More signs are pointing to a housing slowdown as existing-home sales (completed transactions for single-family homes, townhomes, condos and co-ops) fell 5.9% month over month and 20% year over year, according to the National Association of REALTORS®’ latest housing report. “We’re witnessing a housing recession in terms of declining home sales and home building,” says NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun. “However, it’s not a recession in home prices. Inventory remains tight and prices continue to rise nationally, with nearly 40% of homes [on the market] still commanding the full list price.” The median price for an existing home jumped 10.8% from a year ago, reaching $403,800. However, that’s down $10,000 from last month’s record high of $413,800, NAR reports. July’s decrease in home sales, the sixth consecutive month of declines, likely was due to higher mortgage rates sidelining more buyers, Yun says. Homebuilders echoed that sentiment this week, reporting that new-home sales fell 10% annually in July and were at the lowest level since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. But home sales may soon stabilize, as mortgage rates have fallen from a 6% peak in early June to near 5%, “giving an additional boost of purchasing power to home buyers,” Yun notes. The following are some additional key housing indicators from NAR’s July sales report: Days on the market : Homes continue to sell swiftly at a median of 14 days, matching June’s record low. Housing inventory : The inventory of unsold existing homes increased to 1.31 million, up 4.8% month over month and unchanged from a year ago. Unsold inventory is at a 3.3-month supply at the current sales pace. First-time home buyers : First-time buyers accounted for 29%, down slightly from 30% a year earlier. All-cash sales : All-cash sales comprised 24% of transactions, up from 23% a year ago. Individual investors and second-home buyers made up the largest share of cash sales, purchasing 14% of homes on the market. Regional Breakdown All four major regions of the country reported a drop in existing-home sales last month. The Western region of the U.S. posted the sharpest annual sales decline as well as the largest housing inventory increase. “It’s likely some Western markets will see prices decline, and that will be welcome news for buyers who watched rapid price jumps during the past two years,” Yun says. Here’s a closer look at how existing-home sales fared across the country in July: Northeast : Existing-home sales decreased to an annual rate of 620,000, down 7.5% month over month and 16.2% from a year ago. Median price: $444,000, an increase of 8.1% from the previous year. Midwest : Sales fell 3.3% from the prior month to an annual rate of 1.19 million, dropping 14.4% from a year ago. Median price: $293,300, up 7% from the previous year. South : Existing-home sales dropped 5.3% to an annual rate of 2.13 million, down 19.6% from one year ago. Median price: $365,200, an increase of 14.7% from the previous year. West : Sales fell 9.4% month over month to an annual rate of 870,000, down 30.4% from a year ago. Median price: $614,900, an 8.1% jump year over year. Written August 18, 2022 by Melissa Dittmann Tracey Full article can be read here https://magazine.realtor/daily-news/2022/08/18/latest-home-sales-data-points-to-housing-recession

Escalating home prices have both buyers & sellers worried that the market is just “too good to be true,” and agents across the U.S. are getting bombarded with the ultimate question: “ Are we in a housing bubble? ” We'll look at 3 key factors experts point to suggesting we’re not. PART 1: HOUSING SUPPLY Last year, home values appreciated an average of 15% across the nation. And while this year’s growth isn’t expected to match it, buyers and sellers are still worried that home prices are too high and that depreciation is likely to follow. However, unlike the Housing Bubble years of the mid-2000s, the major factor driving up home values is that we’re also in a dire inventory shortage (CHART 1) . A balanced real estate market’s inventory sits around 6 months. Today’s current market is at 1.7 months, a historically low amount of homes for sale. In comparison, the inventory level from 2005 and 2007 increased from 5 months to 11 months, a vast over-supply of homes that did not warrant the price appreciation that went along with it. So, throwing it back to your high school economics class, the biggest driver of price appreciation is a simple case of supply and demand, hence what we’re seeing in the market today. PART 2: HOUSING DEMAND If you remember the housing boom of the mid-2000s, you know how crazy that time was in real estate. But if Robert Schiller, a fellow at the Yale School of Management’s International Center for Finance, could sum it up in one phrase, it’s this: irrational exuberance. In other words, the buying and selling frenzy that contributed to the market collapse was fueled not by tactful, financial decisions but a country-wide case of FOMO (fear of missing out). The mortgage industry fed into the frenzy, making it easy for people to obtain home loans much higher than they could afford. Today’s real estate demand, however, is a very real thing. And lending standards have become much tighter since before the crash (CHART 2) . Plus, with escalating rent happening across the U.S., many Americans are opting for the financial stability that homeownership offers. These factors, coupled with low mortgage rates, make purchasing a home today a good financial decision. So, not only is the demand very real, it’s also very smart. PART 3: EQUITY Following the housing and economic crash of 2008, economists, financiers, and real estate industry experts have combed through data to figure out why the entire system crumbled the way it did. Most will agree that one of the biggest pieces of that catastrophic equation came down to this: equity. Or in reality, a lack of it. The mid-2000s saw a massive wave of homeowners cashing out the equity in their homes. In short, they were using their homes like ATMs to afford some of the finer things in life. This led to a lot of negative equity situations: where the amount someone owed on their home was far more than what their house was worth. Many foreclosures and short-sales followed, depreciating home values nationwide . Today is a much different equity picture (CHART 3) . Cash-out refinance volume over the last three years is less than a third of what it was compared to the three years before the crash. Plus, escalating appreciation meant that homeowners gained an average of $55,300 in equity in the last 12 months alone. As prices continue to rise, equity will too. This positive equity perspective puts the current housing market in a much stronger place, minimizing risk of foreclosure and stabilizing home values across the U.S. Copyright © 2022 - Keeping Current Matters full article link RELATED ARTICLE - " Is The Housing Market About to Crash?"

For those who did not fill out this 3 percent tax cap form when they first bought their home or currently refinanced in Clark County Nevada, they are likely already paying more on their property tax closer to 7.7 percent today. The deadline to lock in a lower rate for fiscal year 2022 is June 30, so act fast! If you miss the deadline, people still have until June 30, 2023 to apply for the 3 percent credit for fiscal year 2023 and beyond. The good news is, if you've filled out the form or postcard in the past, you don't have to do so again unless you've refinanced your home, added it to a trust or added additional people to the mortgage. Download the application from the Clark County Assessor's office and send the completed form to AOCustomerServiceRequests@clarkcountynv.gov. Download the Form Here Check your Property Taxes Here RELATED NEWS ARTICLE KTNV CHANNEL 13 - Nevada Home Owners May Be Paying More on Property Taxes

To understand just how unaffordable owning a home can be in American cities today, look at the case of a teacher in San Francisco seeking his or her first house. Educators in the City by the Bay earn a median salary of $72,340. But, according to a new Trulia report, they can afford less than one percent of the homes currently on the market. Despite making roughly $18,000 more than their peers in other states, many California teachers—like legions of other public servants, middle-class workers, and medical staff—need to resign themselves to finding roommates or enduring lengthy commutes. Some school districts, facing a brain drain due to rising real estate prices, are even developing affordable teacher housing so they can retain talent. This housing math is brutal. With the average cost of a home in San Francisco hovering at $1.61 million, a typical 30-year mortgage—with a 20 percent down payment at today’s 4.55 percent interest rate—would require a monthly payment of $7,900 (more than double the $3,333 median monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment last year). Over the course of a year, that’s $94,800 in mortgage payments alone, clearly impossible on the aforementioned single teacher’s salary, even if you somehow put away enough for a down payment (that would be $322,000, if you’re aiming for 20 percent). The figures become more frustrating when you compare them with the housing situation a previous generation faced in the late ’50s. The path an average Bay Area teacher might have taken to buy a home in the middle of the 20th century was, per data points and rough approximations, much smoother. According to a rough calculation using federal data, the average teacher’s salary in 1959 in the Pacific region was more than $5,200 annually (just shy of the national average of $5,306). At that time, the average home in California cost $12,788. At the then-standard 5.7 percent interest rate, the mortgage would cost $59 a month, with a $2,557 down payment. If your monthly pay was $433 before taxes, $59 a month wasn’t just doable, it was also within the widely accepted definition of sustainable, defined as paying a third of your monthly income for housing. Adjusted for today’s dollars, that’s a $109,419 home paid for with a salary of $44,493. And that’s on just a single salary. The Changing Math Behind Homeownership in the U.S. Year Median Home Value Median Rent Household Median Income Year Value Rent Median Income 1950 - $7,400 $42 $2,990 1960 - $11,900 $71 $4,970 1970 - $17,000 $108 $8,734 1980 - $47,200 $243 $17,710 1990 - $79,100 $447 $29,943 2000 - $119,600 $602 $55,030 2010 - $221,800 $901 $49,445 While homes values and rent costs have increased, incomes have not kept pace. All values are national media values. Information via U.S. Census Bureau A dream of homeownership placed out of reach That midcentury scenario seems like a financial fantasia to young adults hoping to buy homes today. Finding enough money for a down payment in the face of rising rents and stagnant wages, qualifying for loans in a difficult regulatory environment, then finding an affordable home in expensive metro markets can seem like impossible tasks. In 2016, millennials made up 32 percent of the homebuying market, the lowest percentage of young adults to achieve that milestone since 1987. Nearly two-thirds of renters say they can’t afford a home. Even worse, the market is only getting more challenging: The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller National Home Price Index rose 6.3 percent last year, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal. This is almost twice the rate of income growth and three times the rate of inflation. Realtor.com found that the supply of starter homes shrinks 17 percent every year. It’s not news that the homebuying market, and the economy, were very different 60 years ago. But it’s important to emphasize how the factors that created the homeownership boom in the ’50s—widespread government intervention that tipped the scales for single-family homes, more open land for development and starter-home construction, and racist housing laws and discriminatory practices that damaged neighborhoods and perpetuated poverty—have led to many of our current housing issues. From the front lines to the home front The postwar boom wasn’t just the result of a demographic shift, or simply the flowering of an economy primed by new consumer spending. It was deliberately, and successfully, engineered by government policies that helped multiply homeownership rates from roughly 40 percent at the end of the war to 60 percent during the second half of the 20th century. The pent-up demand before the suburban boom was immense: Years of government-mandated material shortages due to the war effort, and the mass mobilization of millions of Americans during wartime, meant homebuilding had become stagnant. In 1947, six million families were doubling up with relatives, and half a million were in mobile homes, barns, or garages according to Leigh Gallagher’s book The End of the Suburbs. The government responded with intervention on a massive scale. According to Harvard professor and urban planning historian Alexander von Hoffman, a combination of two government initiatives—the establishment of the Federal Housing Authority and the Veterans Administration (VA) home loans programs—served as runways for first-time homebuyers. Initially created during the ’30s, the Federal Housing Authority guaranteed loans as long as new homes met a series of standards, and, according to von Hoffman, created the modern mortgage market. “When the Roosevelt administration put the FHA in place in the ’30s, it allowed lenders who hadn’t been in the housing market, such as insurance companies and banks, to start lending money,” he says. The VA programs did the same thing, but focused on the millions of returning soldiers and sailors. The popular GI Bill, which provided tuition-free college education for returning servicemen and -women, was an engine of upward mobility: debt-free educational advancement paired with easy access to finance and capital for a new home. It’s hard to comprehend just how large an impact the GI Bill had on the Greatest Generation, not just in the immediate aftermath of the war, but also in the financial future of former servicemen. In 1948, spending as part of the GI Bill consumed 15 percent of the federal budget. The program helped nearly 70 percent of men who turned 21 between 1940 and 1955 access a free college education. In the years immediately after WWII, veterans’ mortgages accounted for more than 40 percent of home loans. An analysis of housing and mortgage data from 1960 by Leo Grebler, a renowned professor of urban land economics at UCLA, demonstrates the pronounced impact of these programs. In 1950, FHA and VA loans accounted for 51 percent of the 1.35 million home starts across the nation. These federal programs would account for anywhere between 30 and 51 percent of housing starts between 1951 and 1957, according to Grebler’s analysis. Between 1953 and 1957, 2.4 million units were started under these programs, using $3.6 billion in loans. This investment dwarfs the amount of money spent on public infrastructure during that period. The birth of the modern mortgage Before these federal programs, some home mortgages were so-called “balloon loans,” which demanded that buyers make a significant down payment (somewhere between 20 to 50 percent) and pay back the loan over a relatively short time frame, usually five to seven years. This was one of many reasons homebuying was previously the domain of a more wealthy portion of American society. This new era of cheap and easy financing radically changed the formula, and the face of the average homeowner. Buyers could access loans with low down payments and pay back the bank over a 25 or 30 year window. With the U.S. Treasury backing home loans and protecting lenders from defaults, the risk of a bad loan plummeted. Floodgates of capital opened, reshaping land on the periphery of cities. Mortgage rates have been lower in the last decade than they were during the ’50s and ’60s. But they were still incredibly low during the suburban boom of the ’50s and ’60s. In 1960, the average mortgage rate was 5.1 percent, which dropped to 4.6 and 4.5, respectively, for FHA- and VA-backed mortgages. An incredible investment The creation of a new mortgage market, and a pent-up demand for housing, sent clear signals to developers. There was a lucrative market in meeting the housing demands of the burgeoning middle class and breaking ground to build in suburbia, rather than in cities. Cheap land near cities offered a quick-and-easy profit for big developers, further subsidized by the federal government’s colossal investment in highways and interstates, which quite literally paved the way for longer commutes and a greater separation between work and home. With rising incomes and homeownership rates, the mortgage-interest tax deduction, once a more obscure part of the tax code that only impacted certain Americans, began growing into a massive entitlement program that redirected money toward homeowners. In 1950 alone, suburban growth was 10 times that of central cities, and the nation’s builders registered 2 million housing starts. By the end of the decade, 15 million homes were under construction across the country. And during that decade, as the economy expanded rapidly and interstate roads took shape, residential development in the suburbs accounted for 75 percent of total U.S. construction. Many of these new homes, large-scale, tract-style construction, were built with the backing of various government financing programs, and became available to a much broader cross section of society. In Crabgrass Frontier, a history of suburban development, author Kenneth Jackson recounts the story of renters in Queens departing for the suburbs because their $50-a-month rent in the city seemed silly when a free-standing home was available in nearby New Jersey for just $29 a month— taxes, principal, insurance, and interest included. “A much larger percentage of homes on the market in the ’50s were new homes, and they are much more expensive in relation to income now than they were then,” says Michael Carliner, a housing economist and research affiliate at Harvard. “We’re not really building starter homes now.” While FHA loans could go toward new urban apartment buildings, the program had an anti-urban bias. Minimum requirements for lot sizes in FHA guidelines, and suggestions about setbacks and distances from adjacent structures often excluded many types of multifamily and apartment buildings. During the ’50s, the program was used on seven times more single-family home starts than downtown apartments. That anti-urban bias in building has shaped our markets to this day, and explains why so many urban areas suffer from a dearth of affordable units. Housing starts are on the rise today. Last year, 1.2 million homes were started across the country. But adjusted for both an increased population as well as the large drop seen during the recent Great Recession, these numbers appear anemic, the lowest number per capita in 60 years. And unlike the postwar building spree, fewer new homes can be considered affordable starter homes. Builders say the combination of land, labor, and material costs makes affordable homes impossible, and only more expensive models offer enough of a profit margin. Redlining, racial exclusions, and a persistent wealth gap The advantages created during the postwar boom were not equally shared among all Americans: Both the FHA and VA loan programs excluded African Americans and other people of color, through unconstitutional redlining, an outright denial of access. Redlining was a system of appraising and rating neighborhoods, a practice that was especially detrimental because it accelerated existing prejudices, against both people of color and older neighborhoods. It originated with another government-created entity, the HOLC (Home Owners’ Loan Corporation), which rated every neighborhood in every city using a four-point scale, with red being the worst. The system deducted points for older, more dilapidated areas, as well as areas where people of color were living (which, thanks to discriminatory practices, often ended up being the same thing). The manual literally noted that “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes.” As Jane Jacobs wrote, “Credit blacklisting maps are accurate prophecies because they’re self-fulfilling prophecies.” When this rating system became a guiding force for the postwar explosion in development, it hypercharged inequality, and further isolated already-marginalized groups. This created a cycle of shrinking returns on homes and properties. The anti-urban, anti-black bias was at the heart of HOLC and FHA evaluations, writes Jackson in Crabgrass Frontier. Neighborhoods that received poor grades in St. Louis in the ’40s, for example, retain that stigma today. And in Newark, New Jersey, no urban neighborhood received an A grade during the initial evaluation, accelerating the process of money and investment fleeing to the suburbs. According to a recent study by the Urban Institute, not one of the 100 cities with the largest black populations has anywhere close to an equal homeownership rate between black and white people. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the gap is a staggering 50 percent. It’s true that in the ’50s, both white and black rates of homeownership increased in the United States. But the gap widened; the black/white homeownership gap was 14 percent in 1940, but 29 percent in 1960. Being locked out of this suburban development created a persistent wealth gap that exists to this day. Being denied access to the mortgage market and homeownership meant paying rent instead of owning and gaining value. Today, the average homeowner has a net worth of $195,400, 36 times that of the average renter’s net worth of $5,400. And missing out on homeownership in the ’50s meant missing out on a goldmine. During the 1950s, land values in some top-tier suburbs increased rapidly—in rare cases, as much as 3,000 percent. Consider an African-American urban professional locked out of the new, government-subsidized path to suburban homeownership, instead settling for renting, or for urban homes that would, over the decades, decrease in value. Then compare this with a white professional who would be able to buy an appreciating asset with government-assisted loans, write off the value of that investment thanks to the mortgage-interest tax deduction, and still be able to work at a great job downtown, due to government-funded roadways and interstates (via the Interstate Highway Act of 1956). The rising tide did not lift all boats equally. Skewed perspectives Many of the pressing urban planning issues we face today—sprawl and excessive traffic, sustainability, housing affordability, racial discrimination, and the persistence of poverty—can be traced back to this boom. There’s nothing wrong with the government promoting homeownership, as long as the opportunities it presents are open and accessible to all. As President Franklin Roosevelt said, “A nation of homeowners, of people who won a real share in their own land, is unconquerable.” That vision, however, has become distorted, due to many of the market incentives encouraged by the ’50s housing boom. In wealthy states, especially California, where Prop 13 locked in property tax payments despite rising property values, the incumbent advantage to owning homes is immense. In Seattle, the amount of equity a homeowner made just holding on to their investment, $119,000, was more than an average Amazon engineer made last year ($104,000). In many regions, we may have “reached the limits of suburbanization,” since buyers and commuters can’t stomach supercommutes. NIMBYism and local zoning battles have become the norm when any developers try to add much-needed housing density to expensive urban areas. In many ways, to paraphrase Roosevelt, we’re seeing a “class” of homeowners become unconquerable. The cost of construction; a shortage of cheap, developable land near urban centers (gobbled up by earlier waves of suburbanization); and other factors have made homes increasingly expensive. In other words, it’s a great time to own a home—and a terrible time to aspire to buy one. Full article & info found at: https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house-mortgage-government-gi-bill By Patrick Sisson Apr 10, 2018, 2:16pm EDT

Accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, may have gotten easier to build and own in west Denver and more ADUs may be coming to some westside neighborhoods, including Athmar Park, Lincoln Park and Westwood. City Council recently approved the final reading of an ordinance that would extend and increase a subsidy loan for someone willing to build an ADU through the West Denver Single Family Plus pilot program. An ADU is a small backyard home that that goes by plenty of names — mother-in-law suite, casita, carriage house. Renee Martinez-Stone, director of the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative which runs the program, said they assist homeowners with developing, designing, financing and constructing detached ADUs, which are built by Habitat for Humanity. Before January, homeowners who made 80 percent of the area median income could be approved for a $25,000 forgivable loan from the city through West Denver Single Family Plus. Homeowners also qualified for the loan if they rented out their ADU to a tenant who also made less than 80 percent of the area median income. The city funding was set to expire in January 2021, so the city was asked to extend the funding and they did. The funding is now set to expire December 2022, and the loan was increased to $30,000. City Council also took away the area median income requirement for the loan. Now, if a person makes 81 percent of the median income or more, they must rent to someone in the 80 percent or less range to qualify. If the homeowner makes 80 percent and under, the tenant isn’t required to have a specific income. The West Denver Single Family Plus pilot program is aimed toward moderate- and low-income homeowners in nine west Denver neighborhoods, including Athmar Park, Barnum/Barnum West, La Alma/Lincoln Park, Sun Valley, Valverde, Villa Park, West Colfax and Westwood. Martinez-Stone said the pilot focuses on west Denver because the area has “experienced significant displacement from rising housing costs. Wages are not keeping pace with these rising costs, so a lot of homeowners are not stable. They don’t see themselves being able to hold on to their home… This is a way to help them invest in their property.” She adds that ADUs promote intergenerational wealth for minority communities and low-income families. “There’s so much promise in creating awareness of ADUs for a lot of homeowners who are in neighborhoods that are vulnerable to gentrification,” Martinez-Stone said. “I think they’re an asset anywhere in the city because they create new housing and that’s what the city needs.” West Denver Single Family Plus currently offers five types of ADUs: studio, one bedroom, small two-bedroom, large two-bedroom and a three-bedroom. Those units range in cost from $120,000 to $200,000. If you have any questions about ADUs, financing or permits, I'ld love to hear from you, give me a call at 720-369-9924.

Apr 14, 2022 The interest rate on America’s most popular mortgage hit 5% for the first time in more than a decade, extending a sharp rise that has yet to significantly slow the red-hot housing market. Interest on the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage climbed from 4.72% a week ago to its highest level since early 2011, government-mortgage company Freddie Mac said Thursday. Fifteen months ago, mortgage rates were at all-time lows. Rates’ fastest three-month increase since 1987 has made the housing market ground zero for the Federal Reserve’s efforts to tame inflation. Home buyers, already facing surging house prices, are now contending with a substantial increase in financing expenses, further lifting monthly payments. A year ago, buying the median American home at prevailing rates meant a monthly mortgage bill of about $1,223 after a 20% down payment, according to calculations by George Ratiu, an economist at Realtor.com. At recent rates, such a purchase would require a monthly payment of nearly $1,700—a 38% increase, he estimated. Even compared with searing inflation elsewhere in the economy, that counts as extraordinary price growth. It also strikes at the bedrock of many families’ finances, Mr. Ratiu said. “Most Americans who buy a home are in a sense making the biggest purchase of their lives,” he said. Though rising rates have made buying more expensive, the housing market has remained tight. The S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller National Home Price Index rose 19.2% in the year that ended in January. Interest rates are rising elsewhere in the economy too, lifted by the Fed’s plans to raise benchmark overnight-lending costs and draw down its support for bond markets. In doing so, the Fed aims to bring demand into balance with supply, chilling upward pressure on prices. The central bank is responding to inflation that has now reached its highest pace in four decades. The government said Tuesday that March’s consumer-price index rose 8.5% year over year, as costs soared for energy, food and airfare. With unemployment nearly back to prepandemic levels and close to all-time lows, Fed officials have called fighting inflation their priority. As the bank’s policy shifts, much of the fallout plays out far from the view of everyday people, such as through higher financing costs for corporations and muted investment incentives for money managers. Rising mortgage rates, on the other hand, literally hit home. Financing property was cheap for much of the pandemic. The 30-year rate was under 3% for more than half of 2021. In January of that year, it had hit an all-time low of 2.65%. Those rates helped fuel the biggest boom in sales of previously-owned homes since 2006. Freed by remote work and lured by inexpensive financing, families left apartments in New York, San Francisco and other metropolises for more spacious suburban houses. Growing ranks of millennials—many starting families and entering their prime home-buying years—joined the crowd of bidders too. Now, bankers and economists say that pricier mortgages are cooling the market. The Mortgage Bankers Association’s index tracking the volume of loan applications for home buying was down 6% this week from a year earlier, the trade group said Wednesday. Wells Fargo, which issued more mortgages than any other U.S. bank in 2021, said Thursday that mortgage originations fell 27% from a year ago. JPMorgan Chase, another big home lender, reported Wednesday that its mortgage originations dropped 37%. Refinancings have crashed as higher rates cut the share of homeowners who can save money with a fresh mortgage. The MBA’s index for refinancing volume is down 62% from a year ago. Across all mortgage types, the group’s economists project originations will fall 36% this year to $2.58 trillion. Eugene Richards IV, a loan officer with mortgage brokerage Spruce Mortgage in Burlington, Vt., said people shopping for homes are seeing their budgets upended—especially first-time buyers. Higher mortgage rates have also practically eliminated refinancing activity among the firm’s clients. “I’ve definitely had some borrowers see the rate and be like, ‘Whoa! We need to talk,’” Mr. Richards said. As rates rise, the local real-estate market is showing signs of cooling off, Mr. Richards added, noting that pricier mortgages are thinning the pool of qualified buyers. Other rates on money lent to individuals, like credit-card interest, are rising as well this year, but few are climbing as fast as mortgages. Mortgage rates tend to follow closely the yield on the 10-year Treasury note—a practically risk-free government bond whose price reflects investors’ guesses about economic growth and central-bank policy over the next decade. Since January, inflation’s persistence has convinced many investors that the Fed will act much more aggressively to rein in demand. The last time rates were near 5% was November 2018, when the 30-year average mortgage rate twice hit 4.94%, Freddie Mac data show. By Matt Grossman

April 12, 2022 Mortgage rates surged more than 90 basis points in March 2022 alone. And 5% mortgage rates may be here sooner than many housing analysts had originally predicted. Mortgage rates have been rising quickly over the past month. A year ago, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 3.18%. Last week, it averaged 4.67%, according to Freddie Mac. Several leading housing economists recently told MarketWatch that 30-year fixed rates may hit 5% within the next month, while others believe that landmark will come later this year. “Even if rates slow their recent pace of increase, they’re likely to hit 5% by mid-year unless something big changes in the outlook,” Danielle Hale, realtor.com®’s chief economist, told MarketWatch. Jeff Ostrowski, an analyst at Bankrate, told MarketWatch he believes 5% rates will arrive even sooner—sometime this spring. Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the National Association of REALTORS®, says he believes the higher mortgage rates will cool the market somewhat in the coming months. “At a 5% rate, home sales this year may even fall by 10%,” he says. But Hale is optimistic that buyer demand will remain strong. “We have a large generation of younger households, more than 45 million of whom are in prime household formation and home buying years of 26 to 35,” she told MarketWatch. “And while the monthly costs of buying are higher, the monthly costs of renting are also up, more than 17% in the last year. … Rising rents and higher costs of home buying have younger households hoping to move, stuck between a rock and a hard place.” And even as mortgage rates climb, Yun does not expect home prices to turn negative. “Home prices are on firmer ground, even if mortgage rates rise to 6%, since the rents are rising strongly,” he told MarketWatch. Source: “‘Inevitable,’ in the Very Near Future.’ 4 Economists and Real Estate Pros on Exactly When Mortgage Rates Will Hit 5%,” MarketWatch (April 4, 2022)

Jan 26, 2021 Buying a home for the first time can be really exciting; maybe even a little scary. Knowing who to call, where to look, and how to budget is very important. Whether you’re in your early 20’s or late 70’s, these first time home buying tips are good for everyone. Before we dive in, take a moment to give yourself a pat on the back for investing time into researching this topic and get ready for this very exciting journey you are about to embark on. If there is anything I hope you take away from this article, it is that you are about to make the best decision by buying a home. Let’s get into it, shall we? Before pulling the trigger on buying a home, there are a few things first time home-buyers should evaluate. Remember, this process takes patience and commitment. Don’t expect to be moving into your dream home in a week. 1. Figure out your housing budget Before worrying about getting a mortgage pre-approval, make sure you know exactly how much is in the budget. Ask yourself, what am I willing to spend on a home? That way, when you get a mortgage pre-approved, you’re not lured into buying a home close to the price of the pre-approval and you commit to staying near your budget. Rule of thumb: Go less than half amount of income for your monthly payment. Also, just because you're approved for a certain amount, might not mean you want that exact price. Buy below your means – Don’t spend more than 40-50% of your monthly income on home ownership. 2. Find a realtor you trust In this word-of-mouth business, it is easy to find a realtor. Just ask a neighbor, friend, relative, or look at yard signs and you are sure to find someone that can help you with the home buying process. However, finding someone you trust and are willing to work with during this process is crucial for a smooth transaction. Don’t be afraid to ask questions about their experience and expertise. Get a feel for their schedule, personal experience in the area you live, and how long they have been in the industry. I run my business by focusing on ensuring a positive real estate experience. All agents understand that buying a home is a significant milestone to which only positivity ensue. 3. Study the market Buying a home based on looks is great, but there are a lot of things to take into account. Take a drive around neighborhoods you are interested in and have a chat with the neighbors. Anyone who is out and about/on a walk is a great candidate for this. Get a feel for the demographic and overall vibe of the neighborhood. Also, make sure to take a drive around these areas during both the day and evening. You’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it twice: Location Location Location! Find a location that is right for you, but be open to new ideas that might also work. 4. Make the most of open houses This might seem like an antiquated system, but taking advantage of an open house is one of the best decisions for a first time home buyer. Touring a home can give you a feel for what you like and do not like in a home. Maybe you went into this experience wanting a specific look, but after a few open houses your mind is completely transformed and you are open to new ideas. 5. Check your credit In order to be a first-time home buyer, you must make sure your credit is up to par. There are a few ways to check your credit scores and reports so have a look to see where you stand. The point of all this trouble is to show the bank that you will be paying back your mortgage loan. The higher the credit score, the lower the risk. Keep in mind that there are no strict minimum credit scores, but lenders will be following guidelines. At the end of the day, you want your application approved so take some time to understand what your credit score means and if you are creditworthy. *Remember, home buying is called a process for a reason. First step is to contact me to see what you need to do during this process. Give me a call at (720) 369-9924 or visit my website at www.bergonzrealestate.com There are many things to take into account when shopping for a home, but follow these tips and you have set yourself up to win. You will be furnishing your new place in no time. I love to hear from all of YOU so feel free to share with me what your home-buying experience has looked like. Also, give me a call if you’re ready to make that jump to home-ownership. I want this transition to be as smooth as possible for you. (720-369-9924 or visit my website at www.bergonzrealestate.com Whether it be in Denver or Las Vegas... When you choose me, you choose family!

Of the 1.4 million households in the Denver Metro area, only 1,477 homes and condos were available for sale at the end of the year, compared to 2,541 at the end of 2020 and 5,037 at the end of 2019, according to latest Market Trends Report from the Denver Metro Association of Realtors. Going all the way back to 1985, the metro area has averaged around 12,652 homes for sale at the end of December. Last month, buyers only had about a twelfth of that available to them, and 34.3% less homes than were available in November. This already tight lack of supply, combined with strong demand continues to drive record price gains. The median price of a single-family home sold in metro Denver rose from $502,775 at the end of 2020 to $599,990, a 19.3% increase. The median sales price of condos and townhomes in December was $381,500, up 15.6% from a median price of $330,000 in December 2020. Buyers closed on 63,684 residential properties last year, only 183 fewer than in 2020. Although the number of sales was flat, higher prices drove the sales volume of transactions up 17%, from $33.3 billion to $39 billion. The reason for the record low inventory can be found in new listings, which fell 5.3% last year to 66,308. This is the fewest homes put on the market in any year since 2016. And those homes that did hit the market moved quickly, with half going under contract in under four days. Compare that to 2020 when homes spent a median of seven days on the market, and in 2019 when it was 13 days. Interest rates experienced their largest rise in two decades at the start of 2022, and if that trend is sustained, these rates will reduce affordability for buyers which reduces overall demand. Given the recent Marshall Fire Tragedy, the Denver housing market looks to remain undersupplied well into the first half of the year but could loosen up in the second half as demand eases. Its likely that Home prices will keep going up, but so will interest rates.