Are You Wondering If Your Home Is Underinsured? A Reader Shares His Research  

My column on May 12 addressed the problem of underinsurance faced by homeowners who lost their homes in the Marhall Fire last December. It reported that, according to the Colorado Division of Insurance, only 8% of the homes destroyed in that fire had guaranteed replacement coverage in their insurance policies. 

One of my readers took it upon himself to research the subject in the context of his own home close to the foothills. The rest of this week’s column is his writing, which he asked me to put under my byline. When he says “I,” he’s referring to himself, not me.

It turns out I haven’t been able to get good answers to questions.  Nonetheless, here’s an account of my dive beneath the surface to understand what I might expect of my house insurance in the event of a total loss due to fire, particularly wildfire:

The reporting on homeowners insurance coverage after the Marshall Fire —  which frequently referenced the Waldo Canyon fire — highlighted the extent  to which homeowners are underinsured for total loss of property.  This spurred me to revisit  our homeowner insurance replacement cost coverage.  I had already raised this concern with my insurance agent last summer, and he assured me the coverage was more than enough based on the insurance underwriter’s cost per square foot “replacement-cost estimator.” Besides, he said, the policy has an endorsement that would cover the actual cost of replacement regardless of stipulated coverage.

Even with such assurance, we were not reassured; so several weeks ago I reviewed my policy again.  Based on the average current construction cost per square foot for the Marshall Fire cited by the state Division of Insurance, along with my own estimate of the average construction cost of three new custom homes in my neighborhood, I determined that our policy’s coverage was about half what we would expect the cost to be to rebuild our house in 2022. Further, on closer reading, I realized the policy endorsement covering total replacement cost would not apply if the house were not rebuilt within two years of the loss! So, I got back in touch with my insurance agent to explain that rebuilding our house in two years or less would likely be impossible, especially if the house were among many to burn down in a wildfire, and, given this limitation of  the endorsement, the policy’s stipulated dwelling coverage, based on the company’s estimator,  was only half of the what replacement cost was likely to be; so we would need to double the coverage. 

Once I received the quote for the increase in coverage, I informed him that in the event our house was to be a total loss, we would probably not be willing to rebuild, thus would want to walk away (putting the lot up for sale after clearing the debris).

However, as I could find no provision for a cash-out for the amount of our coverage, I asked if we could expect the company to agree to a cash-out in lieu of replacement.  His answer was “probably”!  Given that uncertainty, I asked if any policy is available that would explicitly provide for cashing out. He found one company with that option for an annual premium approximately 20% higher.

The other wrinkle to this insurance rabbit hole is if the insurance company were to agree to a cash-out in lieu of rebuilding, the actual cash-out would not be the amount of coverage stipulated in the policy, but rather that amount minus the depreciation in value of the house at the time it burned down — the depreciation calculated by the insurance company’s claims department.

So far, I have been unable to obtain any useful information on depreciation from insurance companies, the Division of Insurance, or the legislature, and nothing on Google that I could see.

[While depreciation may be a reasonable factor when replacing an old roof destroyed by hail, it doesn’t seem appropriate to me when it comes to replacing a totally destroyed home, given that homes appreciate, not depreciate. —JS]

I am left to wonder why the insurer is not transparent about whether and under what circumstances the homeowner would be able to cash-out rather than rebuild.  (While recently passed legislation regulating insurance company payouts when homes are damaged from a wildfire does require providing a cash-out option and requiring it equals re-placement cost — if the stipulated coverage is sufficient — the law applies only to dwellings burnt in a wildfire that the Governor has officially declared a “wildfire disaster.”)

I would wager most homeowners would be surprised to realize their insurance may not give them the option of cashing out rather than rebuilding their house after a total loss, and likewise, homeowners would be surprised to realize that if they were to be availed of a cash-out, the actual payout would be the amount of stipulated dwelling coverage minus whatever the insurer calculates the depreciation to be, without the company having to disclose its methodology.

“Surprised” is the key word, because homeowners are likely to assume their insurance will pay the full amount of their stipulated coverage in the case of a total loss regardless of whether or not they were to rebuild. Reasoning that if the company is obligated to pay that amount when rebuilding and not deduct from that amount any depreciation, then what difference should it make to the insurance company whether they pay that amount as a cash-out in lieu of re-building?  

For most homeowners, their house is their most valuable asset, whose value at any point in time is based on market price, which can be validated by appraisal. I would expect my insurance company to pay me the full amount for which I’m covered regardless of whether or not I choose to rebuild. (I wouldn’t necessarily expect to be paid more than the cost of rebuilding if it turned out my coverage was greater than replacement cost.)

Further, I would expect not to have any amount for depreciation deducted when either being cashed-out or rebuilding. But what we homeowners expect does not usually align with what the insurance company would do.

The most homeowners can do is to know what their insurer can actually be expected to do, and that requires they do a thorough review of their policy. Nonetheless, based on what I’ve learned thus far, there are a couple of modest reforms that would improve the situation for homeowners:  1) The state Division of Insurance should publish replacement cost estimates annually, which would provide the homeowner with a basis for determining the amount of necessary coverage.  2)  At a minimum, policies should be transparent about whether a cash-out option is available and under what circumstances, including an unambiguous explanation of the depreciation method and formulas to be used in calculating actual cash value. 

It seems only fair that homeowners shouldn’t have to guess what they are buying when they purchase home insurance. As things stand at present, after a critical review of their policy, many homeowners are likely to come away feeling to some extent  that they have bought a pig-in-a-poke, or at least one that fails to meet their expectations. 

Golden Real Estate Welcomes Our Newest Broker Associate, Greg Kraft  

Greg told me that he has been reading my “Real Estate Today” column in the Denver Post from his home in Highlands Ranch for many years. A 20-year veteran of property management and real estate in the Vail Valley, he decided that he wanted to be part of our team instead of remaining on his own. He is officially on board now and handling floor duty at our downtown Golden office most weekends and working with clients during weekdays. You can reach him on his cell phone at 720-353-1922 or via email at gkraft48@gmail.com. 

Toronto Rejects High-Tech ‘Smart City’ for Something More Livable on Its Waterfront  

The last place I’d expect to see a feature about Toronto rejecting a “smart city” proposal in favor of a green oasis would be MIT’s Technology Review, but there it is in the July/August 2022 issue of the magazine. It’s a fascinating study of how technology lost out to human scale sustainable development on prime real estate in Canada’s largest city.

The original 2017 proposal for the 12-acre plot between an expressway and Lake Ontario was for it “to become a hub for an optimized urban experience featuring robo-taxis, heated sidewalks, autonomous garbage collection, and an extensive digital layer to monitor everything from street crossings to park bench usage,” according to the article. The proposal, appropriately, came from a sister company of Google, Sidewalk Labs, which is the urban innovation arm of Alphabet. Click here to read the full article.

The idea was that this development would be a “proof of concept, establishing a new development model for cities everywhere. It could have demonstrated that the sensor-laden smart city model embraced in China and the Persian Gulf has a place in more democratic societies.”

After a 2½-year effort to sell the concept to Toronto’s citizenry, Sidewalk Labs abandoned the idea, blaming it on Covid-19, but citizen blowback was the reason.

Personally, I like the idea of a “smart city,” especially when it comes to traffic control. For example, I like traffic lights to respond to traffic and minimize wait times. But some of the “smart city” concepts, such as robo-taxis, sound more like the product of “geeks gone wild,” rather than a development to improve city life.

The rendering of Toronto’s replacement plan, adopted in February 2022, warms my heart. The plan is delightfully low tech, yet it incorporates a design that is “zero carbon,” or what we call “net zero energy.”

This quote says it all: “The real problem is that with their emphasis on the optimization of everything, smart cities seem designed to eradicate the very thing that makes cities wonderful.”

Interestingly, Technology Review had cited the original Toronto proposal in its 2018 article about “10 breakthrough technologies,” writing that “Sidewalk Labs could reshape how we live, work, and play in urban neighborhoods.” The architectural critic for the Toronto Globe and Mail chimed in, praising the 2017 concept as an exciting approach to urban development.

Renderings such as the one above “show trees and greenery sprouting from every possible balcony and outcropping, with nary an auton-omous vehicle or drone in sight. The project’s highly ac-complished design team… all speak of this new corner of Canada’s largest city not as a techno-utopia but as a bucolic retreat.” The new project design, according to the article, is “a conspicuous disavowal not only of the 2017 proposal but of the smart city concept itself.”

One of the city planners summed it up: “If you look at what we’re doing now on that site, it’s classic city building with a 21st-century twist, which means it’s a carbon-neutral community. It’s a totally electrified community. It’s a community that prioritizes affordable housing…. It’s a community that has a strong emphasis on green space and urban agriculture and urban farming.” 

A comment by one of the developers caught my attention. “In the U.S. it’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…. In Canada it’s peace, order, and good government. Canadians don’t expect the private sector to come in and save us from government, because we have high trust in government.”

We Can Save You Thousands of Dollars on Moving Costs  

Even if you’re moving locally, the cost of hiring two men and a truck or a bigger moving company can run into the thousands of dollars.

At Golden Real Estate, we have offered our free moving truck to buyers and sellers for almost two decades (this is our second truck), saving our clients hundreds of thousands of dollars. Throughout those years we have also provided free moving boxes, packing paper and bubble wrap, saving them additional money.

We have also helped buyers win bidding wars by offering the seller totally free local moving using our truck, movers, boxes and packing materials.  They just “pack and unpack”!  We call it Golden’s “Free Community Truck” because we also make it available free to local non-profit and community organizations such as BGoldN, Family Promise, Christian Action Guild, Lions Club, Habitat for Humanity, and others.

Realtor Magazine: Builders Need to Respond to the Home Electrification Trend  

It isn’t in the print edition of Realtor Magazine, but a June 8 article on its website is titled, “The Future Is Now: Home Electrification.”

Regular readers of this column know that home electrification has been “now” for many years here at Golden Real Estate. At the Net Zero Store in our former building at 17695 S. Golden Road, Helio Home Inc. is busier than ever responding to people who want to replace their gas forced air furnaces with heat pump units and their gas water heaters with heat pump water heaters. (You can reach the Helio Home sales team at 720-460-1260.)

The primary focus of the Realtor Magazine article is on the need for home builders to include a larger electrical service as fossil fuels are phased out. Number one, it said, was to accommodate an electric car, since the major car manufacturers are committed to going all-electric or mostly so by 2030.

The article promotes the idea of installing solar photovoltaic (PV) systems to generate electricity for your home and car. With such a system, the author of the article correctly points out that the electrical grid can function as your home battery (thanks to net metering), but seems not to understand how it really works. He states that the utility will buy your excess solar generation but you might have to buy electricity for your car on a cloudy day. In fact, net metering allows you to send surplus electricity to the grid when you don’t need it, but you get it back at full value when needed. Everyone with a solar PV system should take advantage of the “roll-over” option allowing you to be credited for that surplus production long-term rather than get a check each January for the previous year’s over-production.

When the utility pays you for your surplus production, it does so at its cost of generating electricity — a couple cents per kilowatt-hour. But if you use your surplus electricity, you save the full retail rate (over 10¢ per kilowatt-hour) versus purchasing those kilowatt-hours from the utility.

Not understanding that process, the author promotes the idea of a home battery system, but, as I wrote before, that only needs to be considered if you have medical equipment which must run during a blackout.

The author promotes the installation of a 240V car charging station, suggesting that this could require a larger electrical panel in older homes. I disagree. The Level 2 charging station only draws the same electricity as your electric clothes dryer. If your panel can’t accommodate a dedicated circuit for the car, you could use the same one as the clothes dryer and not use both appliances at the same time. (I recognize that this is not what the code dictates, but it’s still safe if you have a 40-amp breaker on that circuit, because if you do run the dryer and the car charger at the same time, it would trip the breaker.)

Also, every EV comes with a 120V cord to plug your car into a standard household outlet. Although that only gets you 4 miles of range per hour, that’s still over 50 miles of range overnight, which may suffice, especially if you have other charging options during the day. Downtown Golden, for example, has ten free Level 2 charging stations in its garages and elsewhere.

Of course, there’s more to home electrification than car charging. The article points out that there are now electric outdoor tools—lawn mowers, leaf blowers, snow blowers, chain saws and more—that you can buy online or at Lowes. Ego Power is the biggest brand in this field, and their various tools all use the same interchangeable batteries.

Not mentioned in the article are the biggest consumers of fossil fuels—your gas furnace and water heater. As I said, you can speak to Helio Home about converting gas units to electric heat pump units.

For cooking, I have written in the past about induction electric ranges, and I’m really fond of our electric grill shown here. Lift it off its stand and you can use the grill on your countertop. You can’t do that with a gas grill! And it plugs into a standard 120V patio outlet. We bought ours at Home Depot for $100. Food grilled on it tastes just as good as when cooked on a gas grill.

Can the electrical grid handle the increased use of electricity over fossil fuels, given, for example, that by 2030 over 50% of car sales in America will be all-electric? You may have read warnings that widespread adoption of EVs will overwhelm our electrical transmission systems, but I disagree. Solar panels are being installed just as quickly and perhaps more so, and that electricity is consumed within your neighborhood if not by yourself, reducing the needed distribution from the utility. And, as I said, even with Level 2 charging, an EV only draws the same amount of electricity as a clothes dryer.

Home builders can and should adapt to this trend, and are in fact required to do so in some jurisdictions. Every new home should be solar-ready if not solar-powered, by building chases into the home which could accommodate the electrical lines serving roof-mounted solar panels. Also, garages should be wired with a 240V outlet on their front walls in addition to the usual 120V outlets on three walls.

I was encouraged to see that a new 300-unit apartment complex about to break ground in Lakewood between Colfax and 15th Place and between Owens and Pierson Streets is, according to the plans I saw, going to have over 40 EV parking spaces in its garage.

One of the more interesting flaws in the Realtor Magazine article was the suggestion that home garages should be insulated or even heated to avoid shortening the life of an electric vehicle’s battery. This is a misinterpretation of the fact that EVs lose range in the winter. It’s not that the battery loses power in cold weather, but rather that heating the car’s cabin uses battery power which thereby reduces the car’s range, as does the heating of the battery itself to its optimum operating temperature.

With the Rise in Mortgage Interest Rates, ARMs Are Making a Comeback and Can Save You Money

As mortgage interest rates rise, many potential homebuyers have asked me about the wisdom of using an adjustable-rate mortgage loan (often referred to as an ARM) to finance their home purchase. 

Adjustable-rate mortgages, also known as “variable-rate mortgages” are mortgages that offer a low introductory interest rate for a specific period of time. The borrowers’ interest rate and correspondingly their monthly principal and interest payment will be “locked in” for the first five, seven, or ten years. For example, a 10/6 ARM means that you will pay a fixed interest rate for 10 years, then the rate will adjust every 6 months. A 7/1 ARM, on the other hand, means that your rate will be fixed for 7 years and then the rate will adjust every year.

Because the lender is not “locking in” the interest rate for a 30-year period, the borrower is sharing in the risk associated with rising rates. In exchange for the ability to increase the borrowers’ rate based upon future market conditions, lenders offer lower rates for ARMs than they do for 30-year fixed rate loans. The lowest ARM rates are offered on shorter terms, as an example, a 5-year ARM will have a lower rate than a 10-year ARM. The difference in today’s pricing for a 5-year ARM versus a 30-year fixed rate is approximately .75%, with a 5-year ARM being offered at 4.25% and a 30-year fixed rate loan being offered at 5.00%

Borrowers considering an ARM should know which index will be used to calculate their new interest rate, as well as the “margin” that will be added to the indexed rate to determine the “fully indexed interest rate” at the time of adjustment. While this might seem extraordinarily risky, all loans offered thru FNMA and FHMLC (and most jumbo lenders as well) “cap” the increases that can occur at each adjustment period as well as the maximum amount that the rate may increase over the life of the loan. Unlike the ARMs of previous years, borrowers are not allowed to make partial interest payments, so there is no risk of the loan amount increasing as the rate increases.

The most obvious benefit to choosing an ARM is lower monthly payments. While homebuyers will have to qualify for the loan based on the future higher payment price, they can take advantage of the lower payments by investing the savings somewhere with higher gains, making home improvements, or adding more to the principal balance to pay off the loan more quickly.

ARMs are typically best suited for borrowers who do not anticipate that they will still own the home at the time of the initial adjustment or those who anticipate increases in income that will keep pace with interest rate increases. If a borrower’s circumstances change, there is always the option to refinance into a fixed rate loan. Unlike ARMs of the past, there are no longer prepayment penalties to dissuade the borrower from refinancing once the initial fixed interest rate ends. If you decide to refinance from an ARM to a fixed-rate mortgage, the refinancing process is straightforward and is similar to when you purchased your home. When you refinance, you take out another loan that is used to pay off your original note, then your new payments are based upon the new loan.

As the housing market continues to change, Jaxzann Riggs, owner of The Mortgage Network, is available to answer questions and help you decide which loan options are best suited for your current needs.

You can reach out to Jaxzann with any questions at 303-990-2992.  Mention that I suggested you contact her.

Zillow Has Published a Primer on Home Solar — Here Are My Reflections on It  

On April 27, Zillow published an article, “6 Questions to Ask as You Consider Home Solar.” I thought it was pretty comprehensive, but it was written for a national audience, and some of the questions are readily answered for us here in Colorado.

The article begins by asserting that, according to Zillow’s research, homes which highlight eco-friendly features like solar sell up to 10 days quicker and for 1.4% more than homes that don’t. That statistic, however, fails to distinguish between homes which have fully-owned solar installations, and homes that have leased systems or “power purchase agreements.” Those alternative arrangements basically create a situation in which the homeowner purchases electricity from two companies instead of one — still a good deal, since the solar power typically costs less than the power purchased from the utility.

Zillow’s question #1 is whether your home is suitable for solar. We all know, of course, that a south-facing roof without shading is best, but there are other considerations, such as the condition of your roof. If your roof needs replacing before you put solar panels on it, you may want to include Roper Roofing & Solar in Golden among the solar companies you interview. It’s the only solar company I know which is also a roofing company.

One question posed by Zillow is whether your HOA (if you have one) will allow solar. Fortunately, Colorado passed a law over a decade ago (C.R.S. 38-30-168) which requires HOAs to allow solar and other sustainable improvements. HOAs can regulate appearance but not prohibit solar. For example, it could require that solar panels be flush with your roof rather than angled out from it.

The article points out that if your home is not suitable for solar, you should look into community solar, for which it provides a link. Community solar is also a good alternative for renters and condo owners.

The second question is how to find a reputable installer. Personally, I prefer to hire a small (and local) family-owned company over a national business with a local sales team. I recommend Golden Solar, which has installed five systems for me over the past two decades, and Buglet Solar Electric. The owners of those two companies, Don Parker and Whitney Painter, can answer question #3, which is what incentives and rebates are available on the federal, state, local and utility level. The current federal incentive is a 26% tax credit, which drops to 22% next year and expires the following year unless Congress extends it.

Question #4 is whether there’s net metering, which allows you to “bank” your daytime production for nighttime use and carry forward your surplus solar production to future months and years. In Colorado, the answer is a resounding yes.

Question #5 is about battery storage. Net metering, in my opinion, makes home battery backup/storage unnecessary unless you are worried about power outages. (If you have life-sustaining equipment that requires uninterrupted electricity, battery storage might be appropriate.)

Where battery storage is essential, of course, is in off-grid applications, such as in a mountain cabin without accessible electricity from a utility.  I have listed such homes with impressive battery systems.

The last question which Zillow poses is whether a solar installation is worth it, admitting that this is a very personal decision.

A solar installation nowadays costs between $10,000 and $20,000 for the typical home, and you can ask the companies you interview what the return on investment will be. I have never worried about ROI, because installing solar, to me, is simply the right thing to do, satisfied as I am that it does pay for itself, whether in five years or ten.

One piece of advice not in the Zillow article is to factor in the increased electricity you will need when you buy an electric vehicle — which you will at some point, since most manufacturers plan to phase out gas-powered vehicles. Xcel Energy lets you to carry forward surplus generation from year to year, and allows you to install solar panels equivalent to double your last 12 months’ usage. (Do NOT elect to receive a yearly check from Xcel Energy for your excess solar production, because they pay you a small fraction of that electricity’s retail value — carry it forward for future use at its full retail value.)

You Might Want to Reconsider Gas Cooking  

Upgraded kitchens are among every buyer’s top selling points, and a great gas range such as a Viking or Wolf can draw raves and offers.

A February 2022 article in Smithsonian Magazine carries the revealing title, “Gas Stoves Are Worse for Climate and Health Than Previously Thought.”

The article states that 40 million American homes have a gas range or cooktop. These appliances can emit formaldehyde, carbon monoxide and nitric oxides, and they could be leaking even when turned off.

Rita and I had a gas cooktop in our Golden home (now sold), and we were advised to always turn on the exhaust fan above the stove (vented to the outside, not recirculating like some fans) whenever we cooked, not just when your cooking is creating smoke.

We’ve all heard that methane is a greenhouse gas, 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. You may not know that natural gas is really methane under a nicer sounding name. The methane emitted by cooking with gas has health implications that are a more immediate and personal cause for concern.

The smart alternative to cooking with gas is cooking on induction electric surfaces. I purchased a single countertop induction unit for about $50 and was impressed by its performance — and by its low 110V electric usage. I found that an equivalent amount of water took less than half as long to reach a boil on the induction cooktop as it did on the biggest burner of our gas cooktop. I suggest you familiarize yourself with induction cooking using one of those $50 units before making the switch to a full-size induction cooktop.

Statistics, Oddly, Seem Not to Support the Idea That the Real Estate Market Is Slowing Down  

We all know that the real estate market has slowed down since the dramatic April increase in mortgage rates — right?

Seeking to document and measure that slowdown, I checked the statistics available to me as a member of REcolorado, Denver’s MLS. Below is a chart of the statistics I gathered for the period Jan. 2021 to present. Analyzing that chart, you can see that while there are fewer active listings this May than a year ago, there are roughly the same number of sold listings — and they went under contract just as quickly, with a median days on the MLS (DOM) of just 4. And, more significantly, the median sold price this May was nearly $100,000 higher than May 2021, with a slightly higher ratio of sold price to listing price. April’s statistics year-over-year were even more impressive.

The smaller chart is a 7-day residential “Market Watch” widget that I copied and pasted from the MLS on Tuesday morning. Although I don’t know how to replicate what that chart would have looked like a year ago, it’s safe to say that it’s much different — and does not paint the same picture as the larger chart above. It definitely shows a vibrant market with lots of new, pending and closed listings, but the number of price reductions must be significantly higher than they were a year ago — and 10 times the number of price increases.

So, what does all this data mean for the average homeowner thinking of listing his or her home for sale?

The number of price decreases suggests to me that too many sellers are starting out with a listing price that might have worked in the past, but that is too aggressive for the current market. While the median days-on-MLS is still only 4, you can be sure that those listings lowered their prices a week or more into their time on the MLS.  At the same time, that low days-on-MLS number tells you that the sellers who price their home correctly outnumber those who do not. Good for them. That’s the group you want to be in!

Another obvious conclusion is that while the dramatic increase in mortgage interest rates has impacted many buyers, there are enough buyers who are paying cash or are not deterred by the higher rates, which are still historically low. (When I bought my first home in 1983, I benefited from a subsidized interest rate of “only” 13%!)

Bottom line: Sellers should price their homes less aggressively. Buyers should focus on homes with a DOM over 10 days. That’s where the best deals can be found.

An Apple ‘AirTag’ Can Help You Locate Your Stolen Car  

News media is full of reports about the increase in the theft of cars and trucks. This is not a problem for owners of internet-connected cars like Tesla, which you can follow on your app and even limit its speed (15 mph is good!), but what if your car is not connected that way and gets stolen?

Apple sells a $29 product called AirTag which you can hide in your vehicle. There’s no ongoing fee. If any GPS-connected smartphone is nearby, it uses that device to transmit its location. We have one hidden in Golden Real Estate’s truck, and I can use it to see where it is at any time.

Pictured here, the AirTag is about the size of a quarter and about as thick as 2 or 3 quarters. Put it under a seat or floor mat or any other place in your vehicle and know that if your vehicle is not where you left it, you’ll be able to tell police where to find it and perhaps nab the thief.