|
Any of you have experience with houses not appraising? Here's the story - the seller and buyer agree to sell at 300k, a drive-by appraisal is done, and the appraisal comes back at 275k. There was discrepancy in the amount of square footage between the MLS and county info, yet the appraiser didn't go inside and measure it himself. How could can it be an appraisal without the appraiser ever stepping foot inside the property?
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
You contest the appraisal and get another one or two done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Guacala posted:Any of you have experience with houses not appraising? Even if it came in at $300k, I would expect to see the lender reject the appraisal if it was so blatantly a drive-by that it didn't resolve basic facts like square footage. I had an appraisal that was much more sound than that rejected earlier this year. The story I heard at the time was the new appraisal rules have forced a lot of experienced appraisers out and now the process is less crooked in a mortgage fraud kind of way but also less competent in a has any clue what they're doing kind of way. In my case, it was just a matter of ordering another appraisal and waiting for it to also come in at a number that supported the agreed-on price. In your case, it may be a little more difficult since there is now an appraisal out there that doesn't support the sale price. Are you working with a broker? I imagine the next step depends on your lender and the loan product - it may be no big deal or it may be a headache, depending on how much of a stickler the lender is/has to be about that existing appraisal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Guacala posted:There was discrepancy in the amount of square footage between the MLS and county info, yet the appraiser didn't go inside and measure it himself. There are several different types of appraisals that can be performed on a property dependent upon loan type, automated underwriting response, and lender requirements. Sounds like you had a 2055 appraisal (or 1075 if it's a condo) completed which is an exterior only appraisal. As can be imagined from the name, the appraiser only examines the exterior of the home for basic quality/condition values and then uses public records regarding the interior dimensions, room count, etc to complete the appraisal. Since they do not examine the interior of the home, they have no way of confirming the accuracy of the MLS vs county records for gross living area - about all they can do is comment that there is a discrepancy. If you want to have the appraiser address such issues you'd need to get a 1004 full appraisal (aka a 1073 for condos or 1025 for multi unit properties). This type of appraisal involves interior and exterior examination of the property and the appraiser will actually measure square footage and attempt to address issues like square footage discrepancies. Due to the additional review required, they're more expensive than an exterior only appraisal of course. As for what you can do when it doesn't appraise out, you have a couple options. First, you can work with your broker to to try find other/better comparable properties (comps) that are more similar to the property and appeal the value with the appraiser/appraisal management company. Sometimes appraisers miss valid comps, if you make them aware of properties they didn't include they may amend their report to reflect a higher value. When they don't amend their opinion of value the appraiser can at least address why the additional comps are not supportive of value hopefully. If that doesn't work or your appraiser appears to be a moron (not entirely uncommon) you do have the option of ordering a 2nd appraisal. Assuming it does come in higher, you may still have trouble with the lender as you have conflicting opinions of value - which one is more believable? Given what has happened to property values over the last few years lenders are very conscious of appraisals with inflated values. If nothing else you may be able to leverage a reduction in the purchase price of the property - depends on how desperate your seller is but it's not uncommon to see an appraisal come in short and then the purchase price drop accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
Here's what happened - after scouring the appraisal, we noticed the appraiser hadn't used the right square footage from the MLS document; the subject home was 2800 square feet and he had 2000. He submitted a new appraisal at $299k and it was immediately forwarded to the buyer's banker. The problem with exterior appraisals is they are dependent on third party information being accurate because the appraiser doesn't measure or inspect it himself. There's likelihood the county hasn't updated their information and the listing agent has wrong measurements, so it's exposed to larger margins of error. Exterior appraisals are essentially BPOs and I'm astonished the buyer's banker was OK not having an actual appraisal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
Guacala posted:Here's what happened - after scouring the appraisal, we noticed the appraiser hadn't used the right square footage from the MLS document; the subject home was 2800 square feet and he had 2000. He submitted a new appraisal at $299k and it was immediately forwarded to the buyer's banker. Problem now is that you have a $24k increase in value justified solely by using the MLS square footage rather than the county records which should raise some concerns for your lender. You have a large discrepancy in square footage between county records and the MLS - 800 sq ft isn't, generally speaking, a rounding error. The realtor is hardly a disinterested party to the transaction and they're the ones who create the MLS listing. Without the appraiser going in and manually verifying the measurements himself it's impossible to say what the correct square footage is and appraise accordingly. Additionally, such a large discrepancy in square footage is usually indicative of additions having been made the property - were these permitted additions? What was added on? Is the quality of work done in line with the rest of the property? Who knows, the appraiser didn't actually go inside. For my bank non-permitted additions can frequently be deal killers. Personally, if I had the two appraisals come through I'd have some serious concerns about the property. Fortunately my bank doesn't accept exterior only appraisals so I don't have to deal with this particular scenario. That said, your bank may not care and just lets it go through - that they even accepted this appraisal type in the first place is probably a good hint. Exterior only appraisals are basically nuts, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
So we just signed papers and I got a cashier's check for our refinance tonight. The original estimate was that this was gonna cost around $3500 (to refinance $230k down from 5% to 3.75%, FHA streamline refi). However, I instead wrote a check for $1425... and that includes November's mortgage payment, plus two month's insurance and three months' taxes for the Escrow account. Somehow my broker finagled over $6k in credits from the lender, plus there's money from the original FHA mortgage insurance premium that got refunded. So end result? Counting the fact I have no November payment? I just got paid a couple hundred bucks to refi somehow. Now, granted, there can still be some final costs and adjustments, maybe a few hundred bucks, depending on the exact day the thing goes through, since I have to pay the interest on the difference between the closing date, and Nov. 1st. But, still. loving fantastic. Free refi. Do Never Buy, but if you do buy, Do Always Refi (if it makes sense).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
The house we put an offer on has termites in the basement window (the house is 100% stone exterior). Our realtor, who I have grown to think is sneaky, says it's common to have termites on a home that has not been inspected in 20 years. The house also has a radon level of 19.7, but the realtor says it's common because the house has been vacant for a long time since the house is an estate. Is she correct? My husband won't switch realtors because our realtor is the parent of his best friend. PoliSciGirl fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:The house we put an offer on has termites in the basement window (the house is 100% stone exterior). Our realtor, who I have grown to think is sneaky, says it's common to have termites on a home that has not been inspected in 20 years. The house also has a radon level of 19.7, but the realtor says it's common because the house has been vacant for a long time since the house is an estate. Is she correct? The gently caress? Ignore your husband and get a new realtor ASAP. Your realtor should work FOR you, not hand-wave away your concerns. Termites are NOT common, and nobody (formally) inspects their home every so often. I'd put out a bet that there's lead in the paint and asbestos in the insulation as well...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
daggerdragon posted:The gently caress? Ignore your husband and get a new realtor ASAP. Your realtor should work FOR you, not hand-wave away your concerns. Termites are NOT common, and nobody (formally) inspects their home every so often. I'd put out a bet that there's lead in the paint and asbestos in the insulation as well...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:The house we put an offer on has termites in the basement window (the house is 100% stone exterior). Our realtor, who I have grown to think is sneaky, says it's common to have termites on a home that has not been inspected in 20 years. The house also has a radon level of 19.7, but the realtor says it's common because the house has been vacant for a long time since the house is an estate. Is she correct? We just had a radon test come over 100+ bq/m3 on a home. The remedy was a radon mitigation system, but there's no certainty in the removal of the gas. I know of homes in the area that have tested over that number as well. The amount of radon may also depend on how the home was built, especially when built over gravel, which allows the gas to permeate within. It's haphazard for a realtor to be dismissive of radon, termites, or anything that could negatively affect the use of the property. It doesn't seem she has your best interest in mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:The house we put an offer on has termites in the basement window (the house is 100% stone exterior). Our realtor, who I have grown to think is sneaky, says it's common to have termites on a home that has not been inspected in 20 years. The house also has a radon level of 19.7, but the realtor says it's common because the house has been vacant for a long time since the house is an estate. Is she correct? This is the EPA Citizens Guide for Radon http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/citguide.html#risk charts As you can see 20 pci/l is the highest they bother to show a stat for and is well above the recommended safe level. Termites are bad news. Like ants, you will never see just 1. If you found them somewhere in the house, odds are good they are most places in the house. As for your ealtor, well, waving stuff like that away is not good. When I bought my home our realtor insisted we get a termite and radon inspection and before we got results of either back spent a good amount of time trying to impress upon us the NOT to ignore results of tests like that. You are hiring this person, they should be working for you, as an advocate of your interests. If they are not taking your concerns seriously, do not work with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 13:37
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:So we just signed papers and I got a cashier's check for our refinance tonight. Maybe this was earlier in the thread but can you give me a quick rundown on how a broker works in this situation and how I would find one? We want to refi immediately but it seems like having a broker paid off for you big time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 13:45
|
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:The house we put an offer on has termites in the basement window (the house is 100% stone exterior). Our realtor, who I have grown to think is sneaky, says it's common to have termites on a home that has not been inspected in 20 years. The house also has a radon level of 19.7, but the realtor says it's common because the house has been vacant for a long time since the house is an estate. Is she correct? Frankly, your husband is being a fool. Essentially what is happening is that you're accepting the risk of massive costs in the future, and health to yourself and children (if you have, or will have them) at the expense of possibly offending a family friend. Really? Think about that a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
daggerdragon posted:Ignore your husband and get a new realtor ASAP. Your realtor should work FOR you, not hand-wave away your concerns. Is such a thing possible or advisable? We were in a similar situation earlier this year where our realtor was more batting for the other team. Everyone I know told me that we couldn't separate gracefully from the realtor because there is a professional network where people know each other, and it would be detrimental to other realtors to be seen as taking clients away from one of theirs. So in effect nobody would want to work with us (in the area, in a useful time frame). It's all water under the bridge for us at this point, but I have no way of knowing whether this is a real concern and I've always wondered whether we should have kicked her out. ETA: PSGirl, if you have any way of changing realtors, do it, or at least be very hard on the one you got. Downplaying concerns such as you describe is a giant red flag.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
hey santa baby posted:Is such a thing possible or advisable? We were in a similar situation earlier this year where our realtor was more batting for the other team. Everyone I know told me that we couldn't separate gracefully from the realtor because there is a professional network where people know each other, and it would be detrimental to other realtors to be seen as taking clients away from one of theirs. So in effect nobody would want to work with us (in the area, in a useful time frame). I can't imagine this would really be the case in such a commission-driven business. Unless you're in a very small town, with no competition, these guys are usually tripping over eachother to steal business. Realtors are a dime-a-dozen, and most are utter poo poo. If/when you find a good one, hold on to them for dear life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
hey santa baby posted:Is such a thing possible or advisable? We were in a similar situation earlier this year where our realtor was more batting for the other team. You should be able to obtain a mutual agreement to terminate the agency. It's definitely frowned upon if a realtor forces clients to remain in the contract. When looking at properties, always try to sign a Non-Exclusive Agreement to Represent Buyers. That way, if you decide your realtor isn't right for you, usually you are free to work with another agent without owing any commission to the bad agent. TraderStav posted:I can't imagine this would really be the case in such a commission-driven business. Unless you're in a very small town, with no competition, these guys are usually tripping over eachother to steal business. Realtors are a dime-a-dozen, and most are utter poo poo. If/when you find a good one, hold on to them for dear life. Speaking from a realtor's perspective, stealing clients is an ethically wrong practice that doesn't perpetuate more business because word of mouth spreads fast. While there may be realtors that would do as such, generalizing that most would underhand each other to obtain more clientele isn't true. Also, competition is fervent in small towns too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Guacala posted:Speaking from a realtor's perspective, stealing clients is an ethically wrong practice that doesn't perpetuate more business because word of mouth spreads fast. While there may be realtors that would do as such, generalizing that most would underhand each other to obtain more clientele isn't true. Also, competition is fervent in small towns too. I may have been exaggerating a bit, what I intended to mean was that they would not turn away a client who had decided to leave another Realtor. I do believe that they wouldn't actively prospect someone who is already engaged with another Realtor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:03
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:I may have been exaggerating a bit, what I intended to mean was that they would not turn away a client who had decided to leave another Realtor. I do believe that they wouldn't actively prospect someone who is already engaged with another Realtor. Usually it's not a big hassle if they want a new realtor, but the new agent has to know what type of agency the clients had with the previous agent. The new agent will usually call the former agent to inquire about the situation as a good faith measure and to find out if there would be any conflicts that would arise with proceeding with the agency (like exclusive buyer broker agreements).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:17
|
|
|
mcsuede posted:Maybe this was earlier in the thread but can you give me a quick rundown on how a broker works in this situation and how I would find one? We want to refi immediately but it seems like having a broker paid off for you big time. My parents used him when they bought their house, and so they recommended him to me. It turned out he was an FHA specialist, which was perfect since we did an FHA loan when we bought. Since we were happy with the experience when we bought, I called him up again when we started talking about a refi. I suppose you could just pick a random agent from the phone book or google or whatever, but really word-of-mouth is a great thing, because people will usually only recommend someone if they already had a good experience with them. Regarding switching realtors: when we were first shopping for houses, we wanted to cover a large portion of the Bay Area. We found a couple realtors in the east bay who we were interested in, but neither covered the SF peninsula. So, what they said is that we should contact a realtor on the peninsula, and the two agents would arrange a deal; basically, to split the commission in some way. Because otherwise, there'd be a chance that one would wind up doing a lot of work for us and then not get paid when we bought in the other person's domain. A fee-splitting arrangement would allow both to be compensated for their work. It wouldn't be 50/50, but some smaller percentage for the agent who didn't wind up getting the sale. In the end we didn't have to do that, because we eliminated the peninsula market (it was just too expensive - the few houses we were finding in our price range were horrible poo poo in the worst possible neighborhoods) but what I am getting at is that if you are honest and above-board, realtors should accommodate you. If you're not happy with your agent, you should absolutely let them go, and tell them why. And then find a new agent, and tell them exactly what you've done and why, and they will work it out. A good agent will understand that there isn't always a perfect fit, and if they didn't win your business, they should want to know why (so they can do better next time). The last thing they want is angry ex-clients telling all their friends to never use them, so it's in their interest to have a friendly parting of ways. Of course, I'm sure there's unreasonable people out there, but the competition is pretty ferocious right now, and that should be culling out the worst of them. One would hope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
Here is how a broker works, every day and sometimes twice a day lenders issue rate sheets. These sheets list interest rates and points to get a loan at that rate for various categories of loans and credit scores. Some of the rates have negative points, meaning they pay the broker that percentage of the loan for bringing them a qualified borrower at that rate and successfully closing the loan in the stated lock time. This could be the source of your refund or you could have borrowed more then you owed to payoff the other loan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
We went and asked for everything we wanted. My husband was proactive, but he's not a very excitable person as I am. We are asking for the roof to be fixed, a radon mitigation system, and have the house treated for termites. We also asked them for a few other things. We had to be firm with our realtor and she said "well we can do whatever you want, we can ask for anything". I am not worried about the radon and the roof, but I am worried about the termites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
Oh, I know exactly where the refund came from, and it's exactly what you said: the credit is an incentive by the lender (you cannot borrow extra for FHA streamline refis). What was surprising was that we originally locked in a smaller refund and my broker didn't mention us getting a better deal at some point, so it was a pleasant surprise. We also knew I'd be getting a partial refund on the up-front premium for the original mortgage's insurance, but due to new FHA procedures it was impossible to get that exact number until the loan application was processed (or something) so I was operating under a very conservative estimate of what that number would be. We were using conservative numbers in general, actually. Still, going from "probably no more than $3500" to "actually basically zero once you account for November's mortgage payment" is kind of shocking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
I'm not sure I would ever bother to look hard for a good realtor, particularly as a buyer. The financial incentives are just completely backward - even well-meaning people will end up doing the wrong thing a lot of the time. A buyer's agent should IMO just be looked at as someone to help with the paperwork, have you let in to houses, and maybe answer some questions about the local market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:We went and asked for everything we wanted. My husband was proactive, but he's not a very excitable person as I am. We are asking for the roof to be fixed, a radon mitigation system, and have the house treated for termites. We also asked them for a few other things. We had to be firm with our realtor and she said "well we can do whatever you want, we can ask for anything". I am not worried about the radon and the roof, but I am worried about the termites. I'm pretty sure if there is evidence of termite infestation prior to you purchasing the house, your homeowners insurance will not cover additional termite damage. Something to ask about and keep in mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
I don't want to start a whole new thread, and judging by some of the prior posts here this might not be too big of a derail. Should I refinance my underwater home? Specifics: Loan is not backed by Fannie/Freddie so I don't qualify for HARP/HAMP. I have never been late on a home payment. My credit score is above 640. I have a current FHA loan. My house is worth $128,000. I owe $138,000. We have children and other circumstance that make 'strategic' foreclosure a non-option. My current interest rate is 6% 30year through Wells Fargo. My first payment was in May of 2008. My current payment is $1186/month which includes principal, MIP ($51), insurance and taxes (around $247/month) and of course, interest. I contacted QuickenLoans today as a last resort. Wells Fargo didn't offer me any refi options to get into a lower interest rate. They came up with an FHA streamline loan for me with a 4.375% interest rate. $1076.00/month includes principal, taxes/insurance, MIP, and interest. The major issue I have is that MIP almost tripled to $151/month. Is this at all negotiable? I would have $500 in closing costs, plus $1000 due into escrow at closing. I assume what's left in my escrow account at Wells Fargo would be given back to me. Anyone have any suggestions on what I should do? It's an obviously lower interest rate, but I'm a virgin refinancer so I'm really just treading water here. Anythin is appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
skattered posted:I don't want to start a whole new thread, and judging by some of the prior posts here this might not be too big of a derail. I don't have a good amount of time to check out your specific situation right now, but the MIP number does sound right. They recently increased the amount of MIP to 1.10-1.15 from much lower from when you got your mortgage originally. The lower mortgage insurance was one of the original reasons FHA loans were more desirable than conventional, so now that it is it seems like the higher debt-to-income level and ability to put 3.5% down are the few benefits of an FHA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:17
|
|
|
skattered posted:I don't want to start a whole new thread, and judging by some of the prior posts here this might not be too big of a derail. You can do exactly what I just did, which is that FHA streamline refinance. A streamline refi does not require an appraisal, so unless you've actually had an appraisal establishing the lowered value of your home, you are OK to refi. I qualified for 3.75% for 30-year fixed, so 4.375% actually sounds kind of poo poo. You should shop around. My broker found me a rate + incentives that made my refi effectively free. My wife and I have credit ratings in the mid 700s, though, so that might be a factor. They raised the monthly premium last year, so yeah, that costs more, and it eats up some of your savings. It is not negotiable and will be the same regardless of which lender you go with. However, you will get a partial refund of the original FHA up-front premium you paid, which will partially offset that. You will also pay a new up-front premium, which can be financed. Your lender may not be able to tell you the exact amount of the refund until final paperwork processing, because FHA recently changed how the lender gets that number or something. FHA rules say your overall payment (including mortgage premium, mortgage insurance, hazard insurance, and taxes) must go down by at least 5% for you to get to do this, but I think since your starting rate is so high, you should probably manage to "make the numbers". I think provided you qualify, a streamline FHA refi is probably a good idea. Keep in mind that you'll be "starting over" at 30 years on the amortization table, unless you get a shorter-term loan; if you are comfortable with your payments, a 20-year loan might actually be viable, so get your bank or broker to run things both ways and see which suits you better. You do get a refund on what's in your current escrow account; that money is yours, so nobody can take it. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Oct 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You can do exactly what I just did, which is that FHA streamline refinance. A streamline refi does not require an appraisal, so unless you've actually had an appraisal establishing the lowered value of your home, you are OK to refi. The 3.75% refi window has passed (for now at least) as the 10 year (and subsequently mortgage rates) have risen a good bit since the real low. With the Euro debt crisis having some sort of progress, I can't imagine rates would hit that low again. But I don't have a crystal ball.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Another refinancing question, although the answer probably applies to purchase as well: Is it really worthwhile to go through a broker or a lendingtree type website? I am inclined to just go through BECU, my large local credit union. They're local, I've dealt with them before, I know how my loan will be administered and how to talk to human beings if there are issues, etc. But these benefits aren't worth thousands of dollars to me. Are we talking serious money savings if I shop around, or is it all pretty marginal? BECU estimates 3.7% for a 15 year fixed APR at 0.875 points, while lending tree claims 3.47% and quickenloans says 3.375% at 1.875 points. I know that's a non-trivial amount of money over the term of the loan, but it smells like bullshit to me that a for-profit lender + broker's fee can really be cheaper than a large credit union. Of course it's hard to evaluate these things fully because those websites demand your SS# to actually quote rates for you, while BECU will quote a rate just based on credit score and home value/loan value. Actually I think I just answered my own question - the trick is in the points and the closing costs which are very hard to estimate without going through the full process. But it looks like the difference is pretty minimal in terms of monthly payment after you account for points. But I'm still interested to hear people's experiences and opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
Went up in the attic today as it's been raining for 24hrs to check on a dryer vent I installed a few weeks back. It is leak free, but the roof is leaking in about 4 other places right along the ridgeline. DO NEVER BUY (unless you have buckets)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Went up in the attic today as it's been raining for 24hrs to check on a dryer vent I installed a few weeks back. It is leak free, but the roof is leaking in about 4 other places right along the ridgeline. Those are the easiest shingles to replace. DO ALWAYS REPAIR YOURSELF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 17:46
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Another refinancing question, although the answer probably applies to purchase as well: Is it really worthwhile to go through a broker or a lendingtree type website? I am inclined to just go through BECU, my large local credit union. They're local, I've dealt with them before, I know how my loan will be administered and how to talk to human beings if there are issues, etc. But these benefits aren't worth thousands of dollars to me. Are we talking serious money savings if I shop around, or is it all pretty marginal? Obviously as someone who used a broker twice, I'm in favor of it, so I may not be the most unbiased. But I can confirm that for the most part, it's in the points, fees, and (especially) incentives offered from different banks for a given rate; and these numbers change daily, sometimes twice in a day. The key advantage for a broker is that they have a selection of banks that in their experience offer good rates to buyers/refinancers in their area and for a given credit rating, LTV, etc, and they can check rates and terms with those banks daily. The banks know this perfectly well, which is why they pay the broker's fees; it gets them qualified buyers/refinancers that they would not get otherwise. To my mind, it's a superior model because it forces the banks to compete more vigorously than they do for borrowers who are on their own. The second point is the fact that even if you love your local credit union and definitely want to work with them, there's nothing (necessarily) stopping them from selling your mortgage to another bank the day after you settle. Unless you have something in the paperwork indicating they won't, which is definitely possible. So I encourage you to ask, if that's the key factor for you. So to summarize: for a given LTV, mortgage size, credit rating, and location, you can certainly get the same interest rate from a variety of lenders... they tend to be pretty much the same on that. The key monetary factor, then, is how much it costs you out of pocket to get that rate; that determines how many months before you "break even" (long term payment reduction accumulates a savings equal to the up-front cost of the refi) and that's where a broker can be of key value. Beyond that, there's soft-factors (service, convenience) that only you can evaluate and value based on your personal preferences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 19:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Obviously as someone who used a broker twice, I'm in favor of it, so I may not be the most unbiased. But I can confirm that for the most part, it's in the points, fees, and (especially) incentives offered from different banks for a given rate; and these numbers change daily, sometimes twice in a day. The key advantage for a broker is that they have a selection of banks that in their experience offer good rates to buyers/refinancers in their area and for a given credit rating, LTV, etc, and they can check rates and terms with those banks daily. The banks know this perfectly well, which is why they pay the broker's fees; it gets them qualified buyers/refinancers that they would not get otherwise. To my mind, it's a superior model because it forces the banks to compete more vigorously than they do for borrowers who are on their own. Thanks for the advice. I do want to move that break-even point up as soon as possible as I might decide to sell again in only a couple years. So I should probably look into a broker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:Thanks for the advice. I do want to move that break-even point up as soon as possible as I might decide to sell again in only a couple years. So I should probably look into a broker. If you really want to sell in 2 years then don't buy, just rent. If you must buy anyway, try to find the best deal you can with low fees and without paying for discount points up front just to get your interest rate down. Pre-paid interest points are not worth it if you're going to pay it off or sell sooner than normal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Nelson, he's already an owner; this is a discussion about refinancing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
How exactly should someone go about doing their due diligence before buying? I'm planning on getting married in two years and for obvious reasons won't be living with parents after that happens. Owning is in consideration right now and condo's seem to have some affordable options. So how exactly do you check out CIC's/PUD's before you consider purchasing? Do you talk to the board, members, etc.? Is there really a way to wind up in a good association before you purchase a place? I'm pretty sure that I've done as much research as I could in terms of renting vs. buying and the fact of being able to rent it out in the future for another income source is very tempting. I've ruled out a traditional house because I don't want to have to care for the exterior of it (lawn/snow removal/etc). I would like others opinions on the matter and if you want/need more info ask.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
himurak posted:How exactly should someone go about doing their due diligence before buying? I'm planning on getting married in two years and for obvious reasons won't be living with parents after that happens. Owning is in consideration right now and condo's seem to have some affordable options. So how exactly do you check out CIC's/PUD's before you consider purchasing? There are a lot of pitfalls to owning a condo. One big thing is HOA fees. Typically there will be a fairly significant fee to the association that covers things like water/sewer, general upkeep of the outer property(parking areas, roof, etc), administration, etc. When I bought my condo like 5ish years ago, the fees for a 2 bedroom condo in the complex I bought were like 200 dollars. They have gone up every single year by a not insignificant amount. This year they are going to be 300 a month. They can also levy additional special assessments if need be. This can be for things like emergency roof replacements, etc. So while you theoretically save time/etc on not having to take care of the exterior of your property you lose a LOT of control about how much money goes into your property and when. This is pretty significant. While I'd still be in a bad situation re: the housing bubble burst right now even if I had bought a single-family detached home, I don't think it would have been as bad. Also, from a purely statistical standpoint, in my area at least, detached homes held their value much better then the condos in the area. Anyway, not everyone's experience is going to be the same, but fyi.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 02:41
|
|
|
himurak posted:condo stuff You know how we all say DO NEVER BUY. Well that goes 50000000000x more for a Condo. DO NEVER BUY A CONDO. Ever. Really. For Reals. Never.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
There is only one reason to buy a condo and that is to rent out, which has a lot of risks in one's portfolio that are much higher than the market aggregate because you're getting screwed by economy of scale as a small-time property owner. It's possible to be successful doing this long-term but the general consensus I've read is that the low hanging fruit of real estate is over and people won't be getting the same kinds of returns for the next 30 years as the past 30 (pre-crisis). Even if you think you're getting a good deal you stand a fair risk of things getting worse. The lady that bought my condo at a price she thought was a steal has lost 10% of her house value within 7 months and will probably never get that much higher unless the Seattle area starts approaching population density like NYC or San Francisco. My place sold in mid-2010 for about 55% of what I paid for in 2007. My HOA warning in the OP should be read by anyone considering a condo especially if you're in a housing market that makes it difficult to NOT be in an HOA. There are plenty of people that are happy with their condos, but there's also lots of cancer survivors in the world too. I would buy a timeshare before I buy a condo, and most people don't consider timeshares investments whatsoever. I would buy a block of condos before either, but I'd need a million or two before I'd feel comfortable with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2011 03:27
|
|