Archive for October, 2007

Attitudes of the Clintons about Economics

20071010 Economy Stiglitz in

Venezuela Pushes Public Private Balance (Update1)  

The last statement in this article kind of sums of the attitudes of the

Clintons about economics.  When their Chair of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors endorses Hugo Chavezuelas seizing of the oil company assets (for the second time in 20 years), it suggests that they are really do lean toward Big Guvm’t in a Big Way.
Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, chaired the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers under former U.S. President Bill Clinton. He is a professor at

Columbia University.
He said Venezuela has managed its oil boom better than

Russia.

Venezuela is managing their oil boom by stealing the assets bought, developed and paid for by the oil companies.  What is

Venezuela going to do for oil field development and technology for the next twenty years?   They have huge oil deposits but they can not produce their heavy oil resources without extensive investment and develop of new technology.
Hugo Chavezuela is spending the capital that needs to be re-invested to develop future reserves.  Look at Russia (who didn’t steal their oil industry) and

Iran who did. 

Russia is still in business with the oil companies and continues to expand production (after many years of stagnation and waste). 

Iran is soon going to be a net oil importer.  They have squandered one of the best oil resources on the planet by mis-management, decrepit equipment and ancient technology.
You can steal assets.  You can buy some technology.  You can avoid re-investing.  You can drop production and make back some of the losses by raising prices.  But the honey pot does run out.  The high market prices do cycle down.  And pay backs are tough.Time to develop clean coal burning technology, low cost solar and cheap fusion power.And Energy CONSERVATION!http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aqop3ptj2ktg&refer=news By Matthew WalterOct. 10 (Bloomberg) — Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economics laureate visiting

Venezuela, said developing nations must strike a balance between public and private control of the economy.
After meeting in the presidential palace with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, Stiglitz praised the South American country’s success at distributing its oil income among citizens. He urged the government to ensure its economic policies are leading to sustainable growth. “What’s fundamental is to have a balance in the role of the market and the government in the economy,” Stiglitz said at a forum on emerging markets sponsored by a local bank. “We have to realize it’s not just about setting interest rates, but also about supporting growth.” The Nobel Prize winner said

Venezuela’s economic growth in recent years has been “impressive.” Chavez, a critic of the U.S. government and a self-described foe of capitalism, has cited Stiglitz in speeches this year warning about the

U.S.’s “irresponsible” economic policies.
Venezuela, the fourth-biggest supplier of crude oil to the

United States, had an 8.9 percent economic growth rate in the second quarter, its fifteenth straight quarter of expansion. Increased consumer demand and government spending has pushed inflation to 15.3 percent, the highest in

Latin America. Stiglitz said during his speech today that relatively high inflation isn’t necessarily harmful to economic growth, and that central-bank autonomy shouldn’t be “excessive.” Bank Autonomy Chavez plans to formally do away with the Venezuelan central bank’s independence later this year through a rewrite of the constitution. Stiglitz praised China’s and India’s success in reducing poverty and maintaining economic growth, and criticized

Brazil’s high lending rates during his presentation. He said Venezuela has managed its oil boom better than

Russia.
The economist’s trip to Caracas follows a series of high- profile visits from U.S. citizens interested in the South American nation’s so-called “Bolivarian” socialist revolution. Actors Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn visited

Caracas earlier this year and were received by President Chavez.
Actor Danny Glover is co-starring in a film sponsored by the Venezuelan government called “Miranda Regresa,” about the life of Latin American revolutionary hero Francisco de Miranda. The movie opens in

Caracas theaters Oct. 12.
Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001, chaired the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers under former U.S. President Bill Clinton. He is a professor at

Columbia University.
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in

Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 10, 2007 19:05 EDT 

 

 

Too Timid for Tax Increases

 

Taxes:  Capital Gains Tax is Going UP!  It is just a matter of time. 

Do your Tax Planning now or pay more later…a lot more. 

They seem to think that any deduction, “tax break” or “tax loophole” is the government giving government money back to us.  That is not the case at all.  These people forget that what we pay and don’t pay in taxes is originally our money, not the government’s money. 

 

EditorialToo Timid for Tax Increases Published: October 11, 2007Someday, Americans who earn millions upon millions of dollars each year will no longer pay taxes at a lower rate than the middle class and the merely affluent. Someday. But not this year, and with 2008 being an election year, probably not then either. The Washington Post reported this week that the Senate will not advance a proposal this year to raise taxes on private equity partners, the deal makers who have become multimillionaires and billionaires mainly via debt-driven buyouts of public companies. The partners pay a flat tax rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings, compared with rates as high as 35 percent for most everyone else — say, firefighters, nurses, doctors, teachers and soldiers. A spokesman for the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, told The Post that time appeared to have run out to act this year and that, in any event, the issue needs more study. That decision has all the signs of a delaying tactic to avoid raising taxes on an industry that is a heavy campaign contributor. Mr. Reid controls the Senate calendar, so he could make time if he wanted. And several Congressional hearings have made it clear that there is no justification for private equity’s low tax rate. Its legality rests on outdated provisions of the tax code that should be changed. It is morally indefensible. And it is illogical from a tax perspective. The law rewards investors for taking risks with their money by allowing them to pay taxes on their profits at a special low rate of 15 percent. But private equity partners are, by and large, managing other people’s money. As money managers earning performance fees, they don’t deserve an investor’s low tax rate. To avoid looking craven, Congressional Democrats may move forward with a bill to raise taxes on publicly traded partnerships. They may also try to end a dubious practice whereby private equity partners convert the relatively small share of their pay that is taxed as ordinary income, at 35 percent, to investment profit taxable at 15 percent. These sorts of baby steps would be better than nothing, but they are not nearly enough. Fairness demands that the very richest among us should not enjoy a lower tax rate than most everyone else. Necessity demands that the

United States collect more tax revenue. The nation does not take in nearly enough for the spending to which it is already committed, let alone for what it needs to add, like health care, infrastructure repair, environmental protection and so on — nevermind paying the bill for President Bush’s war in Iraq. It does not bode well that today’s leaders can’t even see their way to raising the obviously too low taxes on private equity partners.  

 

 

US Economy Job Growth Accelerates in September

20071005 US Economy Job Growth Accelerates in September (Update4)  Initial reports on employment are like weather reports—they are so wrong so often, you wonder why anybody even listens to them. The bottom line:   The

US economy (outside of real estate) is doing better than we had hoped—and it’s getting better.

The Fed rate cut was the right amount at the right time.There is still a lot of blood-letting necessary to deflate the real estate bubble. Along those lines, I have reviewed several situations in which investors have bought large numbers of properties in previously “hot” markets.  Now they are desperate for help because their properties are vacant and underwater.  They owe more than the properties are currently worth—in some instances their potential net losses are more than they have taken out in borrowed “profits”. Unfortunately, if they can’t sell it, rent for payments or afford the negative cash flow, the prices of their properties are in free fall.  How much can they pay to stop the pain?  And can we find someone else who can step up and make payments—even after a deep short sale?  We will find out…and so will thousands of investors and homeowners in similar situations as their property prices fall.  Ironically enough, property values are increasing daily, but who wants to hold onto properties that are falling 30-50% in price while they are still not cash flowing on a monthly basis?   It is still not time to buy on value alone if prices are falling so much with more to come.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1eZDfCaMXto&refer=home By Joe RichterEnlarge Image/DetailsOct. 5 (Bloomberg) –

U.S. employment accelerated in September and revised figures for August showed an unexpected gain, easing recession concerns and making the Federal Reserve less likely to cut interest rates again. Payrolls grew by 110,000 after an 89,000 increase in the previous month, the Labor Department said today in

Washington. The change to the August figure wiped out what had been the first decline in four years, a drop that spurred predictions the six-year expansion would come to end amid the credit-market rout.

Treasury notes fell as traders speculated that the central bank, which reduced borrowing costs by half a point on Sept. 18, will resist lowering them at the next meeting. Analysts said more jobs and rising wages will help consumers weather falling home prices, sustaining the spending that accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy. “It certainly doesn’t look like an economy that’s losing momentum,” said John Ryding, chief U.S. economist at Bear Stearns Cos. in

New York. “The Fed will move to the sidelines or else it’ll become much more apparent that the Fed was cutting for financial stability reasons and not the real economy.” The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note climbed 12 basis points to 4.64 percent at 4:28 p.m. in

New York. Futures traders put the chances of a reduction in October at 48 percent, down from 72 percent yesterday, based on prices at the Chicago Board of Trade. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index hit an all-time high.
`Nimble’ Fed Speaking less than an hour after the figures were released, Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said officials must be “nimble” in setting rates given the risks of both slower growth and faster inflation. Commodity prices had the biggest monthly gain in 32 years in September, with the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index advancing 8.1 percent. Today’s report validates comments from Fed district bank presidents, who have consistently expressed skepticism about how much the economy has been hurt by the market turmoil of August. Richard Fisher, president of the Fed’s

Dallas branch, said yesterday that “things are healing.” St. Louis Fed President William Poole warned investors a week ago not to assume further rate cuts would be forthcoming.
The job number “ eases fears that the economy will take a dramatic turn for the worse,” said Julia Coronado, senior U.S. economist at Barclays Capital Inc. in

New York. “That makes the Fed’s decision a closer call. A rate cut in October is by no means a foregone conclusion.”
Impact of Revisions Revisions added 118,000 workers to payroll numbers previously reported for July and August. The jobless rate rose to 4.7 percent from 4.6 percent the previous month. “Now we find out that not only did we not lose jobs, but we gained almost 90,000” in August, said Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Wells Capital Management in

Minneapolis. “This goes a long way to start putting the crisis in the rear-view mirror.”
President George W. Bush praised the jobs numbers, saying that the revisions add up to 49 consecutive months of employment growth, the “most on record for our country.” In the six years since the last recession ended in November 2001, the economy has created 7.1 million jobs, compared with 12.5 million during the comparable period following the 1991 contraction. Most of the August adjustment came in government payrolls, which expanded by 57,000 during the month, reflecting hiring of teachers for the new school year. School Holidays Changes in the timing of school holidays during the summer probably made it difficult for the department to count the number of teachers added for the new school year, economists said. Government payrolls further expanded by 37,000 in September, today’s report showed. Employment at businesses rose by 73,000 in September after a 32,000 gain in August. Private payrolls increased 115,000 per month on average from January though July. “The labor market is bending, but not breaking,” said Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in

New York. “You still have some pretty good wage growth, some pretty good income growth that should be good for consumer spending.”
Service industries, which include banks, insurance companies, restaurants and retailers, added 143,000 workers last month after increasing 153,000 in August. Retailers shed 5,200 jobs after adding 8,700 in August. Factories Lose Jobs Factory payrolls dropped by 18,000 after decreasing 45,000 a month earlier. Economists had forecast a drop of 10,000 in manufacturing employment. Payrolls at builders declined by 14,000 after falling 22,000 a month earlier. Lennar Corp., the biggest

U.S. homebuilder, has cut 35 percent of its workforce and will eliminate more, Stuart Miller, chief executive of the Miami-based company, said in a statement Sept. 25. Lennar last month reported the biggest quarterly loss in its 53-year history.
Firings at mortgage companies are also contributing to the slowdown in the labor market. Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest

U.S. securities firm, said this week it plans to cut 600 jobs after a decline in mortgage-related revenue led to lower third- quarter earnings than analysts estimated.
“We may be headed for trouble as it is,” said Robert Dederick, president of RGD Economics in

Hinsdale, Illinois. “Remember, economists are saying there’s a 35 percent chance of a recession, which is about as far as they ever go until we’re actually in the recession.”
`Act as Needed’ The Fed on Sept. 18 cut its benchmark interest rate by a half-percentage point to 4.75 percent, and said they would “act as needed” to promote stable inflation and economic growth.

Poole said that while he sees “tentative signs” that credit-market turmoil is easing, “financial fragility is obviously still an issue.” So far, income gains have helped prevent a collapse in consumer spending, and some companies are still adding workers as they expand. Wages gained 4.1 percent in September from a year earlier, the biggest increase since February. Workers’ average hourly earnings rose 7 cents, or 0.4 percent, after a 0.3 percent increase the previous month. Hours Worked Average weekly hours worked by production workers were unchanged at 33.8. Average weekly earnings rose to $593.87 last month from $591.50 the prior month. Boeing Co., the second-largest

U.S. defense contractor, won a $1.1 billion award to maintain the Air Force’s fleet of more than 200 KC-135 midair refueling tankers. Maintenance will alternate between Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and Boeing facilities in

San Antonio where 200 new employees will be hired.
The payrolls report included the government’s preliminary estimate for annual benchmark revisions. The Labor Department said payrolls for the 12 months ended in March 2007 will probably be revised lower by 297,000, the biggest downward revision since 2002. Currently, government figures show 1.94 million jobs were created during the 12 months ended March 2007. The final estimate will be issued in February. To contact the reporter on this story: Joe Richter in

Washington Jrichter1@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 5, 2007 16:35 EDT 

CONVEYANCE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY LIEN

While I’m in a legislative mood, here’s another one that has an impact on our ability to do subject to’s. It applies to transactions after 1-1-08.This law requires a notice to the buyer and the lenders when a property is sold with an underlying lien-most notably subject to transactions.
 It sets out the warning required and allows for a rescission of the contract if the warning isn’t provided.

Of most importance to you are exceptions that are probably most applicable to real estate investors.

First is the exception if the property is conveyed to someone who buys sell or otherwise conveys 4 or more properties in a year.

The one I see that is the best one is the one that exempts you from the disclosure if a title policy is ordered.  As many of you know, we have expanded our services by (soon) becoming a fee attorney for LandAmerica Lawyers Title.  This means that we are like a ‘branch office’ of LandAmerica and can do real estate closings just like other offices of LandAmerica or other title companies. This has the added advantage of having YOUR attorney at the table and drafting documents that are in your favor, not someone else’s.  We offer evening closings for those that can’t get away during the day and offer lower fees for our clients than most other companies. We’ ll send more info when it’s official.

Below is the act itself (it’s only 7 pages long).  Give me a call if you have any questions.

As always, we ask that you not forward this email to others as it is intended for our clients only and to give them a competitive advantage over others in the business.AN ACTrelating to the conveyance of certain residential real property encumbered by a lien.BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS:

SECTION 1.  Subchapter A, Chapter 5, Property Code, is amended by adding Sections 5.016 and 5.017 to read as follows:Sec. 5.016.  CONVEYANCE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ENCUMBERED BY LIEN.  (a)  A person may not convey an interest in or enter into a contract to convey an interest in residential real property that will be encumbered by a recorded lien at the time the interest is conveyed unless, on or before the seventh day before the earlier of the effective date of the conveyance or the execution of an executory contract binding the purchaser to purchase the property, an option contract, or other contract, the person provides the purchaser and each lienholder a separate written disclosure statement in at least 12-point type that:(1)  identifies the property and includes the name, address, and phone number of each lienholder;(2)  states the amount of the debt that is secured by each lien;(3)  specifies the terms of any contract or law under which the debt that is secured by the lien was incurred, including, as applicable:(A)  the rate of interest;(B)  the periodic installments required to be paid; and(C)  the account number;(4)  indicates whether the lienholder has consented to the transfer of the property to the purchaser;(5)  specifies the details of any insurance policy relating to the property, including:(A)  the name of the insurer and insured;(B)  the amount for which the property is insured; and(C)  the property that is insured;(6)  states the amount of any property taxes that are due on the property; and(7)  includes a statement at the top of the disclosure in a form substantially similar to the following:WARNING:  ONE OR MORE RECORDED LIENS HAVE BEEN FILED THAT MAKE A CLAIM AGAINST THIS PROPERTY AS LISTED BELOW.  IF A LIEN IS NOT RELEASED AND THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LIENHOLDER, IT IS POSSIBLE THE LIENHOLDER COULD DEMAND FULL PAYMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF THE LIEN IMMEDIATELY.  YOU MAY WISH TO CONTACT EACH LIENHOLDER FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH AN ATTORNEY.(b)  A violation of this section does not invalidate a conveyance.  Except as provided by Subsections (c) and (d), if a contract is entered into without the seller providing the notice required by this section, the purchaser may terminate the contract for any reason on or before the seventh day after the date the purchaser receives the notice in addition to other remedies provided by this section or other law.(c)  This section does not apply to a transfer:(1)  under a court order or foreclosure sale;(2)  by a trustee in bankruptcy;(3)  to a mortgagee by a mortgagor or successor in interest or to a beneficiary of a deed of trust by a trustor or successor in interest;(4)  by a mortgagee or a beneficiary under a deed of trust who has acquired the real property at a sale conducted under a power of sale under a deed of trust or a sale under a court-ordered foreclosure or has acquired the real property by a deed in lieu of foreclosure;(5)  by a fiduciary in the course of the administration of a decedent’s estate, guardianship, conservatorship, or trust;(6)  from one co-owner to one or more other co-owners;(7)  to a spouse or to a person or persons in the lineal line of consanguinity of one or more of the transferors;(8)  between spouses resulting from a decree of dissolution of marriage or a decree of legal separation or from a property settlement agreement incidental to one of those decrees;(9)  to or from a governmental entity;(10)  where the purchaser obtains a title insurance policy insuring the transfer of title to the real property; or(11)  to a person who has purchased, conveyed, or entered into contracts to purchase or convey an interest in real property four or more times in the preceding 12 months.(d)  A violation of this section is not actionable if the person required to give notice reasonably believes and takes any necessary action to ensure that each lien for which notice was not provided will be released on or before the 30th day after the date on which title to the property is transferred.Sec. 5.017.  FEE FOR FUTURE CONVEYANCE OF RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY AND RELATED LIEN PROHIBITED.  (a)  In this section, “property owners’ association” has the meaning assigned by Section 209.002.(b)  A deed restriction or other covenant running with the land applicable to the conveyance of residential real property that requires a transferee of residential real property or the transferee’s heirs, successors, or assigns to pay a declarant or other person imposing the deed restriction or covenant on the property or a third party designated by a transferor of the property a fee in connection with a future transfer of the property is prohibited.  A deed restriction or other covenant running with the land that violates this section or a lien purporting to encumber the land to secure a right under a deed restriction or other covenant running with the land that violates this section is void and unenforceable.  For purposes of this section, a conveyance of real property includes a conveyance or other transfer of an interest or estate in residential real property.(c)  This section does not apply to a deed restriction or other covenant running with the land that requires a fee associated with the conveyance of property in a subdivision that is payable to:(1)  a property owners’ association that manages or regulates the subdivision or the association’s managing agent if the subdivision contains more than one platted lot;(2)  an entity organized under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or(3)  a governmental entity.SECTION 2.  The change in law made by this Act applies only to a transfer of property that occurs or a contract entered into on or after the effective date of this Act.  A transfer of property that occurs or a contract entered into before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect January 1, 2008.
 ______________________________  ______________________________  President of the Senate           Speaker of the House      

I certify that H.B. No. 2207 was passed by the House on May 11, 2007, by the following vote:  Yeas 135, Nays 2, 2 present, not voting; that the House refused to concur in Senate amendments to H.B. No. 2207 on May 25, 2007, and requested the appointment of a conference committee to consider the differences between the two houses; and that the House adopted the conference committee report on H.B. No. 2207 on May 27, 2007, by the following vote:  Yeas 144, Nays 0, 2 present, not voting.______________________________Chief Clerk of the House   
 I certify that H.B. No. 2207 was passed by the Senate, with amendments, on May 23, 2007, by the following vote:  Yeas 31, Nays 0; at the request of the House, the Senate appointed a conference committee to consider the differences between the two houses; and that the Senate adopted the conference committee report on H.B. No. 2207 on May 26, 2007, by the following vote:  Yeas 30, Nays 0.______________________________Secretary of the Senate   APPROVED: __________________                 Date                 __________________               Governor        

Rehabber News

To all of my clients who are rehabbers:

You may have read the recent Sunday Express News article regarding the new standards that might affect your business as a rehabber.  While I thought the article was confusing and not very well written, I have had an opportunity to review the law that the article discussed, and there are some potential effects on our business as rehabbers. (the law is also confusing and not well written!) I have provided a link to the new legislation below, which should be read in conjunction with the law as it exists before September 1, 2007.

Below is a summary of the provisions most applicable to our efforts as rehabbers, but as with any legislation, my intent here is to make you aware that you need to explore this further.  Any summary I could give here would necessarily omit certain salient points that could change the effect of the law dramatically on any given situation or project.  So, please review the law itself with respect to your efforts and proposed projects.

The legislature, passed (almost unanimously) amendments to the Texas Residential Construction Commission Act, with the passage of HB 1038 (the bill is about 19 pages long and can be accessed at (copy and paste into your browser if the link doesn’t work):

www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01038F.htm

This is the act (title 16) that governs builders, their licensing, construction requirements, building c odes, dispute resolution, etc.  While most of the changes and modifications deal with the composition of the commission, penalties, and other more mechanical aspects of the law, there are a number of provisions that contrast with prior law. (the opinion of most ‘consumer groups’ is that the legislature acted as a lackey for the builder’s industry because they focused mostly on the changes to the builders code).

Of most importance to rehabbers, is found in section 8 of the legislation, which adds a provision to section 401.005.  This section previously provided a broad exemption from title 16 (the Residential Construction Commission act).  Prior law exempted folks that built their own home and lived there a year before selling and also exempted homeowners who supervised, or arranged construction of improvements on a home they owned.  For most rehabbers, this provided the exemption from all of the provisions applicable to builders.

the new law adds a paragraph that, while not providing an exemption to title 16,  has the potential to pull rehabbers into the act.  it provides:  An individual who builds a home or a material improvement to a home and sells the home immediately following completion of the building or remodeling and does not live in the home for at least one year following completion of the building or remodeling is responsible as a builder under the warranty obligation created by this title for work completed by the individual.  Responsibility under this subsection does not automatically require an individual to register under Section 416.001. The first question is what is a material improvement to a home.   The legislation defines a “material Improvement” in section 6 of the legislation:  “Material Improvement” means a modification to an existing home that either increases or decreases the home’s total square footage of living space that also modifies the home’s foundation, perimeter walls, or roof.  A material improvement does not include modifications to an existing home if the modifications are designed primarily to repair or replace the home’s component parts.”Thus if  you don’t change the square footage, the exterior walls aren’t moved, the foundation stays the same and you don’t change the roof, it’s not a material improvement.  Likewise , if all you are doing is replacing or repairing the component parts of the home, it also not a material improvement.  If you do any of these things, you need to provide the builders warranty and you are subject to being classified as a builder. 

If you are exempt from the title under the section above, you will need to provide a notice when you sell the property regarding the absence of certain warranties.  The notice is contained in section one of the new legislation.

The legislation also changed the definition of a builder in section 6 of the legislation (401.003 of the act) to add those persons who sell or contracts for the construction of or the supervision or management of the construction of a material improvement to a home (other than replacing a roof) or an improvement to the interior of an existing home where the cost of the work exceeds $10,000.00 (prior law was $20,000.00).

The legislation also defines, for the first time, “improvements to the interior of an existing home” [which] means any modification or installation of permanent fixtures inside the home.  An improvement to the interior of an existing home does not include improvements to an existing home if th improvements are designed primarily to rep[air or replace the home’s component parts. Thus changing existing faucets is OK; putting in a new sink where none existed before includes you in the definition.

Why is this important?? It’s important because if this applies, you are classified as a builder and builders need to register, take continuing education,operate to building code standards, provide warranties etc etc..

What’s it all mean??  It seems(and this is just my opinion) that rehabbers who do minor rehabs, carpet, paint, change fixtures, fans, etc will be able to operate as beofre.  Those rehabbers that change walls, add or subtract square footage, modify the roof, add additions, spend over $10 K, or make serious changes to a dwelling, will, at the very least, be required to provide the builder’s warranty (which can be provided by a separate warranty company- but not teh usual home warranty company mentioned in the TREC contract though).  In addition, doing the extensive rehabs will likely result in a classification as a builder, requiring registration and all that entails.

On a macro level, it will mean that less houses will be rehabbed by non-builders.  You can debate the policy implications of this all you want, but the effect is to require more regulation and (presumably) more competent licensed persons doing major rehabs.

Rehabbers need to be very careful with their projects and each project needs to be examined as to what is being done to determine if the warranties need to be given.  If you have any doubt, it’s best to get the opinion of an attorney as to whether the project will fall under the Act. 

I hope this was helpful to your business.  Please give me a call if you have any questions about the new law or about any projects you start after September 1, 2007 that may fall under this new law.  

Real Estate FC: Attorney General Charges Foreclosure Rescue Firm with

Attorney General Abbott Charges Foreclosure Rescue Firm with Operating
Unlawful Scam

Court freezes assets of Foreclosure Assistance Solutions

HOUSTON - Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today charged a business with
operating an unlawful foreclosure rescue scam that targeted struggling Texas
homeowners. As a result, the 408th District Court issued a temporary
restraining order and froze assets belonging to three businessmen who
organized the scheme. According to court documents, the defendants
fraudulently advertised that they could save homeowners from imminent
foreclosures.

The defendants named in the petition are: Foreclosure Assistance Solutions,
LLC of Florida, and its principal operators, Herb Zerden and Adolfo
Quintero, as well as J.W.W. Services, Inc. of California and owner John
Woodruff. Under the temporary restraining order, the defendants must stop
falsely soliciting distressed homeowners immediately. Although the temporary
restraining order only applies in Texas, homeowners nationwide are protected
by the state’s asset freeze.

Media links

 <http://www.oag.state.tx.us/media/videos/play.php?image=091007fas&id=245>
Click on image
Video of Foreclosure Assistance Web site

 <http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2007/091007fas_sample.pdf>
Sample of
Deceptive Mailer

 <http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/homebuying.shtml>
Brochure: Avoid Home Buying Scams

 <http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2007/091007fas_pop.pdf>
Attorney General’s lawsuit against Foreclosure Assistance Solutions

 <http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2007/091007fas_tro.pdf>
Attorney General’s temporary restraining order against Foreclosure
Assistance Solutions

“Foreclosure Assistance Solutions preyed upon vulnerable homeowners who fell
behind on their mortgage payments,” said Attorney General Abbott. “Today’s
restraining order and asset freeze should put an end to an unlawful scheme
that attempts to profiteer from the mortgage crisis.”

Attorney General Abbott added: “Homeowners facing difficulty making their
monthly mortgage payments should be wary of mortgage rescue scams. Schemes
offering too-good-to-be-true solutions are usually just that. Texans who
fall behind on their payments should contact their lender directly to work
out a resolution.”

According to the Attorney General’s enforcement action, the defendants
mailed cards and letters to homeowners whose mortgage payments were
delinquent and thus facing foreclosure. Their correspondence with homeowners
promised established relationships with mortgage companies and banks
nationwide. As a result, they claimed, Foreclosure Assistance Solutions
could stop the foreclosure process.

Homeowners who contacted Foreclosure Assistance Solutions were urged to sign
a $1,200 contract immediately. Under the contract, Foreclosure Assistance
Solutions strictly prohibited homeowners from contacting their lenders.
After homeowners paid the fee, they rarely heard from the company’s
representatives again. When homeowners repeatedly called the company for
answers, they were ignored. As a result, many homeowners still lost their
homes to foreclosure.

Today’s action prohibits the defendants from making false representations to
homeowners. Specifically, the company is prohibited from claiming that a
home is at risk without providing proof of that risk. The court also ordered
the defendants to stop offering assistance to homeowners without describing
the alleged assistance.

The Office of the Attorney General’s petition states that Foreclosure
Assistance Solutions deposited over $13 million in Bank of America accounts
between 2005 and 2006. Most of those funds came from homeowners who faced
foreclosure. That account and others are subject to today’s asset freeze.

The Attorney General seeks court-ordered restitution for homeowners who were
harmed by the defendants’ acts, as well as civil penalties of up to $20,000
per violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Additionally, the
Attorney General requests up to $5,000 per violation for the defendants’
failure to register the business as one that conducts telephone
solicitations.

The Office of the Attorney General is engaged in a variety of efforts
involving residential mortgages. Last week, Attorney General Abbott launched
the Texas Residential Mortgage Fraud Task Force, a partnership that involves
key state regulatory agencies. The task force, established by House Bill
716, is required “to take a proactive stance towards tracking and
prosecuting mortgage fraud and the perpetrators of mortgage fraud
statewide.”

Earlier this year, Attorney General Abbott secured $21 million in
restitution for Texas homeowners who were harmed by lending giant Ameriquest
Mortgage Co. That case resolved allegations that the company and its
affiliates did not clearly disclose certain terms to homeowners, including
unpredictable adjustable rates.

Homeowners who believe they have been harmed by this or similar fraudulent
businesses may call the Office of the Attorney General’s toll-free complaint
line at (800) 252-8011 or file a complaint online at www.oag.state.tx.us.

-30-

Economy Greenspan Recession Risk Up OR NOT

20070917 Economy Greenspan Recession Risk Up OR NOT It is easier to always be right when you state both choices at the same time. 

Here is a video that reports that Greenspan says that US is not headed toward a recession.  http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=289004&cl=4127451&src=finance&ch=1316259  Here is an article about an interview on his new book where he is saying that the danger of recession is increasing. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070917/bs_nm/usa_greenspan_dc;_ylt=AsWY9elPeJXzBrd9OIVtCRKb.HQA  

Greenspan: Recession risk up

By Mark Felsenthal Mon Sep 17, 4:46 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan said on Monday there is an increased risk of a recession but cautioned that the Fed must still be on guard for a rise in inflation. “Earlier in the year, I was talking about a one-third probability of a recession,” Greenspan told Reuters. “It’s come up somewhat, but it’s still at this stage somewhat less than 50 (percent).”He said the possibility of a large drop in house prices poses the biggest risk. A mild decline in home prices accompanied by a big pullback in construction that would help clear inventories would put the economy “in fairly good shape,” Greenspan said.“But if the whole thing festers, it will erode household balance sheets and eventually impact on what the critical support has been in this economy: consumer expenditures,” he said.The former Fed chairman spoke with Reuters and numerous other media outlets to publicize the release of his memoir, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a

New World.”

The book, for which Greenspan was reportedly paid an $8 million advance, hit store shelves on Monday. It was the No. 1 seller on Web retailer Amazon.com. GLOBALIZATION TURNSIts release comes as the spotlight turns to Ben Bernanke, the former

Princeton

University professor who succeeded Greenspan on February 1, 2006, and who now faces the biggest test of his tenure.
The Bernanke-led Fed — which has been criticized by some on Wall Street for a slow response as housing-related credit market stress mounted in August — is widely expected to lower interest rates on Tuesday to protect the economy.Greenspan said the Fed’s decision-making comes against a more complicated backdrop than he faced as chairman when rapid globalization was keeping inflation in check, allowing the central bank to cut interest rates aggressively when the

U.S. economy stumbled in 2001.
“Disinflation is probably close to its peak now, and obviously as disinflation eases, inflation of necessity is picking up,” he said. “I don’t expect an inflation surge. I just think we’re bottoming out on the disinflationary pressures.”“It’s going to make monetary policy a lot more difficult than it was during most of the time when I was chairman.”Greenspan told Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad that inflation could rise to about 5 percent in Europe and the

United States over time.
“The normal inflation level is closer to 5 percent than the current 2 percent,” he said, adding that a 5 percent level fitted economies with a “paper” currency not linked to gold.Greenspan said in the course of book-related interviews that he doubts he would be reacting differently in the current environment than Bernanke has.“I’m not sure I would have done anything different were I there,” he told CBS television’s “60 Minutes” program on Sunday. “I think he’s doing an excellent job.” THE MAESTRO TAKES THE STAGEThe reappearance in the public eye of the former central bank chair — who was lauded as a “Maestro” and a member of a select “Committee to Save the World” in books and magazines during his time at the Fed — comes as some reassess his legacy in light of the housing slump. Critics charge that the Fed’s decision to slash interest rates to a decades-low 1 percent and to hold them there for a year pumped up a housing bubble whose bursting has placed the economy at risk of recession. But Greenspan defended the long period of low rates as necessary to fend off the possibility of a deflationary spiral — in which falling prices foster further economic weakness. “In 2003 … we thought that the probability of a significant corrosive deflation was definitely less than 50-50, but consequences, were that minority problem to arise, were so potentially destabilizing that we took out in essence an insurance” policy, he told Reuters. Greenspan told cable news network CNBC that the Fed tried to raise mortgage rates in 2004 to temper a housing boom but was unsuccessful. Indeed, long-term rates set by markets actually moved lower in the early stages of a Fed tightening cycle that began in mid-2004. Greenspan also challenged another criticism leveled at him: the perception that he endorsed the very adjustable rate mortgages that have led to mounting foreclosures as interest rates have risen and home loans have reset at higher rates. The former Fed chair says he was saying that borrowers with good credit might save money with an adjustable rate if they were confident they would move before the mortgage reset. “I was discussing a very narrow set of circumstances,” he told Reuters “Indeed, the times I’ve taken out mortgages, I’ve taken out a fixed rate mortgage, because I think the insurance that you get, while the price may be high, is worth it.” (Additional reporting by Steven C. Johnson in

New York)