|
Inept posted:Depends on where you live. My refi was 660 bucks, though I didn't need a new appraisal. How'd you manage to not pay origination fees, etc.?
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
process posted:edit: Forgot to mention that they've accepted my offer on 6/30, nearly 4 months....
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 21:29
|
|
|
My agent said that Bank of America recently now is really slow. If it was earlier in the year, they'd usually be done within a month after appraisal. The rebate was just a complete oversight. I'm sad now =[ But, I'll still be glad should I get the house. Prices are actually going up in the bay area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:CNN Money says "Homes: About to get much cheaper." The fact of the matter is that houses are still above their historical average, there are ton of foreclosures due to come on the market in the next 5 years, and the only thing currently propping up the housing market is an unsustainable $8k tax credit. All these things point to houses becoming much cheaper when the $8k tax credit goes away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 23:03
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:I'm looking to buy a house in the next year, and I honestly hope Congress gets rid of the $8k tax credit. Its just going to the sellers and taxpayers will have to pay for it. Its jacked up the average home price by much more than $8k, so everyone that bought a house under the program will soon find themselves upside-down on their mortgages. I don't think that's quite correct. Yes, it's going to the sellers... which is what it was for (stimulate purchases). But, if you want a loan, your house still has to appraise for what you're paying, built-in-stimulus or not. quote:The fact of the matter is that houses are still above their historical average, there are ton of foreclosures due to come on the market in the next 5 years, and the only thing currently propping up the housing market is an unsustainable $8k tax credit. All these things point to houses becoming much cheaper when the $8k tax credit goes away. That is not the only thing propping up the housing market. The government is deliberately keeping interest rates low, and that is a huge stimulus as well. And, the government has been running programs to convince banks to re-negotiate balloon mortgages etc. with owners to avoid foreclosure, which has probably kept a few hundred thousand houses from foreclosing in the last year. That's not to say you're wrong that house prices will continue to decline: nobody really knows the answer to that, but lots of reasonable people think they will. I'm just taking issue with how much emphasis you're putting on the tax credit. It's big, but it is not the whole picture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
The tax credit isn't really going to the sellers, it's going to Home Depot, handymen, Lowe's, Sears, etc. You don't get the credit until after you buy, so most people are either putting it back in savings to replace monies taken for a down payment, or using it to fix up the new house. I don't think that it's inflating existing properties by 8K either. There's been a huge crackdown on appraisals lately. There are a couple programs out there to monetize the tax credit to use as a down payment on a house, but they're mostly geared towards lower income families. Interest rates are fantastic and encouraging people to buy. I'm going to buy because 5.125% interest is historically awesome. Probably won't close until late January so no tax credit for me unless it gets extended. If it does great, if not, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
I dunno, I think it is inflating prices a bit, just because of the large numbers of buyers who are buying mostly because of the tax credit. At the same time, I'm seeing enough investor activity in my area (investors that flip houses or rent them cannot claim the tax credit) that I'm convinced the main motivator for a lot of those people is low interest rates, distressed foreclosed homes that can be renovated for a quick jump in equity, and a lot of people who believe that prices are going to rise in the next few years (e.g., they are timing the market and believe it is at the bottom right now).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
There are a ton of 5 year ARMS out there that will be resetting in 2010/11/12 that have the potential to gently caress with everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 00:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think that's quite correct. Yes, it's going to the sellers... which is what it was for (stimulate purchases). But, if you want a loan, your house still has to appraise for what you're paying, built-in-stimulus or not. Exactly. The house I'm purchasing, we put an offer in that came in about $15k over appraisal. The sellers complained about it and used the $8k credit as one of their reasons, but of course the appraiser doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 01:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think that's quite correct. Yes, it's going to the sellers... which is what it was for (stimulate purchases). But, if you want a loan, your house still has to appraise for what you're paying, built-in-stimulus or not. skipdogg posted:The tax credit isn't really going to the sellers, it's going to Home Depot, handymen, Lowe's, Sears, etc. You don't get the credit until after you buy, so most people are either putting it back in savings to replace monies taken for a down payment, or using it to fix up the new house. I don't think that it's inflating existing properties by 8K either. There's been a huge crackdown on appraisals lately. There are a couple programs out there to monetize the tax credit to use as a down payment on a house, but they're mostly geared towards lower income families. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 14:27
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:I'm looking to buy a house in the next year, and I honestly hope Congress gets rid of the $8k tax credit. Its just going to the sellers and taxpayers will have to pay for it. Its jacked up the average home price by much more than $8k, so everyone that bought a house under the program will soon find themselves upside-down on their mortgages. If these people are so bad with money that they'll sign a 20/30-year loan for many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars just to pocket $8,000 in a month or two, they were likely going to gently caress themselves over anyhow, even without the tax credit. Now your complaints about where the money is coming from, yeah, I can agree with you there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 17:35
|
|
|
I just bought a house: 3300 square foot for $158,000 and seller paid for 1 year warranty, $1500 in repairs, $2250 towards closing costs. Roof, carpet, furnace, and paint all redone in the last 4 years. The kitchen needs updating and the decks need paint, but its an awesome house. Best deal in town IMO. 5 bedroom, 3 1/2 baths, 2 living areas, dining room, tons of storage, enclosed porch, patio, multiple decks, manicured backyard. I got a 5% interest rate on a 30 year fha loan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
Ornamented Death posted:If these people are so bad with money that they'll sign a 20/30-year loan for many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars just to pocket $8,000 in a month or two, they were likely going to gently caress themselves over anyhow, even without the tax credit. I think a lot of people are in similar situations as I am. They knew they wanted to buy a house eventually, but didn't foresee being able to do it for years into the future. They had two or three months' rent saved up as their normal cash savings, a reasonable safety margin, but weren't really working hard to accumulate a big hunk of cash for a down payment yet. Then this year, two things happened; prices fell through the floor, and the stimulus became available. Now, suddenly, buying a house is no longer out of reach; prices are so low that a decent house can be had for a much smaller down payment and the monthly costs are close to - or sometimes less than - their current housing costs. What the stimulus does is make it much easier for people like that to afford the minimum down payment (3.5% with FHA). Yes, you don't get the cash till after you buy the house, but a LOT of people can come up with a few thousand by borrowing it from their relatives, with the promise to repay in a few months. A lot more than could just get that money as a gift. A third thing that has happened is that the stock market has recovered, which puts a LOT of people's 401(k)s back into solvency. And you can include your retirement accounts as part of your cash assets for qualifying for a loan. So even if you're living month-to-month, with a small savings and not adding to your savings (aside from retirement contributions) every month... suddenly down + closing costs is possible in the very short term. Without the stimulus, these people would either have to actually extract money from their retirement savings (which 'everyone' knows is bad, pretty much), or start saving money and wait three years (by which time conventional wisdom says either interest rates, or prices, or both, will have rebounded to some degree). If I'm right about that, then the stimulus isn't just a matter of getting idiots who have no business buying, to decide to buy. It turns a marginal decision into an easy one for hundreds of thousands of potential homebuyers. It pushes up the schedule for people. Instead of buying in 2012, they can buy today. And it's a reasonable decision to do so; the $8k is as important as the long-term total cost of the mortgage, because it's today, an immediate change to the huge up-front costs of buying a house that has a real impact. ...and that means that when the stimulus expires, if it is not renewed, housing sales next year are going to be abysmal. Because everyone who was scrimping and saving and getting ready to buy in 2010, did their damndest to buy this year instead. And if it IS renewed, I think millions of people who were two or three years out from buying, but are now two or one year out, will be able to make the stretch and grab a house. It'll keep working. Does that "inflate" prices? Of course it does; anything that increases demand in a market, supports price increases. Does that mean the prices are "artificial"? No, not really. If/when the economy improves (in 2011? 2012?), that will also increase demand (people will go back to work). The goal here is to smooth out a sharp trough, into a wider, shallower one, and so far, it appears to be working. The deadline is just too soon, and if they don't extend the stimulus, we'll still get that sharp trough, only delayed to next year. That makes a very strong argument for continuing the stimulus money, as a way of not wasting what is already spent. If you maintain the program until the worst of the economic downturn is over, you achieve the overall desired result, and (by extension) make it easier for the entire economy itself to recover (it doesn't have as far to go to get back up, if you limit how far down it goes in total). Dik Hz posted:The house is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. The $8k tax credit makes people willing to spend $8k more on houses. Ergo the house is worth $8k more. The house appraises based on comperable sales, which is a trailing indicator. If the $8k credit is supporting prices, then the houses are actually worth more. But low interest rates, the stock market recovery, and other factors are also supporting prices, and thus, it's incorrect to claim that the $8k is the only thing keeping prices (at least $8k) above what they "ought" to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 21:40
|
|
|
GOOCHY posted:How'd you manage to not pay origination fees, etc.? Sorry I didn't clarify this. I refinanced through the same bank, and there were no origination fees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yay stimulus 1. housing prices historically match wages for a given market, and they're still significantly above their historic average. 2: The stimulus money comes from taxpayers. leperflesh posted:The house appraises based on comperable sales, which is a trailing indicator. If the $8k credit is supporting prices, then the houses are actually worth more. But low interest rates, the stock market recovery, and other factors are also supporting prices, and thus, it's incorrect to claim that the $8k is the only thing keeping prices (at least $8k) above what they "ought" to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 04:35
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:The $8k is going directly to the sellers, and housing prices will most likely go down when the program ends. If we presume that house prices are inflated by $8K then you could think of it this way, but there is more to look at. Sure the seller gets their $8K from you, you take on an additional $8K on your mortgage, but you get the $8K cash. You are, at worst, taking out a $8K home equity line of credit at the same rate as your mortgage with no additional fees (a pretty good deal). No one is really losing anything unless you are "overpaying" for the home by more than $8K. And when you start getting into that much money hopefully the appraisal and comparable properties will disqualify you from doing something stupid. Lets say you are looking at a home for $108K, putting your 20% (21.6K) down which will deplete your savings completely. After you close you will replenish your savings to $8K. If you waited till after the credit, you may be able to buy the house for $100K, put $20K down, and your savings will be $1.6K, a pretty big difference. The $6400 difference in the mortgages won't account for a whole heck of a lot of money per month and you aren't underwater if you put the appropriate money down on the house. This is pretty simplified, but its the exact reason I bought in May. I don't feel like I overpaid at all, I'm out of an apartment into a significantly cheaper house, and have the money to fix things that break.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:If we presume that house prices are inflated by $8K then you could think of it this way, but there is more to look at. Sure the seller gets their $8K from you, you take on an additional $8K on your mortgage, but you get the $8K cash. You are, at worst, taking out a $8K home equity line of credit at the same rate as your mortgage with no additional fees (a pretty good deal). Arzakon posted:No one is really losing anything unless you are "overpaying" for the home by more than $8K.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Here's the deal: Your house will be worth $8k less after the stimulus goes away. Not only that, but you're buying into the tail-end of a still inflated market. You will have $8K less equity in your house after the stimulus goes away, you will also have $8K in your pocket. Thanks, I guess? Tell me how this affects me any differently than any other wasteful government program. Other than the fact this one benefited me directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 14:41
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:Tell me how this affects me any differently than any other wasteful government program. Let me speculate for a bit (pun intended  ). Without the stimulus, housing prices would have continued their correction back to their historic levels. Or maybe over-corrected, as often happens in bubbles. So you could have bought the same house for much less money. Enough less to make the $8k look like walking around money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 15:00
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it all depends on your market. I live in a fairly small area and I don't think prices have moved much either way the last couple of years for the majority of homes. Granted, there has been a drop in price of the "premium" homes (sub development newer construction mini mcmansions), but the majority of the homes in the area are not these flash homes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 16:58
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:The increased demand sent houses up more than $8k. You're ignoring the stimulus aspect of the stimulus. Do you think that if they had not provided the $8k stimulus, and therefore a lot fewer people were shopping for houses this year, and therefore housing prices dropped a lot more... that otherwise, the US economy would be unchanged/unaffected? Because I don't. The goal of the government is not simply to keep housing prices up. It's to ward off further disastrous economic collapse. The stimulus is attempting to keep banks solvent by decreasing the losses they're taking on foreclosed homes. It's also attempting to allow more people who are unable to make their payments to manage a short sale (which becomes increasingly hard to get your bank to agree to, the more your house's sale price drops below what you owe on it). The point being, "you could have bought the house for much less money" is only true if, in your alternate no-stimulus scenario, he still had a job. Which is not at all a given, unless you believe that the stimulus has had no effect on the wider economy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
If house prices overcorrected to below historic levels without the stimulus, I'm almost certain we'd have a foreclosure rate never before seen in the history of the US and combined with other factors including unemployment, we're probably looking at a sequence of events probably leading to something worse than the Great Depression (likely a revolution or something as catastrophic). Look at what's happening in Detroit, for example. At that point I won't give a poo poo about my money but my life. I'd love for houses to correct to historical levels of a sound economy because I like stability and all. But I'm deathly scared the consequences would make the scenario of $10 / gallon gas look pretty peachy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You're ignoring the stimulus aspect of the stimulus. Do you think that if they had not provided the $8k stimulus, and therefore a lot fewer people were shopping for houses this year, and therefore housing prices dropped a lot more... that otherwise, the US economy would be unchanged/unaffected? Because I don't. Remember this awesome graph that people kept touting out to get the stimulus bills passed?  What happened?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 19:47
|
|
|
It's impossible to prove a negative. Nobody can know what might have happened without the stimulus. I'd be a fool or an idiot to make the attempt. Whether or not you believe stimulus works depends on whether or not you cleave to modern theories of macroeconomics. That said, I think it's difficult to assert that the stimulus both had an effect on house prices - which you have said - and also assert that it had no effect on the broader economy. To do that, you'd have to believe that house prices and sales have no economic impact. Which again is not something I'm going to even attempt to prove or disprove. If that's what you believe, that's fine... I suspect you'd be in the minority, though. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's impossible to prove a negative. Nobody can know what might have happened without the stimulus. I'd be a fool or an idiot to make the attempt. Stimulus money isn't free money. It comes from somewhere. If you take $8k from one sector of the economy and give it to another sector, you haven't changed GDP or wages or employment or anything else significantly overall. However, that one particular sector that got the boost is affected signifcantly. Its like a a guy taking a cash advance on his credit card. His NAV is still exactly the same, but hey, he's got $8k more cash to spend right now. (And some pretty significant liabilities in the future.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 21:22
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:Stimulus money isn't free money. It comes from somewhere. Y'all aren't going to reach consensus here. Either deficit spending in a recession is throwing good money after bad or it's a stabilizing factor that more than pays off over the long run. No one knows, but most modern economic theory points to the latter. And the levels of interest paid on cash advances is generally higher than the interest rate of government debt. It's the same trap that people fall into on a personal scale when they talk about debt avoidance. Quite often debt is useful, sometimes even when the interest rates are usurious, if the outcome has a higher expected value. Since you can't compute the expected value exactly, and on a personal scale you only get one shot, most people will recommend fairly conservative debt management practices - go into debt for your education or for a mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 21:43
|
|
|
Engineer Lenk posted:Y'all aren't going to reach consensus here. Either deficit spending in a recession is throwing good money after bad or it's a stabilizing factor that more than pays off over the long run. No one knows, but most modern economic theory points to the latter. And the levels of interest paid on cash advances is generally higher than the interest rate of government debt. Please allow me to speculate again. If what Leperflesh says is true and a significant number of people are buying houses now that were planning on buying in the next 6-36 months, we might be experiencing a mini-bubble right now. Just look at the new car sales since cash for clunkers expired. I suspect a similar thing will happen with housing sales after the tax credit goes away. The combination of houses still be above their historic averages and expected low demand will result in sharp declines post-stimulus. Meaning, I hope the people in most markets that bought a house under the program are planning on staying in their houses for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 22:10
|
|
|
You make an excellent argument for why the tax credit should be extended until the economic crisis is over. Thanks, chief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 22:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You make an excellent argument for why the tax credit should be extended until the economic crisis is over. Thanks Think long term again. If the stimulus is lengthened, you'll eventually reach a steady state in which the number of home buyers would be the same as if there were no stimulus in the first place. That is, the increase in demand will level off. You'll still have the correction from ending the stimulus when it ends, and you'll burn through 100's of billions of dollars of tax payer money every year the stimulus is in effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 22:30
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:You'll still have the correction from ending the stimulus when it ends Yes. Always. The idea is to have this happen when the economy is on the upswing, and therefore can absorb a hit, rather than happening while the economy is on the downswing. It is clear to me that your objection stems mostly from the "taxpayer mooooneeeey" angle and has little to do with whether or not you think it would be effective. You object to the government taking your hard-earned dollars and giving it to people to buy things. That is a perfectly reasonable standpoint and lots of people share it. Why don't you just be honest and stick to it, instead of trying to argue that the really pretty basic premise of stimulus is somehow blatantly, obviously impossible and only idiots could support it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 22:35
|
|
|
Arguing over whether the house credit is a good thing should probably go in another BFC or D&D thread - I don't mind discussion about the ramifications for home buyers but I'd rather not have this devolve into a discussion about public policy since those always seem to end up as shitfests. You've made some good points but pure speculation about the stimulus' effect, good or bad, on the economy as a whole is not really what this thread is about. edit: Now that I think about it, Dik Hz, that would be a really interesting thread and would probably draw out some new discussion from people who are not buying a house (and so aren't reading this thread). I heartily endorse the idea 
moana fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
Just closed on my house.  A quick question: I'm filling out the 1040X and 5405 for my $8000. It doesn't ask me anywhere to state the purchase price or provide proof of my having bought the house. Do I need to attach something to it when I send it in, or do they just trust me and all I need to send is the forms?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 00:35
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Just closed on my house. I'm closing on Wed. Is there a guide to amending returns for the $8k? That is, a guide you have actually used and liked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
I'm contemplating buying soon and while I'm not concerned so much about missing the $8000 credit, I am concerned about interest rates increasing. Basically if rates go up X%, prices have to decrease Y% to keep the real cost the same. I ran a quick model in excel where I calculated the payment for a 5.5% loan and ran the NPV for the same payments at different rates. Then I calculated the difference from the price and the NPV at each percent and got the following table:   For example reading this chart - if rates go from 5.5% to 6.0% the price would have to come down by 5.27% to keep the cost the same, if rates went from 5.5 to 6.5 the price would have to come down 10.11%. Does this make sense? I was pretty surprised when I got the actual numbers, I didn't think it would have that large of an impact. If anyone has any comments or critique I would appreciate it. Daeus fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 03:28
|
|
|
You've got the right idea, you pay a LOT of interest on a 30-year amortization, so the interest rate has a rather strong affect on the cost of the house. Note that the discount rate you use in the NPV calculation will heavily influence the results. So you may want to run low, mid, and high discount rates to get a idea of how things change with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 04:34
|
|
|
I would really like to see the credit NOT be extended. A realtor was quoted in the washington post saying something like she was seeing people overbidding by more than $8K just to get the credit, even as they were being told they were overpaying. You know it must be insane if a realtor is admitting someone overpaid. The one thing that might keep the credit from getting extended is the news about the fraud with regards to claiming the credit. I would still bet my money on it being extended until June because it is "good politics" and the NAR\NAHB have a ton of money to throw at getting this thing passed. The question is, if it gets extended until June, what happens in June? Does the NAR go nuts again about how the credit needs to be extended again? At some point the credit will end and housing will have to recover without the subsidy. Lord knows what kind of bubbly chaos will insue if they make it $15K for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
Daeus posted:Does this make sense? I was pretty surprised when I got the actual numbers, I didn't think it would have that large of an impact. If anyone has any comments or critique I would appreciate it. It makes sense, but you have to note that despite the 5-10% different in house price needed, it won't affect your total payment by 5-10%. It feels lower because you typically add on another $150-250 in taxes and insurance in the same payment and you aren't feeling it as much. It still sucks though! Sorry to get into the argument of whether or not the stimulus should or should exist/get extended. I really don't care either way. What should be talked about in here is whether or not people should buy if the stimulus exists and I think there are many situations where it would be smart to buy now if you get $8,000 and not smart to buy if you don't. The majority of the time in here it is a matter of the person not being in the position to buy regardless of the $8,000 and the extra money is tricking them into thinking its a good idea. For example, having $0 in the bank, borrowing $8,000 from daddy under the table for the 3.5% Down Payment and Closing Costs, and buying a home when you have $0 saved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yes. Always. The idea is to have this happen when the economy is on the upswing, and therefore can absorb a hit, rather than happening while the economy is on the downswing. Arzakon posted:The majority of the time in here it is a matter of the person not being in the position to buy regardless of the $8,000 and the extra money is tricking them into thinking its a good idea. For example, having $0 in the bank, borrowing $8,000 from daddy under the table for the 3.5% Down Payment and Closing Costs, and buying a home when you have $0 saved. I know a lot of people who bought houses because of the tax credit without thinking the whole thing through. Going back to your $100k house example. If someone buys the $100k house for $108k and gets $8k in cash, what will happen if the market corrects back to its historic average?  The new home buyer will lose $8k (~8%) in equity right off the bat when the stimulus goes away. And another ~17% if the market goes back to its pre-bubble state. So unless they put >20% down, they're underwater right off the bat. Keep in mind, I'm only talking about houses as investments. There are many great reasons to own a house. If its the right time for your family to buy a house and you plan on living there until you have significant equity, it shouldn't matter what the market is doing. However, I'm concerned that the stimulus is encouraging a lot of people to buy houses that don't plan on living in them long-term. And its setting up the market for a sharp correction when the stimulus goes away. I speculate that this will lead to a large number of people upside-down on their mortgages and unhappy with their decision to buy a house under the $8k tax credit program.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 13:54
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Note that the discount rate you use in the NPV calculation will heavily influence the results. So you may want to run low, mid, and high discount rates to get a idea of how things change with that. Sorry, maybe I didn't explain my approach well enough but there aren't high/low scenarios. I started with a 'base' rate of 5.5% and calculated what the payment would be on a $100,000 loan and got $567.79. To double check I did a NPV calculation on a steam of 360 payments of $567.79 at 5.5% discount and as expected this came back at $100,000. For the next data point, I did the NPV of the same 360 payments at $567.79 but with a 5.6% discount rate and the NPV was $98,904.34. This means, assuming the exact same payment structure, with a 5.5% loan you can pay for $100,000 loan, but if it is 5.6% you can pay for a $98,904 loan. You can effectively buy $1,096 less house, but since the 100,000 was just a plug-in value, the correct way to look at it is as a percentage of 1.09% less house. Do you see what I mean there aren't other scenarios? To play devil's advocate to my own model, this obviously doesn't take into account a number real world things: 1) Not staying in the property for 30 years 2) Refinancing down the road. 3) Changes in down payment amount due to saving for an additional year 4) Taxes/Insurance which are really tied to the value of the house and not the interest rate. Still I feel that overall though this is something to be worried about. Just look at the difference between 5.5 and 6.5% - over 10%! Daeus fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Oct 27, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Inept posted:Sorry I didn't clarify this. I refinanced through the same bank, and there were no origination fees. I don't get how you managed to do this. I've talked to 5 different banking institutions and none of them, including my current lender (BoA, formerly Countrywide) are willing to waive the origination fees on a refinance. Are you sure they didn't just fold that fee into your total loan amount?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 15:51
|
|