With loan costs rising to their highest levels in more than two years, time may have run out on many homeowners thinking about refinancing. But some may still be able to find some money in the equity they've built up in their homes.

According to the latest tabulation from data company Black Knight, more than 5 million owners are no longer good candidates for refinancing because mortgage rates have shot up in recent weeks. As of this writing, the Freddie Mac rate on 30-year fixed loans was 3.75%, the highest in what seems like ages.

Still, by Black Knight's count, that leaves about 5.9 million borrowers who can shave at least 0.75% off their current rate. (The company defines a good prospect for refinancing as someone with a credit score of at least 720, who owes less than 80% of their current home's value.) In aggregate, refinancing could save those homeowners an average of $275 a month -- though a lucky handful could save more than $700.

But there are other ways to skin this cat, especially for those who don't meet the above criteria. We're talking home equity loans and home equity lines of credit, both of which can be used to unlock the value that's been built up in your place since you bought it. Combine those paper gains with however much you've paid down on the balance of your mortgage over that time and you probably have a pretty decent nest egg to tap.

Equity is the difference between what your house is worth and what you still owe on your mortgage. Of course, more recent buyers haven't built up as much equity as those who have been in place for a while. Even so, over the previous 12 months, CoreLogic reports that the typical owner gained $56,700 in equity.

Longer-tenured owners did even better. According to the National Association of Realtors, someone who purchased an existing house 10 years ago at the median sales price of $169,000 would have picked up an average of $225,000 in equity if the place sold at $363,100, the median as of last year's third quarter. The gain comes from $193,600 in appreciation and $31,300 in principal payments.

Over a five-year period, this same owner would have gained $144,500 in equity: $121,800 from appreciation and $22,700 from principal payments. NAR didn't compute figures for just one year of ownership. But housing prices have leaped nearly 20% in the last 12 months by some estimates, so you do the math.

To get to that money, consider either a home equity loan or a home equity line of credit. They sound alike, but they're somewhat different.

With a loan, you get a lump sum at closing based on a percentage of how much equity you can borrow against -- typically 70% to 80%. The rate is fixed, and you have to start making payments immediately.

With a line of credit, you can take the proceeds any way you like: all at once, in one lump sum sometime down the road, or in various amounts as you need it. You won't have to make payments until you actually receive some money. But the rate is variable, so the amount you pay could change, even if you don't take any more money.

These loans aren't cheap, with rates currently bumping up against 6% and still rising. But since they are secured by your house, they're often less expensive than other choices. As LendingTree Senior Economic Analyst Jacob Channel points out, "They're still likely to have relatively low interest when compared to other loan types, like personal loans or credit cards."

Like any other second mortgage, the proceeds from equity loans can be used for anything you like: home improvements, debt consolidation, wedding expenses or an around-the-world bucket-list trip.

Making home improvements is the main reason people seek these products, according to a recent LendingTree study. About one-fourth aim to consolidate their debt, and about 1 in 10 intend to invest the money. But going on a long-awaited journey is not necessarily a good idea.

"Home equity loans are incredibly versatile" for people who need cash right away, says Channel. But "it's never a good idea to flippantly borrow money, and anyone who considers a home equity loan should fully understand the risks associated with them before they rush out and get one."

Meanwhile, seniors have a third way to access their house-based bank accounts: reverse mortgages. And according to the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association, they have plenty of dough stashed away in their homes. Senior housing wealth grew by 4% -- or $396 billion -- in the third quarter or 2021, to a record $10.19 trillion, the trade group reported recently.

Available to owners who are 62 and older, reverse mortgages allow seniors to borrow against the equity in their homes without having to make monthly principal or interest payments. Funds are advanced to the borrower and interest accrues, but neither the outstanding balance nor interest is due until the last borrower leaves the home, whether by selling or passing away.

Several private lenders offer proprietary reverse products. But the vast majority -- known more formally as Home Equity Conversion Mortgages -- are insured by Uncle Sam's Federal Housing Administration. Either way, though, they aren't cheap, and they usually are loaded with up-front fees.

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.