For homeowners thinking about cashing in on today's blistering housing market, the situation has become something like a cat chasing its tail.

Demand is such that many properties are selling above their listing prices, often in days, largely because there are so few houses on the market. And that's the conundrum for sellers. If there's little to buy, they may not have anywhere to go once someone purchases their current residence.

According to the latest figures from the National Association of Realtors, there are only 1.8 million houses for sale -- nationwide! That's the fewest since January 1999. At the current rates of sales, some submarkets in the Washington, D.C., area, where I live, have less than two weeks' worth of houses listed for sale.

And what's for sale isn't for sale long. In December, properties typically remained on the market for just 18 days before they were gobbled up, NAR reports. Nearly 4 out of 5 houses sold in that month were on the market for less than 30 days.

People are still falling all over themselves to buy, too. The Redfin realty firm says 3 out of 5 of its agents who made offers on behalf of clients in December faced competition from other buyers. That's down from the peak of 75% last April, but still a lot.

In some cases, the eventual winners are going way above list price to take the prize -- which is why now might just be the time to put your place on the market, before rising interest rates get out of hand. If only you could find another house to move to!

Fortunately, there are ways to deal with this dilemma, though none of them are optimal.

One way is to put your stuff in storage and move into a short-term rental, whether an apartment or another house. That will give you three to six months to find another place. Or, if you want to wait until the market settles down and prices become somewhat more reasonable, you can rent for a year or more.

Of course, this entails moving twice. Moving even once is usually a royal pain -- it ranks right up there with a root canal. But twice in a short period of time? Even worse!

Another possibility is to move in with a friend or a family member for a while. Years ago, when my bride and I built our current home, we sold our old place and she moved to our beach house, while I moved in with one of my adult children so I could remain close to work.

Obviously, not everyone can take advantage of this kind of situation, and it isn't ideal. But it may work for some.

A better way to solve the sell-now-buy-later problem is to require your buyer to delay the closing. In this market, many buyers are willing to do that -- some for several months. Such is the desire to buy now, before mortgage rates get out of hand.

When we sold our place, my memory is such that we were able to delay closing for almost three months before the buyer, who was moving with his family from Dallas, put pressure on us to meet him at the closing table. We did.

But beware: Most lenders will only allow their borrowers to put off settlement for 60 days, tops. Otherwise, borrowers will have to requalify for financing, the reason being that something could change and either disqualify them or cause the lender to raise their rate.

That possibility is a good reason not to postpone closing. You never know what's going to happen. Maybe your buyer will change jobs or buy a big-ticket item like a car, either of which will impact their lender's decision. But if your buyer hasn't lined up financing yet, you may be able to stay in your place longer than two months while you hunt for another house.

It's not a good idea for any would-be buyer to jump into the market without first having funding in place. It's not a good idea for sellers to consider an offer from someone who hasn't been preapproved, either. But if that's the position in which you find yourself, it could be to your advantage.

Another possibility is to lease the house back from your buyer for a specified period of time, perhaps a month or two, or just until you find another house. You might even be able to extend the closing date for 60 days and then lease the place for two more months, giving you 120 days to buy your next home.

In today's market, realty agents tell me, some buyers are more than willing to lease their new homes back to the previous owners. Some, I'm told, are not even charging rent. But if your buyer wants you to pay for the privilege, a fair price might be to cover the mortgage payment for however long you stay.

Green is the gold standard when it comes to buying houses these days. When a buyer offers all greenbacks, aka cash, the seller doesn't have to worry about the buyer's financing falling through at the last minute. All-cash deals also tend to close more quickly.

But paying cash sometimes raises a red flag: a concern that someone might be laundering ill-gotten gains by purchasing property and then selling it a short time later -- turning money that was obtained illegally into funds that are difficult, if not impossible, to trace.

That's why Uncle Sam is considering expanding the rules around such deals. Currently, title companies in 12 metropolitan areas are required to identify individuals who make cash purchases of residential real estate through shell companies when the transaction exceeds $300,000. The dozen metros are: Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.

But a potential regulation posted late last year by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, could expand reporting requirements on all-cash deals -- no matter where they take place or how large or small the amount.

When real estate transactions involve loans or other financing from a regulated financial institution, such as a bank, they are less susceptible to money laundering because those lenders are required to report suspicious activity to FinCEN. But when houses are acquired without the need for a mortgage, no such warnings are raised.

According to one estimate, roughly 1.21 million residential real estate sales over the last five years, with a total approximate market value of $463 billion, were likely processed without any money laundering reporting obligations. FinCEN wants to put a dent in that figure.

A little-known bureau within the Treasury Department, FinCEN collects and analyzes information about financial transactions in order to combat domestic and international money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes. Right now, FinCEN is in the initial stages of considering the best way to focus its regulatory attention on both residential and commercial real estate transactions. Specifically, it has asked stakeholders, as well as the public, to voice their thoughts on what kind of record-keeping and reporting should be required, who should be subject to those rules, the geographic scope and monetary threshold of covered transactions, and the types of entities that should be covered.

According to a spokeswomen for the bureau, both federal and state law enforcement agencies have told FinCEN that its reports have provided greater insight regarding assets held by persons of investigative interest, have resulted in asset forfeiture actions and have helped generate leads and identify new subjects for investigation.

The bureau is keenly aware of the potential burdens that new reporting and record-keeping may place on businesses, the spokeswomen told me in an email, adding that the agency is likely to focus initially on residential transactions. The commercial sector would follow, "as well as any other regulatory gaps than may exist with money laundering vulnerabilities involving real estate," she wrote.

While the value of laundered commercial properties are markedly higher, residential properties tend to account for the bulk of the cases involving laundered funds. And since real estate agents are about the only players not now required to report all-cash transactions, any new rule will probably cover them and their brokers.

According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, homebuyers who are not on the up-and-up often use shell companies -- defined as outfits which hold funds and manage transactions but are not legitimate businesses -- to conceal assets.

Sometimes money launderers layer shell companies by creating one whose real ownership is split among many others across foreign jurisdictions, making the investigative process that much more complex. And criminal groups have increasingly been using money laundering networks that engage in sophisticated laundering strategies.

Most often, though, they use third-party professionals such as lawyers and accountants to do the dirty work. In 2018, for example, Luke Fairfield, a San Diego CPA, was sentenced to 21 months in prison for his role in an international laundering operation. He admitted to creating shell companies to hide criminal proceeds for his drug-trafficking client.

Sometimes realty professionals are involved, too. That was the case not long ago in Illinois, where a licensed real estate broker structured cash deposits from a suspected drug trafficker to purchase houses. To conceal the true name of the buyer, he used his own name and submitted fictitious proof-of-funds letters at closing. He earned thousands in commissions -- plus 14 months in prison.

It can be nearly impossible to trace the money behind real estate deals when the buyer is not specifically named. That's why criminals and corrupt officials can exploit the sector. A report (detailed in this column last fall) by Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank that studies the flow of illicit finances, said a "broad array" of gatekeepers -- including realty agents -- enable the bad guys, "either through willful blindness or direct complicity."

Which is why agents and their brokers are likely to be called upon to speak up if they see something fishy. After all, real estate sales made anonymously are among the most significant money laundering channels, the Treasury Department has said.

The cost of homeowners insurance is on the rise, and not just because property values went up -- almost 20% across the board -- during last year's homebuying frenzy.

How high insurance costs may go is anybody's guess at this time. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency is now operating under a new flood insurance rate structure that changes how it looks at risk.

Furthermore, the growing number of natural disasters is forcing insurers to reevaluate their risk, with the end result almost assuredly being higher premiums. Weather is even starting to inform lending decisions, with the distinct possibility that lenders will charge more for loans in high-risk areas -- or not write them at all.

Weather events always are a threat. But during last year's first nine months alone, the National Centers for Environmental Information counted a record 18 major storms, each with losses exceeding $1 billion.

Such events are why, back in 1968, lawmakers created the National Flood Insurance Program to protect property owners from flood losses. The NFIP also protects taxpayers who fund the program by reducing Uncle Sam's exposure. But almost annually, the NFIP well runs dry and requires additional appropriations from Congress, which, after years of inaction, has yet to reconstitute the program so it remains solvent.

Speaking of dry, as of Dec. 1, the NCEI also says moderate to exceptional drought conditions cover nearly half the country. So more disasters unrelated to flooding are in the offing, too.

To bolster its balance sheet, FEMA, which oversees the flood insurance program, has switched gears. Instead of rating risk solely on whether a house is located in a flood zone or not, the new formula looks at a variety of factors, including distance to a flood source, the severity and frequency of flooding, and property characteristics such as the cost to rebuild the property in the event of damage.

The result: Some 3.3 million homeowners who currently have coverage will pay more, according to a study from Porch, a provider of software and services to several home service industries.

The typical NFIP premium is $734 annually. FEMA predicts that 77% of those with flood insurance will see a price increase -- a hike of about $88 a year for most, according to Porch's calculations, but some by as much as $240 per year -- with the remainder enjoying a lower premium. For those hit hardest, the increase will be spread over a few years.

Granted, this only impacts owners who reside within a specified flood zone. But since floods can happen anywhere, anytime and for many reasons, it is a good idea to obtain coverage no matter where you live.

Floods are not covered by your homeowners insurance, but the costs of those policies are headed up, too.

"The growing number of climate events has left the insurance business reeling," says Jennifer Rasmussen, the author of a new white paper detailing what lies ahead for policy holders. "As the intensity and scope of future catastrophes grow, insurance rates for property owners will likely rise significantly," says Rasmussen, a vice president at SitusAMC, a technology provider in the real estate finance business.

According to LexisNexis, 39% of all home insurance claims in 2020 were due to catastrophic weather. And the SitusAMC paper says the rise in the number of severe hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes and other weather events linked to climate change has created significant risk for insurance companies.

The impact is not limited to the coasts, either. Winter storms in Texas, for example, accounted for 40% of total property losses for insurers in the first half of 2021, and nonprofit Climate Central says the Lone Star State, not California, has the highest threat level for wildfires, with 72% of the state's population at risk.

Of course, recent demographic and migration trends are exacerbating the problem as more people move to flood- and fire-prone regions. A projected 1.2 million more houses will be at risk of flooding over the next 30 years, according to data from the First Street Foundation.

All of this has the mortgage business on edge as companies decide what to insure and at what cost. Some lenders have already started incorporating ATTOM Data Solutions' climate data into their decision-making scenarios, says the firm's Todd Teta. And more can be expected to do so.

A report from the research affiliate of the Mortgage Bankers Association says lenders "will not be spared" from the ravages of climate change. The physical destruction caused by extreme weather events will "influence the behavior" of lenders, investors and government-backed loan programs, it says.

The report says severe weather could lead to more mortgage defaults, placing increasing stress on housing and housing finance's sophisticated system of distributing risk across multiple stakeholders, including consumers, homebuilders, appraisers, originators and mortgage investors.

MBA officials say high-level industry discussions have taken place about incorporating weather-related risk into underwriting decisions. But Chief Economist Mike Fratantoni says that while regional climate models offer enough data, that's not the case for property-level decisions. "There just isn't enough information to make the call," he says.

Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, has told these key entities to designate climate change as a priority concern, and to actively consider its effects in their purchasing decisions.

Eventually, lenders could charge a higher rate for a loan on a higher-risk property. They could require a larger down payment or a larger homeowners insurance policy -- perhaps even some sort of disaster policy. Or they just may not make the loan at all.