|
First, the useful answer: Besides actual gifts, you're going to have trouble getting money from any source that you are going to have to pay back, because down payment money is money you are supposed to have in pocket. Second, not to be rude, but if you and your wife make $120,000 a year and only have $1000 saved, I don't know if buying a house is such a good idea. I hope that $1000 is your specific down payment money, on top of a 3-6 month emergency fund? I mean, my wife and I were looking at houses in a similar range and didn't even start looking until we had $50k saved for a downpayment, and we make less than $120k/yr.
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Got my refund! About three months to the day. I was also pleasantly surprised to have gotten $250 in interest over those three months. Almost makes me wish they had kept it longer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2010 01:32
|
|
|
El Mariachi posted:Fourth, the house's property line backs up to the parking lot of an apartment. Would have to put up a tall fence to block the view. None of that sounds too bad except for this item. First, I think you'd have to make sure your city's regulations allow you to do such a thing. And second, I'd just make sure you are comfortable with buying a house that borders an apartment complex. There are a lot of issues that come with that type of thing, including issues with privacy (which you're already aware of) but also noise and crime.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
Backno posted:Random question: is there a minimum amount of tiem you have to pay PMI for? So if we put 10% down on a house and a week later got enough to pay it up to the 20% mark would we have to keep paying it for a set ammount of time? My lender completely hid this information from us, so definitely make sure you ask in the most straight-forward way possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 02:58
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:E/N rant time. Somewhat unrelated, but judging by your use of the word "appalled", I'm guessing that language made it back to you through their broker? I was amazed at how unprofessional the seller's broker was in our transaction, and apparently that's a fairly common thing. One of the main jobs of a broker should be to act as the mature, professional diplomat in an otherwise very emotional transaction. I mean, obviously knowing that the sellers used the word appalled pissed you off - and rightfully so. But that should have never made it back to you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
gvibes posted:If you can only put 3.5% down, should you really be buying a house? I kind of agree. I'm surprised that after the whole homeownership debacle of the past few years, with people losing their houses because they're underwater, that people are putting down the absolute minimum amount of equity into a house that with a slight change in the market would put them underwater.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 13:41
|
|
|
poofactory posted:Putting the min down is the best way to buy a house because it creates the least amount of risk to the purchaser. If the market goes bad, they can just walk away. If the market gets better they can make a lot of money. If they decide to stay long term, they can pay off the loan. And destroy your credit? I guess for some people that might be an option, but I would never consider that to be viable. Waiting it out for the balance to go positive might be possible for some people, but there are so many times when your life situation changes and you _need_ to move. I can't think of what it'd be like to have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just for the ability to sell your house. And who knows how long it might take for a house to recover its value. Besides all the equity issues, like Arzakon said, you now have a loan for 96.5% of the value of the house instead of 80% or whatever. Plus PMI. On my house, over the course of the loan that would have been $33,000 in PMI and $75,000 in additional interest, nearly double the interest I'm actually paying. That is a loving ton of money to give to the bank, and it's why I waited 5 years longer than I wanted to before buying a house. Oh and plus $525/mo in additional monthly payments, $125 of that being PMI. Of course, those numbers are significantly less when you're looking at houses in the midwest and such, but the principle is still the same. I'm not someone like Dave Ramsey who thinks all loans are evil, but at least personally only putting 3.5% down on a house would make me feel incredibly uneasy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:So for example, say you bought in Nevada or Arizona at the boom, and are currently 150K upside down on your house. You owe 300K on a house that might sell for 150K tomorrow. (If you're lucky) No, in that situation, of course I would walk away. I'm talking about not putting yourself in that situation in the first place. gvibes posted:I don't think it should be a "last resort" or anything. It is certainly an option in recourse states. I just see a pretty flippant attitude towards this quite a bit in internet discussions - I think people may be underestimating the damage to your credit. You are basically not going to be able borrow anything significant (at least on decent terms) for years. Exactly. I'd be curious to know if anyone does know what kind of effect this has on your credit. I would be surprised if any bank would ever lend money to someone who walked away from a several hundred thousand dollar loan. Leperflesh posted:Generally, I don't disagree with what you've said (and I've always reminded people that there are a lot of individual factors that might make this kind of calculation a bad one or a good one), but this little bit doesn't make sense to me. I see it as a cash in hand problem. Say I buy a house for $300,000 and put down $10,000. The house value drops down to $250,000 and I have to sell. I sell the house for $250,000, put all that towards my loan. Now I have to find a house to buy or rent knowing I have the burden of a $40,000 loan to still pay off. And that's assuming you can still pay off that loan over 30 years at whatever interest rate you got for it. On the other hand, say I saved up 20% and bought that $300,000 house with $60,000 down. I sell the house for $250,000, pay off my $240,000 loan, and have an extra $10,000 I can apply to the house I'm buying or renting. So that's what I'm talking about. Now if you're talking about having $60,000 in your bank account and still just putting 3.5% down, that's a different story, as you'd still in theory have that $50,000 in your account. I mean right now, with insanely low interest rates, in a lot of ways putting less down and taking out a bigger loan can make sense. My main point is that it's reckless to buy a house with the absolute minimum down because that's all you can afford, essentially wiping out your savings. To me that says you should spend more time saving before you go into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
If you have a Redfin in your area, I would give that a try. My wife and I had horrid experiences with actual realtors. Not only was Reffin a better experience overall, but getting a check for $5000 from them was pretty drat sweet as well. Also, I'd highly recommend a competent lawyer. This is most likely the most important transaction of your life, and spending a few extra hundred hiring a lawyer who works for you (and not the bank) is really worth it. Ours caught several discrepancies that could have f'ed us in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2010 10:59
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Can you elaborate on the discrepancies? The biggest issue that first arose was the purchase and sale agreement that the bank lawyer put together for us. It was laughable, in that this extremely important contract had repeating bullet points (i.e. 12, 13, 13, 14), missing bullet points, and he had accidentally removed the entire paragraph which served as the financial contingency (i.e. if buyer is not able to secure a loan). So he not only missed all these problems with the P&S the seller sent us, but added to them. Besides fixing all of that nonsense, our lawyer also offered us important protection which wasn't even mentioned by the bank lawyer, like owner's title insurance and a homestead declaration. Our lawyer also handled the multiple extensions that were needed due to financing and appraisal issues. Lastly, he was present at the closing, explaining in detail every form we were signing even though the bank and sellers were trying to rush the whole thing through, and also prevented us from signing two completely unnecessary agreements. It was definitely worth the $300 or so that we paid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
A homestead deed is, I believe, a Massachusetts thing. It says if we get sued, our house is protected and can't be taken as an asset. Anyway, I'm sure there are millions of people who close a house without a lawyer and have no problem at all. But for me, paying literally %0.0075 of the total transaction price to further protect myself from a massive financial problem in the future seemed well worth it. I actually started without a lawyer, despite my agent and my father (also a lawyer) strongly recommending one. It wasn't until the bank's lawyer turned out to be a complete idiot that I hired my own.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I think you should buy a house when you have decided that it is the right time in your life to own a house, you have saved up enough money to buy one, you have a reliable enough income to pay for one down the road, and you are ready to commit to living in the same place for a decade or more. Beyond that, it's too easy to get caught up in economic conditions. Obviously you don't want to be a chump and pay twice what your house will be worth in five years, but nobody can tell the future; just keep in mind that houses are not very good "investments" (because the historical returns are very poor, and they also suck up money in maintenance) financially. Instead, they are excellent investments in terms of quality of life (for some people), and that's where your focus should be. Good advice, and what all of these questions about buying a house in relation to market conditions really boil down to. Should be added to the OP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
Our appraisal came under too, around $10k under. It was extremely frustrating and the whole process kind of blew my mind. Like the owners had spent 15k remodeling the downstairs bathroom a few months before to make it look really nice. But since this house was a split level, and the bathroom was downstairs, it didn't effect the appraisal. Two of the nearby comparable were complete jokes, these ugly, outdated houses, and yet those selling prices are what guided the price of our house. In the end, it worked out in our favor and the sellers dropped down about 6k and we made up the rest. I think at this point it's up to your broker convincing the sellers broker (and then owners) that they're going to have to do some budging if try ever want to sell this house, and for you guys to figure out how much you want to spend out of pocket to meet that. At least in our situation, that extra 2k had to be out of pocket and not incorporated into then loan in order for us to avoid pmi and have 20% equity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2010 12:05
|
|
|
Also in the refinancing boat. Got approved and locked at 4.375% with no closing costs. Currently at 5.15% so I'll be saving around $140 a month. Woot!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
A $300,00 loan in Massachusetts has $8,000 in closing costs. Hence, I'm going with 4.25% with no closing costs. Pretty easy decision for me!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:I am having my home appraised soon in order to refinance. Zillow.com, the accuracy of which I can't attest to, estimates that my property is worth pretty much exactly what I need it to be worth in order to get rid of my PMI. My question is, what factors will swing an appraisal higher or lower than what zillow is estimating? The house has a new furnace, new water heater, all new electric, a recently remodeled bathroom, refinished hardwood floors, etc. The only part of the house that still needs work is the kitchen floor, which is currently very beat-up looking hardwood (didn't get refinished with the rest of the house). Does any of that matter much one way or another? I will be very disappointed if I can't get rid of this PMI, as it's a big part of why I'm refinancing in the first place. Are you sure it's a full scale appraisal? I'm in the middle of a refinance, and my lender said our appraisal is of the drive-by variety. They basically drive up to the house, make sure it's still standing, that it hasn't fallen into disrepair, etc, and then check it off.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2010 13:48
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:I live in the Phoenix, AZ area (Tempe). My wife and I moved here in April 2006 - absolute peak of the housing bubble. Luckily, my strong math background came in handy and I looked at housing prices/info over the past few years... Awesome, and good for you sir. Also, I see you got your graph from Redfin, who also apparently serves the Phoenix area. My wife and I used Redfin, had a much better experience than with the idiotic realtors we found, and then got a check for $7000 in the end. In my experience, if you know what you want and are good with the internets, it's much to your advantage to use Redfin and find houses yourself than try to work with a clueless realtor. Of course, I'm sure there are good realtors out there, but we tried three and they all didn't listen well to what we wanted, and I just felt like I couldn't trust them when it came to nailing down a price.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2010 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
PoliSciGirl posted:So, I'm ready to put an offer on a house. Yay! The house is going for 329k and I'm going to ask for 300k. The house has been totally remodeled from top to bottom. The problem is, it's right on the line, about .5 miles away, from a really bad neighborhood. Just like most major cities, a crossing of a street can be stepping into a whole different world. If anyone knows Philadelphia, the house is in West Germantown (the next section) right near West Mt. Airy and Chestnut Hill. I've checked the city's crime stats and you can see the reflection of the good and bad neighborhoods. What do you all think? The neighborhood has a very active association. Funny, I looked at renting a house in the exact same neighborhood, and I know what you mean about it really changing 1/2 mile away. I do think that generally there isn't as much spillover of crime as you might think, but there is always the possibly of the actual demographics changing and with that, the crime. And that is quite a lovely looking house. Personally, for me, safety was far and above the number one concern when looking for a house. Of course, I'm just starting a family and not everyone is in that situation. I guess I'd recommend hanging out in that neighborhood a bit, and imaging yourself driving to the city or check out where you'd be going for groceries and errands, and see if you'd be comfortable doing that every day.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2011 19:38
|
|