|
spwrozek posted:Words I had to write a letter explaining why I was stupid enough to buy a second house without selling my current house first to get a normal rate mortgage on it. It wasn't hard to explain just cut and paste your post into a letter for underwriting.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
The industry standard for a property being underwritten as owner occupied requires that you reside in the property as your primary residence within 60 days of closing on the loan for at least 12 months. The occupancy certifications and the standard mortgage / deed of trust that you sign at closing will say the same thing. If her job keeps her 2 hours away for the next 8 months she's likely SOL closing on a new loan as a primary residence for now with most lenders / loan programs. She might be able to find a lender willing to do it but she's probably going to have problems letter or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
We have a letter from us and her employer. Many of her co-workers have bought places while bring on assignment so it is doable. And she is on the mortgage now, mail comes to the house, she has a room in it, is there 1-2 times a month. She probably is going to have to start with a new group but it should be doable. It is her primary residence right now. If she was in a hotel while on site it would not even be a question but it is way too expensive. Anyone who works remote would never be able to buy a house for their family with some of these rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
I just can't get the math to work out where it would cost us less to buy than to rent. We were all excited about a pretty basic $250,000 condo within close walking distance of both a college and a downtown area, but then I looked at how much we'd be paying. With taxes and HOA fees, it comes out to over $1500 a month, when we are renting our current, much nicer condo for only $1,100 (and have been for nearly five years). It's hard to say goodbye to all our savings for a down payment, only to then have to pay more every month, for a home we like less. I guess in the long run, our current home and rent is not guaranteed and might rise suddenly and dramatically at any time, and the already-ridiculous real estate market might only get worse and more expensive, but still... One of the things we are worrying about is the stigma of having a kid go through school while living in an apartment or condo. When I was young, those kids were definitely looked down on. In today's climate, the situation has to be totally different, right? How do people even afford homes at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:How do people even afford homes at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I just can't get the math to work out where it would cost us less to buy than to rent. We were all excited about a pretty basic $250,000 condo within close walking distance of both a college and a downtown area, but then I looked at how much we'd be paying. With taxes and HOA fees, it comes out to over $1500 a month, when we are renting our current, much nicer condo for only $1,100 (and have been for nearly five years). It's hard to say goodbye to all our savings for a down payment, only to then have to pay more every month, for a home we like less. Alereon posted:I went to go find hard numbers and just learned that "home ownership" statistics are all bullshit because they study household heads, not people. For example, the home ownership rate for single women under the age of 25 is 13.6%, and obviously it isn't true that more than one in ten young women own their own home. So overall home ownership rates are up consistently, but I'm thinking that reflects more adults being downgraded from head-of-household status due to economic factors. Anyone know where to find stats on what % of adults in the USA own their own home? Going here: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_5YR_S2501&prodType=table You can see that women between 15-35 in the owner occupied is 1%. For your wiki reference, the data was "Retrieved 2006-10-05."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I just can't get the math to work out where it would cost us less to buy than to rent. It's apples to oranges and 100% situationally dependant, but for me it's the complete opposite, buying was a no brainer as my entire mortgage payment is half the cost of renting. And even that is only so good because I lucked out and was able to live with family and scrimp for a few months to cobble together a full 20% down payment to avoid PMI. I don't know how people can save so much while rent is going through the roof in so much of America. Then again, you're looking at condos, which IMO have all the downsides of owning, combined with all the downsides of apartment dwelling, with extra special gently caress you HOA fees and arbitrary assessments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
I've never heard someone say "man I'm glad I bought that condo". Both in real life and on Internet forums. I didn't really consider a condo personally because the monthly expenses were so much higher than a similar house, I just don't get it. For me it would have been a ~$1k per month premium to be able to walk to the bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I just can't get the math to work out where it would cost us less to buy than to rent. We were all excited about a pretty basic $250,000 condo within close walking distance of both a college and a downtown area, but then I looked at how much we'd be paying. With taxes and HOA fees, it comes out to over $1500 a month, when we are renting our current, much nicer condo for only $1,100 (and have been for nearly five years). It's hard to say goodbye to all our savings for a down payment, only to then have to pay more every month, for a home we like less. It's likely that the numbers just don't work out where you live; there are many places in the US where that's the case. And while, yes, your rent might suddenly go up, COA fees will likely rise, too. Sometimes quite drastically, if something serious needs to get fixed. Condos are generally a pretty raw deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Believe me I don't WANT a condo, but there are just no detached houses under half a million here that I would feel happy in. I would love a row home but they don't exist in my area, it's either SFH or condo. Or townhouse if you're really lucky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Droo posted:2. Most of the vocal anti-owning people do an analysis over a very short period of time (like 1-5 years). They don't think about 20 years from now, when their rent will probably be 2-4x higher in real terms than it is now compared to ownership costs that are like 1.00-1.5x higher (assuming a fixed mortgage). Because of that they undervalue the cost of renting over time and overestimate the cost of homeownership over time, leading to some renters being willing to pay higher rents.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Do you really think rents will generally rise at over 4% above inflation per year, for 20 years? That's more than aggressive growth stock funds are expected to typically get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:Ok really simplistic view but that extra $400 you pay goes into owning your own home. Lets say it takes you 15 years to pay of the house, after which you don't need to pay rent so you have $1500 free to spend on other things vs $1100 you'd still be paying. This all depends on a lot of factors, the biggest for me is "am I going to be here for the next 10+ years?" But of course even after Tomato had paid off the mortgage, they'd still have condo fees which by then would certainly have gone up by a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
swenblack posted:I think he just misused the term "real," given that he said the fixed mortgage costs would be 1.00 - 1.5x implying zero inflation. Historically home prices and rents have increased slightly more than inflation in most markets. Yeah I didn't mean "real", i dunno why I used that word there. I do think that a lot of factors are coming together that will make owning rental properties a pretty good investment over the next few decades, because I think rents are going to increase more than normal for a long time now. I don't want the headache of owning them and I don't live in a market where I would really want more exposure to land and real estate, but I think landlords will end up doing very well on their units over the next 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
When I lived in Ballard in Seattle in 2005, I paid $845/mo for a 2br/1.75ba apartment two blocks off Market Street. Now that costs $2k+ based on a cursory Craigslist scan. If rents have nearly tripled in 10 years, I don't have faith they will go down any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
A fixed rate mortgage is a great hedge against our non existent inflation. No one remembers the 80's anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Believe me I don't WANT a condo, but there are just no detached houses under half a million here that I would feel happy in. I would love a row home but they don't exist in my area, it's either SFH or condo. Or townhouse if you're really lucky. It sounds like you shouldn't buy, then. I bought a condo. Don't buy a condo. Unless you really love it and it's a great deal and you are okay with all of the downsides of a condo. Selling my condo was the happiest day of my life, other than the $35kish I had to bring to closing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
My wife and I just received a $50,000 monetary gift. We went from looking at a 5% down with PMI loan to a standard 20% down. Do always buy if someone just throws $50k at you out of the air.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:When you went looking did you try: http://www.census.gov/housing/ ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I want the percentage of young women who own homes. Because that is the statistic that tells us how accessible home ownership is, and how that has changed over time. That stat seems like it would be useless as you get near 1970 and earlier (and very hard to interpret from 1970 to now) because of the shift in the way men/women relate as far as controlling households and having financial assets over time. Let's say that 3% of young women owned a home in 1970, and 10% of young women own a home now. What conclusion can you draw from that regarding home ownership?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Droo posted:
Women are making more mistakes now? Actually the stress from home ownership is giving them heart attack rates more comparable to men's rates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Alereon posted:My point is that I do not want the percentage of homes owned by young women, or even the percentage of heads of houseolds that happen to be young women and own their home, I want the percentage of young women who own homes. Because that is the statistic that tells us how accessible home ownership is, and how that has changed over time. If you know the percentage of homes owned by young women, and you can find the total number of homes that there are, and you can also find the total number of young women there are, then you can calculate the percentage of young women who own homes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:I've never heard someone say "man I'm glad I bought that condo". Both in real life and on Internet forums. I didn't really consider a condo personally because the monthly expenses were so much higher than a similar house, I just don't get it. For me it would have been a ~$1k per month premium to be able to walk to the bar. It depends on where you live. In the bay area detached homes are significantly more expensive than condos until you get to 1h+ commutes from the city. The HOA payment includes most of the large maintenance costs that you would be paying yourself with a detached home. Like a detached home maintenance costs generally go up over time. In SF you are paying a couple grand a month more to not live in a condo if you want to live in the trendy neighborhoods. If you are in a large city the areas with condos and the areas with single homes will be different so they aren't directly comparable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Something tells me using SF as a housing example is like trying to fix your makeup in a funhouse mirror.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
lampey posted:It depends on where you live. In the bay area detached homes are significantly more expensive than condos until you get to 1h+ commutes from the city. The HOA payment includes most of the large maintenance costs that you would be paying yourself with a detached home. Like a detached home maintenance costs generally go up over time. In SF you are paying a couple grand a month more to not live in a condo if you want to live in the trendy neighborhoods. If you are in a large city the areas with condos and the areas with single homes will be different so they aren't directly comparable. But how does that compare to renting in an apartment in those same neighborhoods? I feel like that's the more interesting comparison
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Or renting someone's upstairs closet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Good-Natured Filth posted:Or renting someone's upstairs closet? You want a closet that is inside of a house? Do you work for Google moneybags?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:You want a closet that is inside of a house? Do you work for Google moneybags? I want Google to start building Foxconn style dorms for their employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Droo posted:That stat seems like it would be useless as you get near 1970 and earlier (and very hard to interpret from 1970 to now) because of the shift in the way men/women relate as far as controlling households and having financial assets over time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Anecdotal evidence for me states that I would not own a house if not for my wife and she could definitely buy one without me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Young women were just my example because of the ridiculous statistic provided for that group. My actual point is that the answer to "how can people afford to own houses anymore" is "they can't, and don't." The census bureau tracks home ownership rate as (number of owner-occupied homes / total number of homes), which seems pretty fair to me. It would be nice if they had a lot more data available (like how many people on average live in each house, or average number of square feet per person per house) but I can't find anything like that. Since the 1960's the rate started around 63%, peaked up around 70%, and is now back near 63%. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/histtabs.html table 14.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
lampey posted:It depends on where you live. In the bay area detached homes are significantly more expensive than condos until you get to 1h+ commutes from the city. The HOA payment includes most of the large maintenance costs that you would be paying yourself with a detached home. Like a detached home maintenance costs generally go up over time. In SF you are paying a couple grand a month more to not live in a condo if you want to live in the trendy neighborhoods. If you are in a large city the areas with condos and the areas with single homes will be different so they aren't directly comparable. Having the HOA pick up stuff isn't always that great. Especially if there is only one water meter for the property. One place near me has condos going up for ~$55k, but the HOA fees are $500+ because of the water bill. They repiped the whole underground, but didn't bother putting in sub meters since they could barely afford the repipe anyways. Their water bills never went down. Couldn't afford the pool and clubhouse anymore, so the HOA had the pool turned into a garden and just locked up the club house. But then there is another condo in the area where the only thing the HOA is responsible for is landscaping and the street lights. Everyone had city meters and the streets are county maintained. HOA fee there is $650 for the year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Droo posted:The census bureau tracks home ownership rate as (number of owner-occupied homes / total number of homes), which seems pretty fair to me. It would be nice if they had a lot more data available (like how many people on average live in each house, or average number of square feet per person per house) but I can't find anything like that. Also, I would suspect that people who do own houses have a mortgage that is a significantly larger multiple of their annual income than in the past, as lengthening mortgage terms compensated for reduced home affordability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If you know the percentage of homes owned by young women, and you can find the total number of homes that there are, and you can also find the total number of young women there are, then you can calculate the percentage of young women who own homes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Droo posted:The census bureau tracks home ownership rate as (number of owner-occupied homes / total number of homes), which seems pretty fair to me. It would be nice if they had a lot more data available (like how many people on average live in each house, or average number of square feet per person per house) but I can't find anything like that. That's slightly inaccurate; the census bureau defines the home ownership rate as (number of owner-occupied households) / (total number of occupied households). The homeowner vacancy rate, which is (vacant homes for sale) / (total number of homes) is only around 2% and remains pretty steady. Some additional details here are worth noting: 1) The rate had a low-variance mean of around 64% from 1965 (the start of the data) until right around 1995 2) From 1995 the rate begins growing abnormally, peaking at a little over 69% in the mid-2000s. This is the housing bubble 3) The rate began steadily declining from the mid-2000s to present. This is the housing bubble collapsing and people realizing that houses are actually unaffordable as gently caress right now Maybe a more interesting statistic would be the number of new homeowners per capita per year. Current homeowners are more easily able to weather higher prices because their houses have grown in value along with everyone else's, but new homeowners don't have that kind of luxury. I can't seem to find any data on new home ownership rates. The closest that I could get was looking at age groups, which is far from ideal but shows that home ownership is falling faster for people younger than 50, and the rate for people 65+ isn't falling at all. The age brackets are huge and the plot only goes back to '82: Figure 7: https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts.html Departing from the census, according to the ational Association of Realtors the new homebuyer rate is at a 30-year low, 32% of home purchases belonging to first-time buyers. So yeah, the notion that home ownership is less affordable today than in the prior 25 years is well-founded in the data. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/09/Number-First-Time-Homebuyers-28-Year-Low
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:good facts That's true but there are some other factors to consider. The cost of borrowing money is extremely low at the moment, and lots of young people have student loan debt. That debt is typically at a higher rate than a mortgage would be, and it will soak up a lot of their disposable income, which means no home for you, college boy. It is also causing some headwinds in the economy as a whole, because instead of buying "useful" things like houses and cars, they live with their parents and save their money. So basically the money is there if you don't already owe someone for your degree, which pushes up housing prices, putting them even further out of reach of first time buyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Bozart posted:That's true but there are some other factors to consider. The cost of borrowing money is extremely low at the moment, and lots of young people have student loan debt. That debt is typically at a higher rate than a mortgage would be, and it will soak up a lot of their disposable income, which means no home for you, college boy. It is also causing some headwinds in the economy as a whole, because instead of buying "useful" things like houses and cars, they live with their parents and save their money. I think this is a good point, if not for student loan debt a lot more young people would have more disposable income. That's not really a thing that prior generations had to deal with, so it's no surprise that the home ownership rate is falling faster for the < 35 bracket than for the others
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
OK so I hosed up. We put an offer on a nice looking house, and they accepted it. poo poo. So what the hell do I do with lenders? We have one we've been working with for the pre-qual, and now we need to get the loan estimate from him and at least our credit union. Our realtor has a few suggestions for lenders, but I'm not sure if it's worth exploring at this point. If I want to "shop" for mortgages, am I going to have to pay a lot of money in application fees and whatnot? Our current lender is stating it will take 3 days to get a Loan Estimate. Is that BS, or legit? He hasn't mentioned any application fees yet, but I know they're around the corner...he says once we send him a copy of the purchase contract, he can execute a rate lock....so high pressure sales, awesome. Mainly, my issue is that our realtor wants us to decide on a lender TODAY so they can get to work with appraisals and whatnot...so again, poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:OK so I hosed up. We put an offer on a nice looking house, and they accepted it. poo poo. Call up a number of lenders and tell them the details of what you want (loan amount, house sale price, loan term, etc.). They should each be able to generate a quote for you within 30 mins if not less. That quote will include the interest rate you are getting, the points, estimated closing costs, etc. You will have to look carefully to compare between the different lenders because they all don't list things exactly the same, but make sure to let each lender know you are looking around and want their best offer. Then figure out which lender will give you the best offer and go with them. I did all my shopping for a lender over the phone. EDIT: Also understand that because of the way the market works, a quote you get in the morning may not be valid in the afternoon and definitely not the next day. So call everyone up around the same time. Jose Cuervo fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
DaveSauce posted:OK so I hosed up. We put an offer on a nice looking house, and they accepted it. poo poo. Congrats! The nice thing is that when you do an inspection, if you decide you want out, you can make an absolutely ridiculous request and if they don't honor it, you're pretty much able to walk away with just losing the money from the inspection. You'd get your earnest money back. You have a lot more leverage during the inspection contingency than your realtor will tell you (because they just want the deal to go through), so use it. I wish I had when I'd bought my place, because the fuckers who bought it from me sure did. Do not move faster than you feel comfortable if your realtor is pressuring you. Your realtor is not your friend. They just want their 3% commission. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:44
|
|