|
The way I see it, the way healthcare costs are skyrocketing you will end up spending all of your retirement funds at the hospital unless you have millions of dollars or an absolutely ironclad retiree healthcare plan. If you have less, may as well enjoy what money you have now, since you're hosed either way later.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
You're probably joking, but... yeah, you can't track a current trend and just project an increase indefinitely into the future. That's what people in 2005 were doing while tracking real estate prices and it was equally ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Isn't it mostly fabricated as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You're probably joking, but... yeah, you can't track a current trend and just project an increase indefinitely into the future. That's what people in 2005 were doing while tracking real estate prices and it was equally ludicrous. So what you're saying is that it's foolish to invest in the stock market as a whole because there's absolutely no way the market can maintain the average growth it has over the past 60 years? There is a very good argument to be made that the concept of retirement is dead when the economy has no more room to grow. Point being - housing is not an investment. It's a consumer good with huge expenses that has, occasionally, provided decent returns. The conditions to maintain those returns are very, very unlikely to occur again, given the need of the Boomers to downsize since they're no longer able to retire thanks to a tanked economy. Meanwhile, the current generation is finding a worse and worse job landscape, depressing wages while the cost of essentials such as transportation and healthcare continues to rise. Guess what's going to happen to all of these "wonderful" suburban developments when gasoline stays above $5/gallon in a few years?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Froglin posted:He said he is willing to leave the mortgage as-is IF it's the only possible way I can stay here. I'm thinking there's got to be a way to arrange a "rental contract" between the two of you, just so it's all official and legal through the divorce, with both of you protected from the shenanigans that eventually crop up when people get farther down the road. Basically something like you agree to pay his half of the mortgage as rent to him, and he owns half the equity or liability when the time comes to sell it. As of now he's exposed anyway, so at least that way he'd have a chance of some profit if the market turns around. On the other hand there could be tax filing headaches because in effect he'd have a zero profit investment property, and you'd have to divide the interest deduction or something. Might be worth talking to a lawyer about, it shouldn't be too hard to draw up an agreement like that which covers all the bases and gets you what you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Shipon posted:So what you're saying is that it's foolish to invest in the stock market as a whole because there's absolutely no way the market can maintain the average growth it has over the past 60 years? There is a very good argument to be made that the concept of retirement is dead when the economy has no more room to grow. That's not exactly what I'm saying, although it's not an unreasonable interpretation. What I'm saying is that you can't look at an upward-sloping line on a chart and assume it will continue to slope upwards forever... you need to have more knowledge than that. If there are factors which limit the upward slope, something which sets a hard cieling, a negative-feedback loop, anything like that, then you can reasonably predict a flattening or downturn. On the other hand, if there are positive-feedback factors and no ceiling, then you can perhaps predict the slope will get steeper. For the question raised (healthcare costs), there are ceilings and negative feedback loops. Specifically, people cannot spend more than 100% of their income on healthcare, period. (Well they can, by borrowing, but eventually they hit their borrowing limit and go bankrupt, and the creditors lose all the money, so there's still a hard limit.) There's softer ceilings as you approach that limit, obviously. Eventually, by the logic of forever-increasing health costs, everyone on earth spends 100% of their weatlh on health care and we all starve to death. The government also cannot increase how much it borrows and spends every year without limit: at some point either politicians put the brakes on, or the government goes bust and defaults on its debt. (Bad news, but that's not the point.) But the stock market is kind of different, because nobody really invests in "the stock market"; they invest in individual companies that are listed on one of several exchanges. Or if they buy mutual funds, they invest in baskets of specific stocks, selected and weighted by someone who exercises some form of judgment on what stocks to include. Indexes also track subsets of the whole market: even if you buy an index fund for one of the broadest indexes (Russel 5000, say), you're still not buying into every stock on "the stock market" by a long shot. And of course, when a company goes busto, it drops off the market or gets de-listed; and when new companies go public, they get added to the lists. So there's a constant turnover, and "the stock market" today isn't the same thing as the one 60 years ago or 40 years ago or whatever. But if we assume that the percentage of all companies in the country (or the world) which are publicly held stays roughly the same over time, then we can say that an expansion of the whole stock market represents an expansion of economic activity, and likewise for retractions, and therefore we can say the stock market as a whole is an indicator - not at 100% correlation, of course, but a useful measure none the less - of overall economic growth. (Privately-held companies obviously complicate this measure, but there are ways to measure total economic output across both public and private - such as GDP. And if you look at a chart of GDP, it has consistently risen long-term in the US as well, and the stock market tends to track it pretty nicely.) In that sense, yes, I can predict it will continue to grow in the long term, at least for the next half-century or more, and tracking globally; because both US and global population is growing, and economic activity particularly in developing nations is growing pretty quickly. Not uniformly, of course, but a greater percentage of total humans are joining the modern economy than ever before, and they are bringing the fruits of their labor into that economy. I think that's a reasonably safe bet. Money isn't a zero-sum game: the more people work, and the more their productivity rises, the more total wealth there is in the world. I have never seen or read anything that convinces me that this cannot continue to take place for at least the rest of my life, if not for centuries. (I am not saying it must do so! Only that I am not convinced that it cannot do so.) But the real question isn't "will the stock market grow forever" - it's "is the stock market a safer bet than real estate". I dunno. But that's what diversification is all about. By not putting all your eggs in one basket, you improve the odds that you won't be wiped out completely by events that are isolated to just one class of investment. We've certainly seen in the last century or two, many many events which heavily impacted some classes of investment while leaving others relatively unscathed. And we've seen abundant evidence very recently that real estate is, in addition to being expensive and heavily taxed and illiquid and having large transaction costs, genuinely risky. And if you think "at least I still have land and land is never worthless", go look at Detroit. It is possible for a plot of dirt with a derelict building on it to have negative value. Hence my advice: the guy who has 100% of his net worth tied up in a house, should not double down and buy another house... and while believing the stock market is doomed is not indefensible (even if I disagree), believing it's doomed based entirely on the assertion that because health care costs have grown at x% for the last decade, they must therefore continue to grow at x% forever, is faulty logic. There has to be more to it than that. Also deciding that you'd rather die than get old... anyone who seriously says that is, I would think, perhaps mentally ill in some way. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Sep 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
To be fair, I was thinking my parents and my roommates parents could help us with the down-payment, then our "rent" would be us paying off the mortgage. However if we moved out, we'd have to find tenants or high a management company to take care of that. I'm not sure if we can get it arranged so the rent payments are greater than mortgage payments, nor am I sure if the management fees will strip out all the profits, so that's that. If it can be pulled off, I don't see asking parents to help us by a home to be a "terrible" thing to do to my retiring folks. It seems pretty common, actually. I was hoping to get advice so we don't make too many newbie mistakes, but I guess I'm just hearing "Don't do it" which equals "rent forever"... Eventually, I'd like to not rent and unless I want to live in a shack, I'll need help with the down-payment, as most young people would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 06:46
|
|
|
cannibustacap posted:To be fair, I was thinking my parents and my roommates parents could help us with the down-payment, then our "rent" would be us paying off the mortgage. However if we moved out, we'd have to find tenants or high a management company to take care of that. Unless your parents are Scrooge McDuck loaded, this is not a good idea (it is still a bad idea even then). If they're willing to help you with the down payment, have them gift you the funds. If it's a <80% loan to value situation then the entire down payment can be gift funds. Hopefully you can qualify for the loan on your own income/debt wise. Don't get roommates involved, the bank probably (definitely) won't go for it and it will end in tears.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
cannibustacap posted:To be fair, I was thinking my parents and my roommates parents could help us with the down-payment, then our "rent" would be us paying off the mortgage. However if we moved out, we'd have to find tenants or high a management company to take care of that. Do NOT buy a house with people you're not married to. What are you a child? Your parents have to take care of themselves. You should start saving money and acting like an adult. Don't keep living off of them. Rent until you can save up 20%. It's not the same as never and it won't kill you. Saving the money yourself serves two purposes. One, it shows you have the financial discipline to pay the bills that will come with home ownership. And two, it forces you to think harder about what you can really afford. Don't take short-cuts you lazy impatient child. And do NOT buy property with other people. You'll end up screwing yourself or screwing your friends. Either way, the results aren't good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
cannibustacap posted:To be fair, I was thinking my parents and my roommates parents could help us with the down-payment, then our "rent" would be us paying off the mortgage. However if we moved out, we'd have to find tenants or high a management company to take care of that. I'm young, and right now I could afford a substantial down payment (over 20% if I wanted to) on pretty much any house I would want in my area. However, I am also in grad school and don't know if I am staying here for a while, or if I want to chain myself to a house in this economy. So, I am very happy paying rent in my wonderful townhome. My parents do all right for themselves and I would never, ever consider asking them to buy my a house. They need that money for retirement. There are no loans for that. If you can't afford a down payment, you can't afford a house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
I bought my house at the age of 35. I have a career, a wife, savings for retirement, and know that I'd be fine living here right into retirement if that's the way things go. Despite all that, I still probably should have waited a couple more years. I took a gift from my mom to help pay for the fees & costs - but there's a huge difference between a little financial help from Mom, and asking (or allowing) parents to devote a substantial fraction of their life savings to buying your house for you. If you're still young, what's the rush? Waiting ten or fifteen years is not "waiting forever" and a hell of a lot can change in your life, your job, your family, your goals, and your plans, in that length of time. If you buy at 35 and get a 30-year loan, even if you only make the minimum payments, you'll be able to retire at 65 with a fully paid-off house. That's reasonable. cannibustacap posted:I guess I'm just hearing "Don't do it" which equals "rent forever"... Absolutely nobody has said this, so if you're hearing it, you're hearing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
cannibustacap posted:Eventually, I'd like to not rent and unless I want to live in a shack, I'll need help with the down-payment, as most young people would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
I want to thank you guys for your advice earlier in the year! You told me to pay off my debts then start saving for a house. Well that worked to an extreme. I've paid off all but one debt (student loans). And have already saved enough right now for 8% of a down payment. Still have a ways to go to have down payment + emergency fund saved, but at least now I am saving a bunch of money every month and I don't have to worry about as many bills. Until then I am enjoying living in my rented 950 sq ft "shack". Keep up the good advice giving 
Dbhjed fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Sep 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Dbhjed posted:Well that worked to an extreme. I've paid off all but one debt (student loans). And have already saved enough right now for 8% of a down payment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
moana posted:That is awesome, congratulations! Aren't you planning on getting married soon? Hopefully the wedding won't eat up too much of those savings. Or do you have it budgeted separately? I have that budgeted separately but if things go over a bit I can always dip into the savings. Also being on a strict budget really helps you realize the crap spending habits acquired. 10 dollars here 5 dollars there really adds up at the end of the month. I am feeling really comfortable about my position when I do get a house. For now it is awesome seeing the bank account getting bigger and bigger. It is also great not having to worry about 5 bills a month (and the money wasted on interest). Also on the DO NEVER BUY trend of this thread, about a week ago I noticed some of the floor boards in my apartment were starting to warp, but I couldn't figure out why. Then on the next hot day I went to go and turn my ac off noticing the floor was really wet. Well the fix meant I needed a new ac, carpet, and a good amount of floor boards replaced. Since it was apartment equipment that failed I didn't have to pay a single penny, I could only imagine the cost if I had to pay for it. If this would have happened and I had just bought a house I would have been SCREWED with my old plan. As much as it is shoved into our heads while growing up that buying a house is something we HAVE to do, it is ok to rent until you get EVERYTHING in order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Dbhjed posted:I have that budgeted separately but if things go over a bit I can always dip into the savings. It's ok to rent forever if that's what you desire. Owning a home is not something everyone MUST do. I'd argue that it only makes sense for families with children and that otherwise you're foregoing flexibility for the eventuality of not having to pay a mortgage or rent. A home in that sense is basically another form of consumer good, and not a necessary investment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
nelson posted:There is so much wrong with this. Crap. Seconding this only from an entirely different perspective. I went in on a house with my mother figuring that I would be caring for her for the rest of her life. What a horrible idea. My dream come true turned into a loving nightmare. She went completely psychotic, stopped taking her meds, and I had to leave due to domestic violence reasons. Ever consider explaining to people that your insane mother is attempting to assault you? Trapping you in your own home? Waking you up by screaming at you in the middle of the night for no reason? Yeah. Now I have a foreclosure and I just finally filed bankruptcy so that the bank can't come after me for the difference in the auction price and the mortgage. And the sheriff still hasn't managed to extract her crazy rear end out of the house. It's been 3 years since I got the gently caress out of the crazy house. 3 years! And the sheriff still can't get her out! I lost a ton of money on closing costs and the down payment. Not to mention the hard, physical labor I was putting into the house and property every day. I also lost my horse and my goat and my dogs because of this poo poo. It was bad enough that the fiance and I aren't even going to tie our funds together when we eventually get a house. It will be his house or my house and the other one will pay "rent", if even that. gently caress that poo poo. Do never buy folks. You don't want this headache. The worst part of this is, I could absolutely afford what I bought. It was exactly what I always wanted. It was amazing. But I couldn't get her out of the house. Crazy, psychotic woman who was a threat to me. Now I don't talk to anyone on that side of my family and I never will again. I just couldn't afford to pay a mortgage and rent at the same time while I attempted to get her extracted. Yay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
Yeah, on a similar note, my parents spent a good while trying to convince me to buy a house with them during the bubble and I refused on several grounds. They were planning on leaving the country for their retirement and wanted some place carved out instead of being in a hotel when they visited. Well recently they had to declare bankruptcy and that would mean that I'd have to cover their portion of the mortgage too while they got their business sorted out. Buying a house has enough risks as it is when the economy is going great, tripling-down on it by buying with friends or even family is not recommended unless you truly are the loving Brady Bunch and even if you guys shot each other in the face you'd smile and go "gee, I don't hold it against them!" completely without question. At that point I'd consider you crazy anyway, so point proven.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
Can someone just back me up here. I think I have several mortgage brokers who don't know what they're talking about. On a FHA refinance with 15year terms, if the LTV is less than 89.99%, there should be no annual mortgage insurance premium, correct? It's very clearly referenced here http://www.fhaoutreach.gov/FHAHandbook/prod/infomap.asp?address=4155-2.7.3.c , but somehow, after talking to FOUR mortgage brokers now, they all disagree with me. Then there is this letter, which, while not mentioning timeframes, indicates that MIP on <90% 15 years was increased from none to .25bpp. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=11-10ml.pdf So I don't know what to think. But this letter was issued a month before the last revision to the first link, so it seems unlikely that it wouldn't have been added in. And http://www.fhaoutreach.gov/FHAHandbook/prod/updates.asp confirms that 4155.2 (the first link) has been updated with Letter 11-10 (the second link). There is a mistake somewhere, or I'm reading something incorrectly. Someone set me straight, please. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 05:10
|
|
|
cannibustacap posted:Eventually, I'd like to not rent and unless I want to live in a shack, I'll need help with the down-payment, as most young people would. I'm curious where you live. I understand some regions of the US are still high but for the majority, aren't prices at crazy low numbers? If you cant save 20% deposit at those prices, then you probably cant afford a house payment/insurances/taxes etc! Or move to Australia and then bitch about having to save 20%. Ugh. Bring on a downfall of ridiculous prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Can someone just back me up here. I think I have several mortgage brokers who don't know what they're talking about. On a FHA refinance with 15year terms, if the LTV is less than 89.99%, there should be no annual mortgage insurance premium, correct? The first link is outdated. Not sure what you mean for the second link about time frames not being mentioned, it states the cutoff date on 4 out of 5 pages of the memo what the effective date is. For FHA loans with case numbers assigned on or after April 18th of this year, on a 15 year mortgage the annual mortgage insurance premium for loans between 78-90% is .25%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
Captain Windex posted:The first link is outdated. Not sure what you mean for the second link about time frames not being mentioned, it states the cutoff date on 4 out of 5 pages of the memo what the effective date is. For FHA loans with case numbers assigned on or after April 18th of this year, on a 15 year mortgage the annual mortgage insurance premium for loans between 78-90% is .25%. Thanks for answering. What about below 78%? This is a refinance in the works right now and the LTV is around 75%. Sorry, I wasn't clear with that in the first post. What I meant by time frame is that it doesn't mention anything about the 5 year rule or any changes in that respect (and since 15 year loans never even had the 5 year rule- it was just whenever the loan drops below 78%- which is what a big part of what has me confused) not the date that the new rules take effect. It seems odd that the first link is outdated when the third link clearly says the first link has been updated with the second link (heh, a little convoluted but true.), I guess someone just hosed up. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
Below 78% there is no annual mortgage insurance on a 15 year. Generally speaking the "5 year rules" apply to having the mortgage insurance fall off your current loan, and are unrelated to any potential refinance. That said, I only work on conventional loans so I don't know the details about FHA refis. Looking at the links you mentioned, I have to say I'm not all that surprised that there would be conflicting info given how much bullshit cross referencing FHA apparently does about it's guideline updates. Incidentally, if you're at 75% is there a particular reason you're still going FHA? Generally the rates are better conventional at that loan to value.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
Captain Windex posted:Below 78% there is no annual mortgage insurance on a 15 year. Generally speaking the "5 year rules" apply to having the mortgage insurance fall off your current loan, and are unrelated to any potential refinance. That said, I only work on conventional loans so I don't know the details about FHA refis. Looking at the links you mentioned, I have to say I'm not all that surprised that there would be conflicting info given how much bullshit cross referencing FHA apparently does about it's guideline updates. The loan is not for myself, and the person it is for has a Chapter 7 2.5 years ago so the top tier conventional rates are out of the question from most lenders. The FHA rate I managed to track down is 3.5% so that's pretty good I think considering credit history. Please correct me if I'm wrong, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
Ah, yeah, a bankruptcy fucks you for 4 years minimum on conventional.
Captain Windex fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Sep 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 08:20
|
|
|
edit: Problem solved, but to keep with the DNB sentiment. I don't have an exact # but I'm going to say between the contractor costs and supplies my gut renovated bathroom is running me $13k. For a 4x6' NYC bathroom. Yeah. DNB, unless you wanna spend your money on tile and thermostatic shower valves. senor punk fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
Do FHA loans have to be only through certain banks? I applied for pre-approval on a 30 year fixed (loan down payment and first time home buyer selections checked) and they are declining me because of me not-long-enough credit history (and small down payment). No one even mentioned "FHA" until I brought it up. DO NEVER BUY Statement. I didn't really even want to consider this until I found out I qualified for a government employee discounted house program. I don't even want to buy now at this time, but to get on the list you have to get in under certain requirements. Now this process is turning in to a cluster of "Well this is good but this isn't, but now this is good but how about this, Let me check with the Bank". I know I should have just continued to rent. Funny part is I'd pay 300 a month less if I bought a house under the program then I do at my current rent rate for a one bedroom. NORTHERN VIRGINIA DO NEVER BUY. Untagged fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
Are you using a broker? If not you should be using a broker who will figure all that out for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
I went through my credit union because all I needed was a "Pre-Approval" letter from the bank to get on the list for the housing program. I never actually had to use the loan that was pre-approved once I was able to qualify for the program, wait on the list for several months or a year plus, and then actually see if I can get a discounted home. I just had to show them that "someone" was willing to lend me an amount commensurate with what houses in the program were currently running at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
My house is for sale, well sold. I still have the sign up, as I am waiting on the bank. I know the property says no more showings, but dudes keep coming up asking to buy the house. What, if anything, can be done to combat this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Insignificunt posted:My house is for sale, well sold. I still have the sign up, as I am waiting on the bank. I know the property says no more showings, but dudes keep coming up asking to buy the house. By sold, do you mean under contract? Are you still living in it? If you're adamant on not having buyers approach you, have your Realtor remove the sign. In the unlikely circumstance your deal falls through, it's just added work for your broker. His responsible broker will likely pressure him to keep the sign up until the day of closing, but it's ultimately your decision. I wouldn't be put off by people showing interest in your house though. If it's under contract and not closed, you would be remiss by turning off buyers in the event that your current deal falls through. Guacala fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
Dangle one of those "addendum" sub-sign things on the sign. You know, the ones that say "pending" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
senor punk posted:edit: Problem solved, but to keep with the DNB sentiment. That is idiocy. My wife and I gutted our bathroom, which is roughly 15x10, put in heated floor tile, a body sprayer shower system with thermostatic valves, and replaced all the crap faux marble with nice tile for roughly 6k. We also paid pros about 2k for a glass shower enclosure and granite dual vanity counter plus shower shelf. Learn to DIY.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
jackyl posted:That is idiocy. My wife and I gutted our bathroom, which is roughly 15x10, put in heated floor tile, a body sprayer shower system with thermostatic valves, and replaced all the crap faux marble with nice tile for roughly 6k. We also paid pros about 2k for a glass shower enclosure and granite dual vanity counter plus shower shelf. Learn to DIY. Reasons why that isn't an option: 1. I have absolutely no skills in any area related to this. 2. This is my only bathroom, so I don't have the time to learn as I go, especially since I work full time and go to school full time. 3. I'm almost sure my building flat out would not allow that kind of work to be done DIY. 4. Again, haven't actually done tallies, but materials was only ~$3500-4000, contractor was $8600. Probably would have been $6500-7000 but I wanted the tub removed and the room gutted down to the studs, had a shower built.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
You'll never have skills without doing work, so that's a cop out. I don't know NYC, but did you have to get approvals for your changes, for your changes with a contractor drawing, or for the changes with your specific contractor? Edit: iPad typos
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
On the topic of DIY madness (suggesting someone with NO experience put a shower in a NYC apartment building = madness), do permits increase the value of a property compared to a similarly remodeled property without permits?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Reggie Died posted:On the topic of DIY madness (suggesting someone with NO experience put a shower in a NYC apartment building = madness), do permits increase the value of a property compared to a similarly remodeled property without permits? In theory, it means that the work was up to code, which would be preferable to poo poo like the bathroom a few posts up. In practice, nobody asks if that new bathroom you redid had permits pulled.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 14:06
|
|
|
Reggie Died posted:On the topic of DIY madness (suggesting someone with NO experience put a shower in a NYC apartment building = madness), do permits increase the value of a property compared to a similarly remodeled property without permits? No, they don't, but permits show that you did the work right and might sway potential buyers. If only I had asked if the guy who "updated" my house had permits for his work... (here's a hint: no, no, he most certainly did not, nor clearly had any formal plumbing OR electrical experience but DIY'd anyway, and I'm still wondering how the hell the house didn't burn down before I bought it, gutted it, and am allllmost done renovating it.  )
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 15:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Dangle one of those "addendum" sub-sign things on the sign. You know, the ones that say "pending" or whatever. Can I just rip it out? The realtor doesn't even email or call me back. Sick of his smug rear end face in my yard?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
Insignificunt posted:Can I just rip it out? The realtor doesn't even email or call me back. Sick of his smug rear end face in my yard? Your realtor sounds horrible. I don't see what would prevent you from taking the sign down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 18:21
|
|