Tag

Federal

Browsing


click to enlarge James Buck Vicky Phillips is selling her Westford home without a Realtor.

Before she put her Westford home on the market, Vicky Phillips did some math. With the four-bedroom home priced at $808,000, Phillips estimated it would cost her about $48,000 in commissions for a real estate agent to handle the sale.

Phillips decided to keep that money and sell the home herself. In May, she posted it on Picket Fence Preview, a website featuring homes that are for sale by the owner. She also paid a real estate agent $499 to offer the house on the multiple listing service, a system that shows all the properties for sale through brokers.

“It isn’t complicated,” said Phillips, who owns a business and noted that she has signed much more detailed contracts than the one she’ll use in selling her home.

She’s shown her home five times, a process that usually takes her about two hours, including tidying up. If she contracted with a real estate agent to handle the sale, that person would expect the standard 2 or 3 percent commission, as much as $24,000. If a buyer’s agent were involved, as is often the case, that person would take another 2 or 3 percent of the sale price.

“Real estate agents are great, but what are you paying for?” Phillips asked.

Questions like Phillips’ have roiled the real estate profession for years, and recently a rebellion of home sellers succeeded. In March, the National Association of Realtors agreed to pay $418 million in damages to settle a 2019 federal lawsuit that accused the organization of violating antitrust laws by adopting rules that created an industry-wide standard commission.

The settlement specifies that the NAR must drop rules that require the agent for the home seller to offer payment to the agent for the buyer. Those rules have resulted in the standard 5 to 6 percent commission being incorporated into the price of most homes for sale. Under the settlement, it will be easier for buyers and sellers to negotiate commissions with their real estate agents.

The settlement made national headlines, with some analysts predicting that the price of buying a home would drop significantly as a result of the decline in commissions.

Smaller commissions would be good news for Vermont home sellers, but local experts say the soaring cost of buying a house is mainly the result of the spike in home values. The median price of a house sold in Chittenden County climbed by more than $100,000 between 2020 and last year, to $460,500. With the typical commission of 5 or 6 percent, someone selling that home would pay the agents involved as much as $27,000.

Many real estate agents insist the national settlement won’t change anything in Vermont. Local agents have always been up front with homebuyers and sellers about how much commissions would cost — and have always been open to negotiation, said Kathy Sweeten, CEO of the Vermont Association of Realtors.

“It’s not going to have a huge effect, because we already do this,” Sweeten said in an interview. That’s the position many of Vermont’s real estate agencies are taking, too.

“We’ve been doing business this way for many years now with our agency disclosures,” Four Seasons Sotheby’s International Realty CEO Laurie Mecier-Brochu said.

But home industry analysts say the settlement will likely free up consumers to bargain with agents for their services. The Consumer Federation of America, an advocate for nonprofit consumer groups, said that while negotiating has always been an option in theory, contracts are usually written by lawyers for local real estate associations. Under the existing system, many homebuyers are unaware they’re paying a commission of 2 or 3 percent to their agent, because it’s incorporated into the home seller’s fees and therefore into the price of the home.

Starting next month, buyers who hire an agent to show them homes will be asked to sign a contract spelling out what they will pay the agent if there is a sale, so the cost will not be hidden in the sale price of the home. The advocacy group said the settlement will create more freedom and transparency for agents and consumers.

Change won’t happen overnight.

“The residential real estate marketplace will take some time, perhaps several years, to fully process the implications of this settlement,” the Consumer Federation said in a statement after the NAR settlement was announced.

Not all agents are paid by commission. Some charge a flat fee — $3,500 is common — instead of a commission, using that transparency as a selling point. And there have always been homeowners such as Phillips who avoid commissions altogether by tackling home sales on their own.

Changes in technology are making that easier. Nowadays, websites such as Zillow and Redfin display the homes that are listed on the MLS, making them available online to anyone who knows how to look for them. When she was shopping for a house two decades ago, Phillips noted, the real estate agent would print off MLS listings and mail them to her, a cumbersome process that gave the agent control over which properties Phillips could consider.

Online listing services also help would-be home sellers see what similar properties are going for — and provide valuable information to buyers, such as how much the home sold for in the past.

“Before, you couldn’t really go on Zillow and find comparables and past histories and what the taxes were” for houses on the MLS, Phillips added.

Demand for homes is high in Vermont, making it a good time for sellers to try their hand at going it alone.

Before she put her Montpelier modular home on the market in May, Tammy Parish asked for advice on Front Porch Forum about selling without an agent. She got a flurry of responses from sellers who had done that — as well as several pleas from people who wanted to tour her home.

“My phone blew up. It was people giving me advice saying, ‘Yes, you can do it’ or ‘No, it’s more detailed than you think,'” said Parish, who added that she sold her home for $240,000 the following weekend to one of the people who had responded to her query.

Parish hired a lawyer to help with a contract, paying around $2,000, she said. A 5 percent commission would have set her back around $12,000.

“That’s a lot of money to give to someone else for putting pictures out there and marketing it,” she said.

Phillips said more than 25 agents have gotten in touch since she posted an ad for her Westford home on Front Porch Forum in May.

“They all want to represent me,” said Phillips, who thinks a lack of inventory and high interest rates may have created a very slow market for agents. She added that there are times when using an agent is essential. She’s looking for property in Asheville, N.C., where she’ll build her next home, and she said the agent alerted her that land prices were lower in a neighboring town because of a local paper mill.

“She said, ‘On the right day you don’t smell it, but on a bad day, not only do you smell it everywhere, the fumes are toxic,'” Phillips said. “Good advice.”

If more negotiations lead to lower commissions, as expected, some agents might leave the profession. The number of real estate agents licensed in Vermont jumped during the pandemic, reaching 3,072 last year — the most since the Secretary of State’s Office started keeping records in 2008. Right now, 2,843 people are licensed to sell real estate, according to the office.

click to enlarge James Buck Mikail Stein of RE/MAX North Professionals showing a house

It’s a tough way to make a living, according to Mikail Stein of RE/MAX North Professionals, who sells about 40 homes a year. Stein said his overhead is high and his hours are long. Income is unpredictable.

“Only in the last two years of my career have I had a winter where I wasn’t freaking out about where things were financially,” Stein said. “And hourly-wise, most people do way better than me.”

Stein thinks career professionals such as him will stay in the business, and if commissions drop, part-time, new or unskilled agents will be most likely to leave.

“I hope what it ends up doing is providing the public with better service,” he said of the NAR settlement. “For those of us who do bring high service, the compensation will be just. And for those who don’t, the market will say, ‘You’re not providing enough.'”

A Game-Changing Federal Case

The lawsuit
A group of Missourians who had used real estate agents to sell their homes filed a 2019 class-action lawsuit against the 1.5 million member National Association of Realtors and several multistate real estate brokerages. The suit alleged that the defendants had conspired to inflate real estate commissions paid by the homeowners.

The details
The lawsuit took aim at the NAR’s “cooperative compensation” rule, which requires the home seller’s agent to offer compensation to the agent for the buyer in order to add the home to a multiple listing service. The suit charged that the NAR, by controlling almost all the multiple listing services in the U.S., was wielding monopoly power to keep commissions artificially high.

The verdict
A federal jury in Missouri ruled for the homeowners in October 2023, awarding them $1.8 billion in damages. The NAR said it would appeal.

The settlement
Instead, in March, the NAR settled the case for $418 million in damages and an agreement to change some of its practices.

What will change?
Sellers’ agents won’t set the commission earned by the buyer’s agent. Instead, homebuyers will negotiate directly with those agents for their services. The changes are due to take effect in August.

What’s next?
In Vermont, analysts say it is too soon to predict what, if any, impact the settlement will have in the state. Prices are high, driven by a critical shortage of inventory and high demand.

“If I had to guess, I would say Realtors will become less powerful, and maybe there will be more fee-for-service” real estate transactions, said Jeff Lubell, a Norwich resident who works as a principal associate in housing policy for Abt Global, a consulting firm in Rockville, Md. “We’ll see different patterns in different places.”

An unintended consequence?
Some real estate companies and analysts say the settlement will hurt low-income homebuyers. Those buyers may not be able to afford to pay an out-of-pocket commission to their agent. Previously that commission was incorporated into the price of the home, and thus into the mortgage paid over time.



This article was originally published by a www.sevendaysvt.com . Read the Original article here. .


Since the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, tax returns that itemize Schedule A deductions, such as the mortgage interest deduction (MID) , have fallen significantly with only 9.6% of all returns using an itemized deduction in tax year 2021. In 2017, the share of returns claiming an itemized deduction was 30.9%. Taxpayers who do not itemize their tax returns claim the standard deduction instead, and thus do not directly benefit from deductions such as the MID.

Looking across different adjusted gross income — or AGI, which is a measure of total income minus adjustments, such as deductions — levels , the prevalence of itemizing has fallen for all AGI levels. In 2017, five AGI levels had over half of tax returns claiming an itemized deduction. In contrast, in 2021 (the latest published IRS Statistics of Income data) only the two highest AGI levels had over half of returns claiming an itemize deduction.

The TCJA significantly increased the standard deduction and placed a limit of $10,000 on the state and local income tax (SALT) deduction . These two factors contributed to the trend of fewer itemized returns since 2017. Moreover, these changes explain why the use of the mortgage interest deduction has grown less progressive since 2017. Namely, the mortgage interest deduction can only be claimed through itemizing. So fewer itemizing taxpayers has led to fewer home owners utilizing the mortgage interest deduction, particularly at lower AGI levels.

Standard Deduction vs. Itemized Deduction

The total number of returns filed in 2021 was 159.5 million, while the number of returns with itemized deductions stood at just 14.8 million returns. These returns totaled an estimated $659.7 billion in itemized deductions. The total amount of the standard deduction claimed stood at an estimated $2.5 trillion in 2021 — well above the itemization amount, as significantly more taxpayers utilized the standard deduction.

Depicted in the graph above, there is a distinctive difference between the share of returns in a particular AGI level and its proportion of the total adjusted gross income. Levels below $100,000 constitute 77.2% of all returns, but only make up 30.9% of the total adjusted gross income. Levels above $100,000 constitute 22.8% of all returns while making up 69.1% of the total adjusted gross income.

Among returns that utilized the itemized deduction, most fell in the $100,000-$200,000 AGI class, with 30.4% claiming itemized returns. Despite this, the $1 million AGI level make up 29.6% of the total itemization deduction amount — the highest level of deduction amounts — but only constituted 4.1% of itemized returns.

In contrast to the itemized tax returns, most tax returns claiming the standard deductions were in the lower AGI range between $1-100,000 (75.3%). This AGI range also received the highest share of the total standard deduction amount (75.4%). The standard deduction return distribution follows more closely to that of all returns when compared to itemized returns as far fewer taxpayers utilize itemized deductions and those who do tend to be in higher income groups.

Mortgage Interest Deduction

After the passage of the 16th amendment, the first income tax code written by Congress allowed for the deduction of interest paid on many debts ranging from business to personal debts, including mortgages. The mortgage interest deduction notably expanded following World War II. Homeownership became an important wealth building tool for a vast majority of Americans during this period.

The current principal limit of the mortgage interest deduction stands at $750,000 ($375,000 if married filing separately), meaning taxpayers can deduct interest on the first $750,000 of debt secured by the taxpayer’s main home or second home . Interest on home equity loans and lines of credit are deductible only if the funds are used to buy, build or substantially improve a taxpayer’s home up to a $100,000 limit.

After the expiration of the 2017 tax rules in 2025, the mortgage interest deduction will return to prior law, in which the principal limit was $1 million, and home owners will be allowed to deduct interest on the first $100,000 of home equity debt regardless of the purpose of the debt. (However, AMT rules complicate this general rule somewhat.) It is important to note that the current principal limit is not indexed for inflation, which is a policy shortcoming given the post-COVID rise in home prices.

Among tax returns that were itemized in 2021, 11.5 million (76.6%) claimed the mortgage interest deduction. The total amount of mortgage interest deducted was $143.5 billion, which includes points. (If debt predates 2017, deduction is allowed for points) According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total mortgage interest paid in 2021 — deducted and non-deducted together — was $458.2 billion , which amounts to around 31.3% of total mortgage interest payments claimed as a tax deduction in 2021.

Across income groups, the group with the highest mortgage interest deduction  amount was for incomes between $100,000-$200,000 at a 28.9% share of the total. The $200,000-$500,000 income group deducted the second largest share at 27.9%. Nonetheless, the vast majority (84.9%) of mortgage interest deducted was from itemizers with incomes under $500,000.

Given that it is much more likely for itemizers to be from higher income groups, specifically AGI levels greater than $500,000, it is perhaps surprising that most of the mortgage interest deduction claimed accrued to individuals making less than $500,000 as these taxpayers typically use itemized deductions less frequently.

Proposal to Expand the Mortgage Tax Benefit: A Tax Credit

In 2021, there were an estimated 83.4 million owner-occupied housing units with 51.1 million holding a mortgage. A housing tax credit would allow vastly more households to receive a tax benefit from owning a home than, as only approximately 11 million currently do by deducting mortgage interest on their tax returns.

With fewer taxpayers itemizing, what was once an effective and broadly claimed tax incentive no longer serves its original purpose to make homeownership more affordable for the middle-class. NAHB believes the mortgage interest deduction should be updated to reflect today’s tax code and better serve the segment of prospective home owners who face unprecedented affordability challenges. A well-structured housing tax incentive, such as a mortgage interest credit, would help achieve this policy goal.

NAHB supports converting the mortgage interest deduction into a targeted, ongoing homeownership tax credit, which could be claimed against mortgage interest and property taxes paid. A tax credit that is properly targeted would increase progressivity in the tax code and promote housing opportunity by providing a tax incentive more accessible to lower and middle-class households, as well minority and first-generation home buyers. Such a credit would provide a benefit to all home owners who pay mortgage interest and have income tax liability to offset. Such a proposal should be considered today and given serious consideration during the 2025 tax debate.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .


The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy committee once again held constant the federal funds rate at a top target of 5.5% at the conclusion of its July meeting. In its statement, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) noted:

“Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace. Job gains have moderated, and the unemployment rate has moved up but remains low. Inflation has eased over the past year but remains somewhat elevated. In recent months, there has been some further progress toward the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective.“

Compared to the Fed’s June commentary, the current statement upgraded “modest further progress” from last month to “some further progress” with respect to achieving the central bank’s 2% inflation target. This change in wording moves the Fed closer to reducing interest rates. Importantly, the July policy statement also noted:

“The Committee judges that the risks to achieving its employment and inflation goals continue to move into better balance.”

This text, previewed by various Federal Reserve officials in recent weeks, makes it clear that the Fed has now moved from a primary policy focus of reducing inflation to balancing the goals of both price stability and maximum employment. Raising the goal of maximum employment up with inflation means that the Fed is now in position to lower the fed funds rate. However, the FOMC’s statement also noted (consistent with its commentary in May and June):

The Committee does not expect it will be appropriate to reduce the target range until it has gained greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2 percent.

This wording is a reminder that the Fed remains data-dependent. Thus, while a reduction for the federal funds rate is in view, the timing will be data-dependent on forthcoming inflation and labor market estimates. Also keep in mind, inflation does not need to be reduced to a 2% growth rate for the Fed to cut. Rather, it just needs to be on the path to reaching that goal (likely in late 2025 or early 2026).

When will the Fed cut? If the incoming inflation yield no upside surprises, a rate cut in September now appears possible, if not likely. However, the NAHB forecast remains for rate cuts to begin in December. This is a conservative outlook given the upside surprise to inflation at the start of the year and the possibility of a disappointing inflation report before the Fed’s September meeting. Fed officials have repeatedly warned that they would prefer to cut somewhat too late, rather than move too early and undermine long-term inflation expectations and central bank credibility. Nonetheless, a rate cut before the end of the calendar year seems all but certain.

This eventual easing of interest rates is coming later than most forecasters expected a year ago. This is due to an uptick in inflation at the start of 2024 and ongoing elevated measures of shelter inflation, which can only be tamed in the long-run by increases in housing supply.

Given the focus on inflation and shelter costs, higher interest rates are ironically preventing more construction by increasing the cost and limiting the availability of builder and developer loans necessary to construct new housing. With more than half of the overall gains for consumer inflation due to shelter over the last year, increasing attainable housing supply is a key anti-inflationary strategy, one that is complicated by higher short-term rates, which increase builder financing costs and hinder home construction activity. For these reasons, policy action in other areas, such as zoning reform and streamlining permitting, can be important ways for other elements of the government to fight inflation.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .

Pin It