Carlos Cardo

I saw a website from a fellow agent state: THE BEST NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE xxxxx (CITY)

Well, how do you base that? Some say the best schools (base that on whose or what scores, or sports team. etc.) Some say home values and then some say the surrounding neighbors.

I personally disagree with what the "best neighborhood" is. Shouldn't that be based on what the homebuyer's unique lifestyle is?

What is truly best for them is what the need and desire. Do they have kids, or like to play golf, or prefer a 55+ neighborhood. Do they want the best high school, middle school or elementary? What about crime stats, or the pedophile list?

The list goes on and on (walking routes, near downtown, association or not, etc...). Do you think at times that it would border on steering? I mean, it is one thing if the client asks for certain characteristics, but to offer the best neighborhood out of your own thoughts and feelings? Do many real estate agents offer their best neighborhoods to clients before they know what the client really desires???

After all, such broad statements would also tell all the people who do not live in those neighborhoods that THEY do not live in the best neighborhood.

What are your thoughts? Do you have a best neighborhood list?

Many people ask me "how is the market?". Well, depending on the stats you look you will get a different picture. So what approach did I take? I looked at the number of homes that actually closed in November 2010. Then separated them by price range. Here is the link to the number of homes that closed for Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach, Virginia in the month of November 2010:

http://www.carloscardo.com/City-Reports-Dec10.html

This is probably the most solid number I chose to use instead of under contract or pending. The reason is closed means closed. These numbers were pulled in late December minimizing late entries into our MLS.

How do these numbers compare with your local scene around the country?......... What price range is the most sold in your area?

For those that are unfamiliar with the Hampton Roads area, we are one of the most military populated areas adding a bit of stabiity for both home sales and the local economy.

As my client's questions about the market change so will the graphs.

Thoughts???

Looking at all the news about shadow inventory, foreclosures and short-sales, I wondered what can be done to stabilize the situation. Mortgage payments for some due to high with ARMS, sized-down employment, death of a spouse/partner, and military moves are causing a good number of Foreclosures and Short-sales.

Could it be that the answer lies in the "Payment"?

There are only five ways to lower the payment:

•1. Lower the loan amount (forgive the difference)

•2. Lower the interest rate

•3. Increase the term by adding years

•4. Interest only payments for a while

•5. A combination of the above

If we have a mortgage (not including taxes or insurance) of $250,000 the payment would be:

In California according to Bankrate.com article in May of 2006, with 25% of the loans being 40 year loans and 50 year loans were introduced.

50 year loans to me do not seem to be the best answer. However, lowering the interest rate and adding 10 years to a 30 year loan may be a significant reduction in the monthly payment (in a $250,000 loan the monthly payment would be reduced by a little over $400)! This may prevent homes from going through a foreclosure or short-sale process, have vacant homes, a devaluation of the surrounding homes, stalling the economy, etc....

Of course, certain caveats would have to be built into the loan program:

Cannot be used for a home purchase
Must demonstrate hardship (Death of a spouse/partner, re-employment lower wage, military move etc...)
Must be able to make new payments (Cannot be unemployed)

BANKS -As far as banks are concerned they will not lose the difference between the loan and the amount sold for if there is no sale.
CURRENT HOMEOWNERS- Prevent the lowering of home values in thousands of neighborhoods!

CRIME and DAMAGES - Homes will not be vacant and banks wouldn't have to pay for insurance on those homes.

In summary, this could keep people in their homes, banks will still make money on the loans, and the housing section might be a bit more stable.

Is it unfair to those that struggle to make their payments? Maybe... maybe not? I would have thought banks would have done this first before the short-sale or foreclosure route!

What do you think?