent); Los Angeles (25 percent); and Seattle (20 percent).

There were six major markets where sellers in the first half of 2015 on average sold below their original purchase price: Chicago (seven percent below); Cleveland (seven percent below); Hartford, Conn. (three percent below); Jacksonville, Fla. (two percent below); St. Louis (one percent below); and Orlando (one percent below).

Homes sold in June sold above estimated market value on average
Single family homes and condos in June sold for an average of $291,450 compared to an average $287,634 estimated market value for those same homes at the time of sale—a 101 percent price-to-value ratio. June was the first time since July 2013 that the national price-to-value ratio exceeded 100 percent.

Major metro areas with the highest price-to-value ratios—where homes sold the most above estimated market value—were San Francisco (106 percent); Hartford, Conn. (105 percent); Baltimore (105 percent); Rochester, N.Y. (104 percent); and Providence, R.I. (103 percent).

Other major markets with price-to-value ratios above 100 percent in June included Washington, D.C. (103 percent); Phoenix (103 percent); Sacramento (103 percent); Portland (103 percent); Seattle (102 percent); San Jose (102 percent); and St. Louis (102 percent).

Sales volume at highest level since 2006 in 16 percent of markets analyzed
The number of single family homes and condos sold in the first four months of 2015 were at the highest level in the first four months of any year since 2006 in 43 out of 264 (16 percent) metropolitan statistical areas with sufficient home sales data. Markets at nine-year highs included Tampa; Denver; Columbus, Ohio; Jacksonville, Fla. and San Antonio.

There were 23 markets where sales volume in the first four months of 2015 was at 10-year highs, including Denver; Columbus, Ohio; San Antonio; Tucson, Ariz.; and Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, Fla.

Among major metro areas with a population of one million or more, 22 out of 51 markets (43 percent) were at eight-year highs for single family home and condo sales in the first four months of the 2015, including New York, Dallas, Houston, Seattle and Portland.

Source: National Mortgage Professional Magazine