How to navigate Central Texas's unpredictable real estate market
The Brief
Last fall saw expectations of mortgage rate drops, better conditions for sellers this spring
However, more and more houses have gone up for sale in the Austin area
While prices are quite low right now, buyers are still looking at high interest rates
AUSTIN, Texas - If you're looking to buy or sell a home in Central Texas, you'll likely be navigating an unpredictable real estate market.
FOX 7 Austin's 7 On Your Side reporter John Krinjak spoke with a local realtor for some advice.
Big picture view
Last fall, many were expecting both a drop in mortgage rates and better conditions for sellers come springtime. However, now that spring is here, that hasn't exactly happened.
When Liz Del Bosque put her northeast Austin home on the market back in March, she saw pretty strong interest, including packed open houses and a lot of showings.
In the last few weeks, it's been somewhat slower as more and more houses have gone up for sale in the Austin area.
Del Bosque's realtor Olivia Vale with Roots Residential Group says that's not exactly the picture most experts had anticipated.
"It's a pretty competitive time that way because smaller pool of buyers, there is quite a lot of inventory for them to choose from right now," said Vale. "it's been a wild ride. So everything that pundits, anything that Fannie Mae was predicting has not come to pass…A lot of the turbulence in the larger economic sphere, tariffs, things like that are definitely affecting the housing market."
What you can do
While the market is a little sticky for sellers, there are some things you can do to overcome it, says Vale.
"You can either... Have your sale be a smashing success by doing everything your realtor says, by prepping your home immaculately and just having it so ready to go that you'll attract those buyers. If not, it's gonna be really hard for you to stand out," said Vale.
Dig deeper
For buyers, this is good news and bad news.
While prices are quite low right now, buyers are still looking at high interest rates. That means if you're able to put more money down, it might not be a bad time to buy, but if not, you may want to hold off.
Dig deeper
If you're looking for an apartment, Vale says that rent prices are still low, thanks to high availability.
So if your landlord is trying to raise your rent, it may be time to reach out to a broker and look elsewhere.
What's next
With an uncertain economic picture ahead, the future could be bumpy too.
"I feel we're going see more of an effect from tariffs down the road, when construction prices rise so much that new home sales really slow," Vale said.
For Del Bosque, she says she's glad to have a good relationship with her realtor and that she's still seeing interest in her home and is confident the right buyer will come along soon.
The Source
Information in this report comes from interviews/reporting by 7 on Your Side reporter John Krinjak.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This move by Trump could be ‘disastrous' for the mortgage market and drive up costs for home buyers even more
The housing market is facing a big development that could potentially shake up interest rates on home loans at a time when would-be buyers have been waiting for rates to drop. President Donald Trump has said he wants to change the way the government handles two giants in the real-estate world, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are presently under government conservatorship. Why Goldman Sachs says high-flying tech stocks may be headed for a tough stretch 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? U.S. debt-limit deadlock is making this favorite asset more scarce My friend, 83, wants to add me to his bank account to pay his bills. What could go wrong? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? The two government-sponsored enterprises have a significant impact on Americans' daily lives. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each back one in four home mortgages in America today. When lenders originate conventional home loans to home buyers, Fannie and Freddie repackage those loans and sell them on the secondary market to investors. Fannie and Freddie also offer a guarantee that those loans will be repaid in full should they go bad. This system ensures that investors get paid and that home loans are widely available. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't always under the government's thumb. They initially traded on the public markets. Fannie Mae became a privately-held company in 1968, trading under the ticker FNMA on the New York Stock Exchange. But that changed during the subprime mortgage crisis. The two housing-finance giants collapsed in 2008 and were brought under the federal government's control. They were delisted in 2010, but they still trade over the counter. Many Republicans have advocated for releasing them from the government's conservatorship. In his first term, Trump tried to privatize the companies, but didn't, and he now appears to be trying again. Arguments for privatization include the potential to reduce taxpayer risk and cut the federal government's costs, as well as to introduce competition to the two giants. Democrats recently called on Trump to halt the re-privatization efforts. In a June 6 letter to the Trump administration, a group of Senate Democrats led by Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts expressed concern that making changes to the way the current housing-finance system operates would benefit investors while harming everyday Americans. 'Economists have warned that reprivatizing the enterprises could have disastrous effects on the mortgage market, driving up costs for homebuyers even further,' the senators wrote. 'For example, some experts have estimated that mortgage rates could increase by up to 1% in the first year of privatization alone.' The main issue is that it is unclear exactly how Fannie and Freddie would be privatized. Unsettled questions include: Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going to be relisted on the stock market? Are they still going to be rescued should they fail — meaning, will the government give the financial markets a guarantee should that happen? Will investors believe that the government will save them if they fail? Will Congress come up with a plan to provide an explicit guarantee to the two companies, which themselves guarantee trillions of dollars in mortgages? 'There are a lot of questions here,' Jim Parrott, a housing-finance analyst, told MarketWatch. Parrott was an economic advisor in President Barack Obama's administration. In response to MarketWatch, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said that the Trump administration is 'committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to advance the president's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' He added that 'any actions under consideration will be carefully evaluated in a safe and sound manner.' Depending on how the government proceeds, the average home buyer could be impacted. Here's how. Depending on what path the Trump administration takes, there are several factors that would determine whether mortgage rates would go up as a result, Parrott said. Mortgage rates are already high and have been a barrier to many people's plans to buy a home. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.95% as of June 9, according to Mortgage News Daily, and has remained close to 7% over the past few years. On the same date five years earlier, when Trump was last president, the average 30-year rate was 3.09%. One key variable is whether the financial markets expect the federal government to rescue Fannie and Freddie if they collapse again. Investors are worried about the 'extent and depth of the government's guarantee,' Parrott said, and that could impact how they view mortgage-backed securities that Fannie and Freddie create. If investors feel uncertain about the guarantee, they could demand a higher risk premium on such securities, and if they do that, that could flow to the average borrower in the form of higher mortgage rates, he explained. 'While both [government-sponsored enterprises] are now better capitalized and highly profitable, any release without clear terms around a government guarantee could drive up mortgage rates and destabilize the housing market,' said Alanna McCargo, former president of Ginnie Mae, which like Fannie and Freddie, also backs mortgages. Ginne Mae backs mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fannie and Freddie back conventional mortgages. Mat Ishbia, president and chief executive of United Wholesale Mortgage UWMC, one of the country's biggest mortgage lenders, said he shares that sentiment, broadly speaking. 'Rates going up would be tied to the implicit versus explicit backing of the federal government,' Ishbia told MarketWatch. 'This could cause interest rates to rise, which we hope doesn't happen.' Trump has tried to reassure the market that the government could provide an 'implicit guarantee' to bail out the companies if needed. That could assuage some fears among investors, Parrott said, but there is no certainty that future presidents would do the same. Trump 'can't give them any assurance that the next president would make the same decision,' Parrott continued, 'so until Congress weighs in with an explicit guarantee, there will always be this little bit of uncertainty for investors.' Borrowers with lower credit scores could also see higher mortgage rates than they do today, Parrott said. The current housing-finance system is set up to charge lower-risk borrowers more and higher-risk borrowers less, to increase the number of people who can afford a mortgage. The principal beneficiaries of this cross-subsidy have been home buyers with 'modest incomes,' those who have lower credit scores and those with higher loan-to-value ratios, meaning those whose down payments are smaller, according to a report by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. 'They keep mortgage rates lower than they would otherwise be for [borrowers with] somewhat higher credit risk,' Parrott said. If the Trump administration pushes for 'more risk-based pricing … [and] they're not providing that cross subsidy, then you would see those with higher credit risk seeing their mortgage rates go up even further,' he said. The wrinkle in this issue is that the Trump administration wants lower mortgage rates. The mortgage industry and real-estate agents also want lower rates, because home sales have stalled. Housing affordability has worsened significantly over the past few years as home buyers have been priced out by high interest rates and record-high home prices. For that reason, the administration may not even proceed with the privatization plan, UWM's Ishbia said. 'If rates go up because of this change, or this change happens and rates go up, that would be bad for everyone,' Ishbia said in a video last week. Ishbia praised actions that Federal Housing Finance Administrator Bill Pulte has taken at Fannie and Freddie recently, and suggested the enterprises could remain under conservatorship. 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acting more private, but still being in conservatorship might be the best of both worlds,' he said in the video. 'We'll see what happens, but … if rates go up because of it, that's a negative, and I don't think that's going to happen.' The Trump administration has acknowledged concerns about privatization potentially pushing up mortgage rates. In a May interview with Bloomberg, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the Treasury Department is 'doing a great deal of studying' of privatizing the GSEs, 'because the one requirement… for this privatization is that they are privatized in such a way that mortgage spreads — they do not widen,' Bessent said, referring to the difference between the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and the 10-year Treasury rate. One other outcome of the privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be higher fees for mortgage lenders, which could then get baked into mortgage rates, Parrott said. If the Trump administration wants Fannie and Freddie to earn a higher return — either to make it easier to bring them out of conservatorship or to make more money for the government — one way to do that would be to increase fees charged to lenders. Fannie and Freddie guarantee the payment of principal and interest on the mortgage-backed securities and they also charge lenders a fee for that. And that in turn could be passed on to the average borrower in the form of higher mortgage rates, Parrott said. But if the two entities remain under the government's control, it's unclear whether Fannie and Freddie will charge higher so-called guarantee fees, or g-fees, or keep them at their current levels. Ultimately, the question of whether to bring Fannie and Freddie out of conservatorship isn't controversial. 'The current administration is right to reopen this conversation after 17 years of conservatorship,' McCargo, the former Biden official, said. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac start acting like private companies, people may see 'more products, more options and more affordability across the board,' UWM's Isbhia said, 'which is a win for consumers.' But how the government handles the process is important, McCargo added. 'I think both the Treasury secretary and the FHFA director understand the stakes and the importance of pursuing any reform in a way that safeguards the housing market — an essential sector of the economy that makes up nearly 18% of U.S. GDP,' McCargo said. 'This is a big deal and must be approached with caution, careful deliberation, and purpose.' What personal-finance issues would you like to see covered in MarketWatch? We would like to hear from readers about their financial decisions and money-related questions. You can fill out or write to us at . A reporter may be in touch to learn more. MarketWatch will not attribute your answers to you by name without your permission. 'The situation is extreme': I'm 65 and leaving my estate to only one grandchild. Can the others contest my will? I bought my mother-in-law a condo — and she took out a $30,000 car loan. Now she refuses to get a roommate. How do I make sure my son-in-law doesn't get his hands on my daughter's inheritance? My life partner is 18 years my senior. He wants to leave his $4.5 million fortune to me — not his two kids. Do we tell them? Value investing is finally excelling again in 2025 — but there is one catch for Americans Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's housing plan risks repeating the 2008 crisis
Last month, President Trump fired off a Truth Social post announcing he was giving 'serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public.' Weeks earlier, Bill Pulte, Trump's pick to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency, declared that he is working to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal conservatorship — the firewall imposed to prevent them from continuing excessive risk-taking. Trump and Pulte are walking into a minefield that could reward the very institutions that helped set off the worst economic crisis since the Great these two entities, which underwrite mortgages, would give them every incentive to generate as many home loans as possible, even to borrowers who shouldn't qualify. Why? Because the federal government guarantees all the loans they write. Why would they exercise discretion in a post-conservatorship world when they know taxpayers would cover their losses? During the 2008 financial crisis, America learned the hard way how dangerous Fannie and Freddie can be when left unchecked. They fueled the subprime mortgage frenzy by distorting credit markets with government-backed guarantees, leaving taxpayers with a $187 billion tab. And yet, unlike Enron, whose collapse just seven years earlier sparked outrage and prosecutions, Fannie and Freddie survived. The political insulation of these government-created entities made them too connected to fail. However, one meaningful reform to emerge from the 2008 crash was the government placing Fannie and Freddie under federal conservatorship, which mandates they maintain stricter underwriting standards. The terms are not perfect, but they at least provide taxpayers some semblance of protection and security from a disaster like the 2008 recession ever happening again. Yet, now, instead of stopping Fannie and Freddie's free ride, the Trump administration is considering unshackling them from the conservatorship without first overhauling the system that allowed them to crash the economy in the first place. To this day, more than 15 years later, Fannie and Freddie continue to operate with the full backing of the U.S. government. The Congressional Budget Office even includes them on the federal balance sheet. That's not capitalism, that's cronyism. But if the Trump administration removes the federal conservatorship without first instituting structural reforms, it won't just preserve that cronyism — it will supercharge it. These entities would once again be free to chase profits with government guarantees, privatizing gains while socializing risk. That's a recipe for disaster that taxpayers have seen before. If the Trump White House is serious about reforming Fannie and Freddie, it should start by demanding structural free-market changes to their operations. That means no more implicit government subsidy and bailout guarantees or off-balance-sheet accounting. These institutions must become fully private, not some Frankenstein private-public blend that allows them to continue taking risks on taxpayers' dime. In other words, the Trump administration should focus on fixing the rot, not exacerbating Fannie and Freddie from their conservatorship without real reform would be like handing matches back to the arsonists and hoping this time they don't burn the house down. Fannie and Freddie won't burn homes, of course, but they can burn down the U.S. economy — not with flames but financial recklessness. They've done it before, and they can easily do it again. President Trump may want a legacy of housing reform, but unleashing Fannie and Freddie without guardrails would risk repeating or even worsening the very crisis he once condemned. The Trump administration should tread carefully. Thomas Stratmann is a distinguished university professor at George Mason University. He is a professor of economics in the Department of Economics and holds a courtesy appointment at the Antonin Scalia Law School. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's housing plan risks repeating the 2008 crisis
Last month, President Trump fired off a Truth Social post announcing he was giving 'serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public.' Weeks earlier, Bill Pulte, Trump's pick to lead the Federal Housing Finance Agency, declared that he is working to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's federal conservatorship — the firewall imposed to prevent them from continuing excessive risk-taking. Trump and Pulte are walking into a minefield that could reward the very institutions that helped set off the worst economic crisis since the Great these two entities, which underwrite mortgages, would give them every incentive to generate as many home loans as possible, even to borrowers who shouldn't qualify. Why? Because the federal government guarantees all the loans they write. Why would they exercise discretion in a post-conservatorship world when they know taxpayers would cover their losses? During the 2008 financial crisis, America learned the hard way how dangerous Fannie and Freddie can be when left unchecked. They fueled the subprime mortgage frenzy by distorting credit markets with government-backed guarantees, leaving taxpayers with a $187 billion tab. And yet, unlike Enron, whose collapse just seven years earlier sparked outrage and prosecutions, Fannie and Freddie survived. The political insulation of these government-created entities made them too connected to fail. However, one meaningful reform to emerge from the 2008 crash was the government placing Fannie and Freddie under federal conservatorship, which mandates they maintain stricter underwriting standards. The terms are not perfect, but they at least provide taxpayers some semblance of protection and security from a disaster like the 2008 recession ever happening again. Yet, now, instead of stopping Fannie and Freddie's free ride, the Trump administration is considering unshackling them from the conservatorship without first overhauling the system that allowed them to crash the economy in the first place. To this day, more than 15 years later, Fannie and Freddie continue to operate with the full backing of the U.S. government. The Congressional Budget Office even includes them on the federal balance sheet. That's not capitalism, that's cronyism. But if the Trump administration removes the federal conservatorship without first instituting structural reforms, it won't just preserve that cronyism — it will supercharge it. These entities would once again be free to chase profits with government guarantees, privatizing gains while socializing risk. That's a recipe for disaster that taxpayers have seen before. If the Trump White House is serious about reforming Fannie and Freddie, it should start by demanding structural free-market changes to their operations. That means no more implicit government subsidy and bailout guarantees or off-balance-sheet accounting. These institutions must become fully private, not some Frankenstein private-public blend that allows them to continue taking risks on taxpayers' dime. In other words, the Trump administration should focus on fixing the rot, not exacerbating Fannie and Freddie from their conservatorship without real reform would be like handing matches back to the arsonists and hoping this time they don't burn the house down. Fannie and Freddie won't burn homes, of course, but they can burn down the U.S. economy — not with flames but financial recklessness. They've done it before, and they can easily do it again. President Trump may want a legacy of housing reform, but unleashing Fannie and Freddie without guardrails would risk repeating or even worsening the very crisis he once condemned. The Trump administration should tread carefully. Thomas Stratmann is a distinguished university professor at George Mason University. He is a professor of economics in the Department of Economics and holds a courtesy appointment at the Antonin Scalia Law School.
