Homeowners looking to lower their monthly mortgage payments and also save some on interest may be able to do so without all the hefty fees and daunting credit requirements of refinancing.

A little-known strategy, called “recasting,” or “re-amortization,” is available through some mortgage lenders and servicers.

It involves paying off a lump sum of the principal amount and asking to have the monthly payments reset according to the original interest rate and loan terms. The lump sum reduces the principal, so your new monthly payments decrease slightly and you save on interest paid over the life of the loan.

Lenders typically charge an administrative fee of $150 or more for this service, though borrowers are not required to pay closing costs or submit to another credit check, because they are not asking for a new loan.

Recasting works well for those unable to qualify for refinancing amid the ever-toughening credit guidelines — perhaps because they are self-employed or have less-than-stellar credit — as well as for those with extra cash, like a year-end bonus.

“People don’t really know about it,” said Alan Rosenbaum, the founder and chief executive of the Guardhill Financial Corporation in New York, “but it’s become more common recently.”

Although the term “recasting” is often used by the mortgage industry to refer to interest-rate resets on adjustable-rate mortgages, here the interest rate and loan term stay the same.

Making extra payments toward the principal while not asking the bank to recast a loan keeps monthly payments the same and merely shortens the time it takes to pay off the loan.

There are a few caveats to recasting, however. The first is that you may need to have a large sum on hand. JPMorgan Chase, for example, charges a $150 fee and requires a minimum $5,000 payment toward the principal.

Another issue is having a lender, or loan servicer, that offers the service. And even those that do may impose restrictions. JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America exclude loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and loans that were sold off and securitized may also need investor approval.

While few if any lenders advertise recasting, “they are trying to become more customer-service-oriented, and they will do it on a case-by-case basis,” Mr. Rosenbaum said. Homeowners should contact their lender’s customer service department.

Lenders, which would probably rather earn thousands of dollars in closing fees from refinancing your loan, are not obliged to recast mortgages. And certain types of mortgages, for example interest-only and adjustable-rate loans, usually aren’t eligible. The borrower will also need to have been current with all mortgage payments to qualify.

Edward Ades, the owner of Universal Mortgage in Brooklyn, says recasting can be especially useful to recent buyers, for whom it makes little financial sense to refinance but who expect to receive a tax refund or other substantial money after closing on their property, like proceeds from a relative’s sale of property, stocks or other assets.

If your interest rate is 5 percent or lower, Mr. Ades added, it may not make sense to recast a loan, because the extra cash could be put into an investment with a higher return. “At the end of the day,” he said, “I always tell people they have to do whatever makes them sleep better.”

==================================================

About $7.3 billion in interest-free loans was obtained under the first credit, while $16.2 billion in tax credits that don’t have to be paid back has been claimed under the second and third credits.

Without the home buyer tax credits put into place by Congress to boost the struggling housing market, prices would be 10% lower than they are now, according to an analysis by a Mississippi-based information technology firm. But at what price?

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the three credits could result in total revenue losses to Uncle Sam of about $22 billion through 2019.

About 1 million buyers claimed $7.3 billion in interest-free loans under the first credit. And they will begin repaying the government next year, according to the Government Accountability Office.

But about 2.3 million people claimed $16.2 billion in tax credits that don’t have to be paid back under the second and third credits. And those figures are likely to increase because the Internal Revenue Service is still processing returns and more claims will be made during the 2011 tax-filing season.

The second version of the home-buyer tax credit was the most frequently used, accounting for some 1.7 million claims — about half of all claims to date — and totaling about $12.1 billion, the GAO reports.

The third version of the tax credit was aimed at move-up buyers as well as first-timers who were the targets under the first two. And of the 600,000 who have claimed that credit, nearly one-third are so-called longtime owners.

Buyers in California were the most active. More than 378,000 people in the country’s most populous state have claimed the credits, amounting to almost $2.8 billion.

Texans were next in line at the IRS’ tax-credit window, followed by Floridians. Almost 290,000 buyers in the Lone Star State have claimed $2.07 billion in credits as of July 3, and nearly 214,000 buyers in Florida have claimed more than $1.5 billion worth.

And let’s not forget the 14,132 individuals who, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general’s office, filed erroneous or fraudulent claims.

An audit by the office found, among other things, that 67 individuals used the same house number to claim the credit, 1,295 of the claimants were incarcerated at the time they supposedly bought houses and one “buyer” was just 4 years old.

And here’s a special shout out to the 87 IRS workers who claimed the credit despite the fact that they had owned houses within the previous three years, making them ineligible.

Ginny, from what I have read, “Sold As Is” can cover anything from minor defects/repairs that the seller is unable/unwilling to do or can be major problems. What can a prospective buyer do to protect themselves? Manny M., Chicago

Manny, fabulous question…. So, here’s the deal: An “as-is” sale really does only this: It informs the buyer that the seller has no intention of doing any repairs to the property, and puts the buyer on notice that he/she should have the property inspected exhaustively, as the buyer will be taking possession of the property in its current state.

For this reason, many sellers and agents insist on an as-is sale, whether the property is in pristine condition or is a major fixer. (Of course, at this juncture I must interject that no property — brand-new or resale — is perfect and without any flaws.)

Now, in many jurisdictions, the laws and/or standard forms used in the state convert “as-is” into what we call “as-is/as-disclosed.” This is the case where the contracts and law of the state (a) require that a seller disclose any “material” defect of which he knows or should know, and (b) the contracts popularly used in the state or region incorporate the sellers’ property disclosures into the contract.

In an “as-is/as-disclosed” jurisdiction, the seller has the duty to inform the buyer of any problems or issues with the property that would make a difference in the decision-making of a reasonable buyer; that can help the buyer decide (a) whether she’s interested in the property, (b) for what price and on what terms — considering the repairs they may have to do later, and (c) which inspections to obtain to fully understand the property’s condition.

On the other hand, there are geographical regions — primarily Southern states, like Alabama — in which the “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) rule reigns in an as-is sale. The state’s contracts don’t incorporate disclosures, as a rule, and the sellers have no duty to buyers in these states to disclose anything on an as-is sale.

In fact, a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling held that even where the seller had intentionally defrauded the buyer about the condition of the property on a pre-contract disclosure form, caveat emptor still applied and the seller had no duty whatsoever to disclose the property’s condition to the buyer.

So, the first step a buyer can take in protecting themselves in an as-is sale is to fully read and understand the contract and the seller’s disclosures, including asking your broker, agent or attorney to explain what disclosure duties the seller owes you, in your state. Disclosures should be carefully reviewed, and any defects or work that the seller reports having done to the property should be investigated.

Ask questions and request copies of work permits or warranties and generally get an understanding for what work this seller has had done to the home. If the seller was not the first owner, it can also be revealing to ask if he still has any of the disclosures from the preceding owner.

Most important, though, is to have the property thoroughly and professionally inspected before the end of your contingency or objection period. At the very least, get a home inspection and any “special inspections” the general home inspector recommends.

Consult with your agent and use your judgment. When I was actively selling real estate, I would generally advise my clients to have an overall property inspection, a pest inspection and a roof inspection. Of course, if the seller had just obtained a pest inspection from a well-respected inspector or the roof was new with 29 years of warranty remaining, we might forgo those.

Fireplace and foundation inspections were also fairly common, given that I sold homes in an earthquake-prone area where chimneys often separated from houses and foundations required ongoing maintenance.

In an as-is deal, inspection reports serve less as your launch-pad for a repair request than as your post-closing home improvement store shopping list. They are a way to begin understanding what needs to be done so you can get estimates and bids on the work before finalizing the purchase of the home. Think of inspection reports as a tool for making sure you are completely comfortable taking the home in that condition. If you are not, the reports can serve as an alert that you should back out of the deal or renegotiate with the seller, given the defects revealed by the inspections.

The second step in protecting yourself in an as-is transaction is obtaining inspections from a qualified inspector. Ask your agent for referrals and hire a certified and/or licensed home inspector — not your cousin who happens to be a really handy accountant.

Read and follow up on the inspectors’ written or digital reports by getting any further information indicated from the seller, obtaining “specialized” inspections as recommended, and getting bids for repairs needed before the expiration of your contingency or objection period.

Finally, if you are in a state where the “caveat emptor” rule applies, I would encourage you to work with your broker or a local real estate attorney to ensure that the sellers’ duty to disclose defects and the actual disclosures are incorporated into your contract. That way, you at least end up with the last-resort protection against sellers providing you with fraudulent information about your home-to-be: the threat of legal liability.

The measure slashes the credits from 30% of the cost to just 10% with a $500 maximum. It also clamps dollar-specific limits on items that had previously been eligible for 30% credits.

The $858-billion federal tax bill signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 17 was a mixed bag for American homeowners, with elements of both the Grinch and Santa squeezed into the same bulging package.

The goodies for select groups were well-publicized — unemployment benefits extension, payroll tax cuts, continuation of the Bush income tax rates and favorable estate tax treatment for wealthy individuals, among others. The bill even pushed back the expiration date for the tax deductibility of mortgage insurance premiums for another year.

But other provisions in the bill could be bad news for homeowners interested in remodeling projects to conserve energy next year. The legislation slashed the popular tax credits for energy-efficient remodeling from 30% of an improvement’s cost ($1,500 maximum per taxpayer) to just a 10% credit with a $500 maximum for expenditures on insulation materials, exterior windows and storm doors, skylights, and metal and asphalt roofs that resist heat gain.

The bill also clamped new dollar-specific limits on key improvements that previously had been eligible for 30% credits. These include a $150 tax credit limit on the costs of energy-efficient natural gas, propane and oil furnaces, and hot water boilers, plus a $300 credit limit on the costs of central air conditioning systems, electric heat pump water heaters, biomass stoves for heating or water heating, electric heat pumps, and natural gas and propane water heaters.

The legislation also limits tax credits for energy-efficient windows installed during 2011 to a total of just $200 — down from the previous $1,500. On top of this, it prohibits taxpayers who have taken total tax credits in past years exceeding $500 from claiming any additional credits on energy-conservation projects they undertake in the coming year.

The net effect of all this, say home building and remodeling experts, will be to severely diminish consumers’ interest in energy-efficient home improvements. Donna Shirey, chairwoman of the Remodelers Council of the National Assn. of Home Builders and president of a contracting firm in the Seattle area, said the gutting of energy-efficiency credits “is a big step backward. It’s bad for the environment, bad for consumers and, of course, bad for jobs in our industry. We’re heading the wrong way here, sending absolutely the wrong message.”

David Merrick, president of Merrick Design & Build in Kensington, Md., and government affairs chairman of the National Assn. of the Remodeling Industry, said the $1,500 credit, which is set to expire Dec. 31, has had the effect of “opening people’s eyes to energy-conserving features they could incorporate” into home improvement projects that they might have previously ignored.

The credit, he said, has provided incentives for homeowners to ask about the long-term savings they could achieve by upgrading insulation, installing new high-efficiency windows and the like.

Now, with a $500 credit maximum, Merrick said, “I doubt that many people will see things that way. They’ll just go back to remodeling their bathroom or kitchen,” and be less willing to spend extra money on energy-saving improvements as part of the project.

Merrick added that from a contractor’s point of view, “the $500 credit will be virtually worthless — not worth the paper it will take us to process” the documentation required by the government.

Barb Friedman, Merrick’s vice chairwoman on the remodelers’ committee and president of Oswego Design & Remodeling Inc. in Lake Oswego, Ore., said that 70% of all housing units in the country are 30 years old or older, and that most have significant energy inefficiencies caused by their age alone.

“The $1,500 credit was a step in the right direction” toward providing owners financial incentives to reduce some of these inefficiencies, “but $500 is more like a drop in the bucket,” she said.

The Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition of business, government, environmental and consumer groups that lobbied unsuccessfully for retention of the credits as they were, said the forthcoming cutbacks in the homeowner credit program would be a loss felt far beyond the remodeling industry.

Alliance President Kateri Callahan said, “We’re sorely disappointed that Congress did not see fit to make the incentives more generous. That would have increased their use by consumers, to the benefit of our economy, energy security and environment.”

The outlook for restoration of the credits in the new Congress? Call it lights out. There’s virtually no chance of another big tax bill supporting energy-efficiency improvements moving ahead on Capitol Hill in the near future.

It’s the time of year when families dream about skiing and wonderful places for holiday reunions.

Nearly 20 years ago, when some very popular Canadian resorts were growing like crazy, the Canadian dollar was dropping lower against some of the world’s currencies.

American investors and recreational buyers found real estate bargains in Canada simply because of the strength of the U.S. dollar. Other U.S. homebuyers, especially cash-strapped seniors seeking less expensive health care and medicines, sold their primary residence, took significant sums of home equity (thanks to a run-up in appreciation), moved north of the border and became full-time residents.

A good example of the second-home situation occurred in Whistler, Canada, the popular resort up the Sea to Sky Highway from Vancouver and the site for downhill skiing of the 2010 Olympics. The region had gained in popularity ever since 1991 when it became the first mountain resort outside of the U.S. to be named No. 1 by a major American ski magazine.

In another example on the other side of the country, New Englanders who long coveted summer homes in waterfront regions of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick also took advantage of the dollar difference and made more purchases.

On Jan. 21, 2002, the Canadian dollar fell to an all-time low of 62 cents against the U.S. dollar. U.S. consumers, especially skiers, continued to descend upon Whistler and other popular Canadian destinations in droves to swoop up slope-side condominiums and chalets. Many potential buyers decided not to purchase, fearing that the Canadian dollar would drop even more, making their investment worth less.

Since then, things have changed. In 2007, the Canadian dollar was trading higher than the U.S. dollar for the first time in 30 years. The two currencies were about even on Thanksgiving 2010.

The swing in the Canadian dollar serves as a helpful reminder to investors, recreational owners and retirees considering an international purchase. You can make or lose money when you eventually sell — depending upon when you choose to purchase or sell.

Americans face two major issues when investing in real estate abroad. First, you have the appreciation or depreciation of the real estate itself — or the “property side” of the decision. You then have the currency risk when you sell the property and bring the money back into this country.

So, that little getaway on the other side of the world may look terrific and the exchange rate definitely favorable. But what will your money look like when it comes time to “repatriate”?

Last week, I spoke with a friend who purchased a Whistler condominium in 2001 because of the strength of the dollar, the buzz of the upcoming Olympics and his love of downhill skiing. While he still enjoyed the Whistler area and the improvements made with Olympics dollars, the economy had taken its toll on his income and liquid assets.

The unit still was a great rental. Since the Olympics, the area has attracted even more international families, especially from Japan, Germany and Switzerland. However, my friend no longer had the luxury of allowing significant equity to be tied up in an investment home. He needed the cash to pay household bills and school tuitions.

Not only had his condominium, near Blackcomb Mountain and walking distance to Whistler Village, appreciated in value, but he also benefited from the increase in the Canadian dollar. He will face a significant capital gains tax, but needs the cash out of the condo to make ends meet.

“If I had not needed the cash,” my friend said, “I would have kept the condo or done a tax-deferred exchange.”

The tax-deferred exchange would have raised some red flags. With investment property in the U.S., taxpayers can defer capital gains taxes if they buy a “like kind” property of equal or greater value than the one they sold, provided it is identified within 45 days and purchased within 180 days from the day the first property was sold.

The Internal Revenue Service says any property outside of this country is not “like kind” so no capital gains taxes can be deferred.

If you are buying or selling abroad, make sure you understand all tax and currency ramifications. It’s best to know going in rather than being surprised coming out.

This year has not been kind to U.S. home values. Homes are expected to lose $1.7 trillion in value this year — 63 percent more than they lost during 2009, according to a report released today by online real estate site Zillow.

The second half of 2010 will account for the bulk of the loss, $1 trillion, compared with $680 billion from January to June, the company reported.

“Government interventions like the homebuyer tax credit helped buoy the market during the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010, but we saw a renewed downturn in the last half of this year,” said Stan Humphries, Zillow’s chief economist, in a statement.

“It’s a testament to the nearly irresistible force of the overall market correction that government incentives can only temporarily hold back the tide, and that the market will ultimately find its natural equilibrium of supply and demand.”

Since the market peaked in June 2006, homes have lost an estimated $9 trillion in value, falling to a total estimated value of $22.7 trillion, Zillow said. By comparison, the war in Iraq had cost a total of $751 billion by the end of fiscal year 2010, according to a September report by the Congressional Research Service — making the loss in home values the cost equivalent of 12 Iraq wars.

Only 31 of the 129 markets Zillow tracked showed gains in home values this year, the report said. Among the 20 largest markets, only three saw an increase: Boston ($10.8 billion); Riverside, Calif. ($7.3 billion); and San Diego ($10.2 billion). In total dollar amounts, New York City has lost the most in the past year ($103.7 billion), followed by Chicago ($48 billion) and Los Angeles ($38.6 billion).

Zillow calculates home values using its proprietary Zestimate formula, which includes public records. To work out the change in home values during the year, the company subtracted the forecasted estimated value of all homes in an area in December 2010 from the total value at the start of 2010.

The end of the year is also likely to see a higher percentage of homeowners underwater. At the end of this year’s third quarter, 23.2 percent of single-family homeowners owed more on their mortgage than their home was worth, compared with 21.8 percent at the end of 2009.

“Unfortunately, with foreclosures near an all-time high in late 2010 and high rates of negative equity persisting, it does not appear that the first part of 2011 will bring much relief,” Humphries said.

A separate survey released this week showed that the majority of U.S. adults do not expect the housing market to recover until 2013 or beyond.

Harris Interactive conducted the survey online from Nov. 2-4, 2010, for property search site Trulia and foreclosure data site RealtyTrac. The survey yielded 2,034 respondents, two-thirds of them homeowners and the rest renters.

While 10 percent of respondents believe housing will recover in 2011, 58 percent believe it won’t recover for at least another two years. More than a fifth believe the recovery won’t happen until 2015 or later.

“More and more, American homeowners, sellers and buyers are tamping down their expectations for a swift recovery in the housing market and bracing themselves for a long, slow climb back to a healthy real estate market,” said Pete Flint, Trulia’s co-founder and CEO, in a statement.

“Government incentives have come and gone and historic lows in interest rates have done little to spur recovery. Then, as if prospective buyers and sellers needed more to be concerned about, the robo-signing issue caused a ‘What’s next?’ fear to surface in the minds of consumers who, frankly, have lost faith in banks and their government to make good decisions.”

The issue arose when employees of major banks admitted to signing foreclosure documents without verification, leading several banks to declare foreclosure freezes pending internal investigations. More than a third, 35 percent, of respondents said they expected the robo-signing controversy to delay the housing recovery; only 6 percent said they thought it would have no effect.

The proportion of respondents who would be willing to walk away from an underwater mortgage rose to 48 percent, from 41 percent in May 2010. Men were more likely than women to consider a strategic default, 57 percent vs. 40 percent, respectively.

The number of respondents who are at least somewhat likely to consider buying a foreclosed property also rose, to 49 percent from 45 percent in May. The vast majority of respondents, 81 percent, believed there were some negative aspects to buying a foreclosure, up from 78 percent in May. The top three concerns were hidden costs, the riskiness of the process, and the possibility that the home would lose value.

Two-thirds of respondents said they would expect at least a 30 percent discount for a foreclosed home compared to a nonforeclosed home, while about one-third said they would expect at least a 50 percent discount.

“It seems like consumer expectations and market realities are beginning to align when it comes to foreclosure discounts. During the third quarter, foreclosure homes sold for an average of 32 percent less than homes not in foreclosure,” said Rick Sharga, senior vice president of RealtyTrac, in a statement.

“It’s also not surprising that we’ve seen an increase in negative sentiment toward foreclosure purchases, where the recent robo-signing controversy has added more confusion to an already complicated process.”