Can the presence of termites screw up a home loan? You betcha they can.
Dian Hymer, an author on Inman News, writes this about termite clearances in her column :
In this era of consumer awareness, most buyers require a current termite inspection of a home before they'll agree to buy it. However, a termite clearance is not always part of the agreement. Whether or not a termite clearance is required to close a home sale depends on the buyer's lender and on the terms of the agreement negotiated between the buyer and seller.
Buyers who purchase a home using an FHA or VA mortgage -- or a low-down payment first-time buyer mortgage program -- may be required to provide the lender with a termite clearance on the home they're buying before the lender will fund the loan. In this case, the sale can't close without a termite clearance.
Even when buyers use conventional financing, the lender is likely to require a termite clearance if the property is in a state of disrepair, particularly if hazardous conditions exist. For example, if a deck is dry rotted to the point that it's dangerous to walk on, the lender will probably want it to be repaired before they'll be willing to loan on the property.
So, what are your options as the potential buyer of a home in Long Beach, CA?
1- First, talk to a local real estate expert about a strategy before you buy.
2- Have that expert negotiate treatment for the termite infestation.
3- Waive the termite clearance clause in your contract. This can be very dangerous so you should consider defaulting to tip #1.
Government lenders require termite clearance, period. Conventional lenders allow for the termite inspection to be waived with acceptance of a contract NOT as an addendum to the contract. This means that if you want to waive the clearance post facto (because an infestation might screw up your loan), it ain't gonna work.
Active Rainer, 
I first heard of the term “equity management” in 2003. I heard
He said: “The hard sell approach is wearing on the credibility”
I replied: That’s potentially true, Landed Gentry. I recognize that. I am an overly enthusiastic person and that is often my downfall. I think Zillow has tremendous potential as a marketing tool for Rs and LOs if approached correctly.
I am an active marketer of loans. I’m not a tech guy. I originate every single day and teach 5 others how to do this job. I’m a back-slapping, garrulous, hand shaking sales guy. I go at something hard when I think it has value. Having disclosed that to you, it might explain my motivation. Take my “endorsements” with a grain of salt; I’m just a salesman who thinks he found a cool way to market.
FWIW, my overly enthusiatic activity in Zillow in my home zip code resulted in a slap on the wrist from the Z-folk.
So here's my thoughts about what Zillow.com did with these new features; they capitalize on an insidious trend (in the sense that it works in a stealthy manner). Insidious but brilliant. Zillow.com capitalizes on the technological advances and the byproduct is a loss of privacy. It's been happening for centuries, though. Consider these insidious opportunists who capitalize on the loss of privacy:
I'll start with the Roman Empire around the Common Era. The censors compiled census data which could be "bought" by merchants. In the mid 1300s, one of the byproducts of alchemy was the study of chemistry and medicine. This allowed people to be stratified by health conditions, benefiting society as a whole but exposing personal issues to neighbors. Fracastoro advances epidemiology in 1546 alienated the diseased even more. 300 years later, Louis Pasteur righted that wrong.
The Chinese did it in 1040 but Johann Gutenberg advanced movable type so we could mass produce rumor about virtually anthing via the handbill. Samuel Morse started a telecommunications boom in 1837 allowing private information about your neighbor to be transmitted across the country almost instantaneously. 40 years later, Alexander Graham Bell, created gossip lines. The automobile invaded the privacy of country folk everywhere in the late 19th century.
I think you can get my drift.
Technology is moving faster and spreads insidiously (in a sense that it is fast and stealthy). Personal privacy is almost always the byproduct of a technological advance. It seems lousy at first but society can benefit as a whole. I am amazed at the power information could have to reduce costs to consumers.
If the NAR hordes market information and some bright guys choose to create a new market with the help of market participants, can that be a bad thing?