House-buying thread - Why is everyone involved in this process so deeply stupid?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > House-buying thread - Why is everyone involved in this process so deeply stupid?

«‹›2 »

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Is now a good time to buy?

In most major markets, the answer is still 'no.' Every market is different, so you're still going to your own research, but you should consider a couple different factors. First, check out the historical home prices. The Case-Shiller Index is a good place to start. They compile housing data for most major markets and the numbers account for inflation. The February data shows that prices are only down to Sept 2003 levels, and probably will fall another 20%+ in most major markets to be in line with post-WWII historical levels.

Next, check out https://housingtracket.net. This site will show you a whole bunch of raw data from the relative short-term, but they track significantly more markets than the Case-Shiller Index. It will give you a good idea of how big the bubble was in your area and whether it's over yet in your particular market. You should look for a price/income that's at pre-2000 levels. Most people don't realize it, but the bubble actually started with the massive creation of wealth during the internet bubble around the turn of the millennium.

Finally, you need to consider the long term potential in your market. Some houses will more than likely never go up in value. Two good examples are areas that are unlikely to recover economically like towns with big Chrysler plants or townhouses an hour outside of Sacramento. Also factor in macro-economic tremds that will alter home prices. If interest rates go up, prices will likely come down. Also, real income growth will likely cause a rise in home prices.

# ¿ May 6, 2009 13:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:12

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cheesemaster200 posted:

I absolutely hate this argument.

Past prices of housing does not dictate future prices of housing based on some curve. Population growth, social trends versus housing, and population movement are all major factors that are completely different than 20 years ago. Trying to estimate where house prices will be next year or 5 years from now based upon a graph of the past prices is just going to be nothing more than a complete guess, especially with this administration and this market.

Yes, home values are dependent on population growth, social trends, and population movement, but I'd disagree with you that they are fundamentally different from 20 (or even 50) years ago. Real income growth seems to have high correlation as well.

# ¿ May 11, 2009 21:58

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

moana posted:

How can you reconcile this with the past few years, then? Aren't we saying that the housing bubble broke because people really couldn't afford what they were buying? I'm adding these posts to the OP since I'm sure this will generate a lot of discussion and because I'm curious what people think will happen.

Really, the most important thing I've taken away is not to treat a home purchase as an investment because based on historical data, it's not a good investment. If you're planning on buying a house, it should be because you can afford it, not because you think home prices will rise. I completely agree with the idea that we can't predict anything that's going to happen with any accuracy, but I do think it's a good idea to buy a house with the idea in mind that prices could continue to decline.

The housing bubble started during the rapid creation of wealth of the internet bubble. It was subsequently fueled by the low interest rates that came about after the internet bubble crashed. With stocks cratering earlier this decade, and traditional safe investments (Money Markets, commercial paper, and Treasuries) all yielding sub-inflationary returns, individuals and institutions turned to the one "safe" asset that was still performing well, real estate.

This is speculation now, but I think that when the history books are written a couple decades from now, economists will link the internet bubble and housing bubble.

Historically, home prices have risen at a inflation-adjusted rate of 0.5-1.0% depending on which study you read.

# ¿ May 11, 2009 23:39

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cheesemaster200 posted:

But my point is what is keeping the same thing from happening again for the next 15 years? Interest rates are at record lows right now, and I think the major thing keeping back the housing market is spending reduction do to the recession rather than the housing market still imploding.

People generally save during recessions, and once the economy publicly turns around, there will be a lot of large down-payments ready to dispersion into the housing markets. Houses which were previously overpriced will get a haircut sure, but locations which were close to realistic value will see a big increase in price in my opinion.

Either way, we don't know what will happen specifically, and saying "we still got a long way to go!" based entirely on historic data is not very founded.

Everyone is entitled to look at the data and draw their own conclusions. However, I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. Each generation generally doesn't make the same mistake twice, so it'll probably be at least 20 years before we see a large run-up in price again. Even then, it probably won't be as dramatic as we saw, and it'd have to be coupled with a large increase in future perceived earnings or real income. Neither is likely to happen any time soon. It is likely that most areas will never see real (adjusted for inflation) home prices as high as they were in 2006 again in our life times.

I'd argue that home prices will fall significantly below historical levels for a couple reasons. First, access to loans will remain tight, especially for large segments of the population who were foreclosed on or had credit card problems. This will suppress demand and lower prices.

Secondly, when the $8k incentive disappears, and there is no longer a motivation to buy immediately, more people will be likely to wait to buy a house, further reducing demand.

Finally, the massive increases to government spending without increasing government revenue will lead to a period of accelerated inflation. This inflation will cause banks to charge a higher percentage rate on mortgages driving down the purchasing power of most home-buyers.

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that home prices will over-correct relative to the historical average and remain depressed for ten years or more.

Note: This doesn't mean I don't think you should buy a house. I'm planning on buying one next year. Just don't bet on home prices going up any time soon.

# ¿ May 12, 2009 03:09

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cheesemaster200 posted:

How long did it take tech stocks to rebound after that bubble popped a decade ago?

How can you possibly make such a prediction?

Yes, but as interest rates go up, theoretically lending done by the bank will increase. Interest rates are low now because banks are hurting and they need loans (admittedly that don't suck) to make money. Once the recession lifts and lending goes back to "normal", interest rates will go up because banks do not need to give out that "discount" to attract business. However, this also means that more people are taking out loans and buying houses at higher prices.

People have already responded, but I don't think tech stocks (as measured by the NASDAQ) have hit their 1999 level yet, nor do I think they will any time soon.

I made the prediction using the assumptions I laid out in the next three paragraphs. You're free to interpret the data however you see fit. I interpreted the bubble to bet just that, a bubble, and that prices would return to what people afford. A drastic rebalancing of affordability could shift the prices either way. If other expenses (taxes, education, health care) go up, home prices will likely go down. If income goes up (technological advances, increases in trade, opening new markets are possibilities), home prices will likely go up.

You're also looking at interest rates wrong. Banks are not giving out a discount to get business right now. That would be the credit crisis you've heard so much about. There are a lot of people who would like to get a mortgage either to buy or refinance but aren't able to right now. Can you please cite some sort of source that states that increased home demand leads to higher mortgage rates, because that runs counter to all literature I've seen. Usually home prices follow interest rates (almost like bonds) not vice versa.

# ¿ May 12, 2009 22:32

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cheesemaster200 posted:

I am not trying to marginalize the trends of housing, but this isn't a scientific experiment where we can make a conclusion from data points observed previously. The housing market is just too large of a dynamic entity. Yes, in the past it was rather linear, but that was before jumbo loans, ARMs, government subsidy for housing, modern mortgages procurement, and tons of other factors which led to this bubble in the first place, factors which aren't going away

Of course we can't predict the future with absolute accuracy. I don't mind opposing views on where the market is headed, but most of the information you're using to support your argument is wrong. The last major social change in regards to home buying was right after WWII, after Congress had passed several measures to encourage home ownership, including implicitly backing mortgages up to 30 years. That, coupled with the post-war economic prosperity accounts for the large jump in home prices in the late 40's and early 50's. It was during that time when all your "modern mortgage ideas" originated, not in the last ten years.

# ¿ May 12, 2009 22:41

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cheesemaster200 posted:

Now the interest rate obviously will be tied to home prices and a lower rate will probably mean lower prices. However, it is just another factor going into a situation that will be extremely different from what we have seen before.
The point, as always, is that the historical data from the last 60 years probably doesn't mean to much.

I agree with you on these points regarding interest rates. I just don't think it's wise to throw out the historical data. I think I've laid out my position and given people enough resources to form their own opinions, so I'll shut up now. If anyone wants to continue the debate or wants my opinion on individual markets, feel free to shoot me a PM.

# ¿ May 13, 2009 01:20

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Kruzen posted:

Why is this? Just curious.

My old roommate decided he didn't want to rent anymore when our lease was up, we went out one weekend, looked at 5 or 6 houses, and decided we liked the first one, bought it, and were moved in 2 weeks later.

When was this? Stories like this weren't too uncommon even as recently as two years ago.

# ¿ May 19, 2009 00:02

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Helado posted:

Don't be surprised if some Realtors are surprised at the questions you're asking. I had one Realtor who thought I was implying she was a sleazy car salesman by asking all these questions.

This is one of the warning flags of a bad agent. A real estate agent should know more than anyone the importance of having full confidence in someone facilitating a financial transaction worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

# ¿ May 29, 2009 12:20

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

FidgetyRat posted:

Right now prices may be low..

drat it, you have got to stop repeating this. Prices are not low right now. In most markets, prices are still relatively high compared to historical trends. With interest rates going up and wages going down, prices are likely to keep going down.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2009 21:12

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Ashley Robertson posted:

stuff

First of all, good job on doing some research. Second, that payment sounds high for the amount borrowed. That's not at 5% according to my calculations. Also, you should factor in insurance, taxes, and utilities.

Most importantly though, you shouldn't buy a house until you're more stable in your life. Wait until you get married, are well established in your careers, and have a decent down payment saved.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2009 22:01

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

PIPBoy 2000 posted:

Am I getting in over my head or does it sound like we can really do this?

You two could easily afford the house, but don't let the $8k rush your decision, since prices are still dropping. You're still awfully young and your life is going to change a lot in the next 4 years. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record in this thread, but you should have some degree of stability in your life before you buy a house. Wait until you two are married and more established in your careers.

If you do decide to buy the house, make sure to at least go out and look at at least a dozen other houses. Don't fall in love with one house before you even start the process. Maybe I'm too cynical, but if it's been on the market for almost a year, there's probably something wrong with it or it's overpriced.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2009 01:43

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Tad SG posted:

Now that the house has been purchased and whatnot, I am looking into the $8000 credit. Has anyone in here had experience filing the tax amendment for their 2008 taxes? I'm wondering how long it takes to get the check.

I unexpectedly got a separate W-2 for moving expenses from a work-related move about 3 months after all my other W-2s, so I had to file an amendment this year. The check came about 6 weeks after I filed the amended 1040X.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2009 00:59

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Zeta Taskforce posted:

I agree that a lot of real estate is undervalued, and a sharp guy who can ride it out could eventually make a killing.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but home prices in most markets are still significantly higher than historical trends. Unless there is a surge in real income, home prices are likely to go lower than historical trends as is typical for recessions.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2009 19:05

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

FidgetyRat posted:

I'm genuinely curious as to why people even go for townhomes/condos when SFH's are available. At least in my area, a Condo/Townhome can sell for just as much as a full 2-story home on a decent lot where neighbors aren't sharing walls.

Most people prefer a SFH, but in most markets, townhouses are cheaper and tend to be in more desirable locations at a given price point.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2009 14:22

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

FidgetyRat posted:

...but if people will adamantly side with the whole "historical data" crowd with no evidence...

How can you claim there's no evidence that barring political changes (like in the late 1940s) home prices follow income trends? Personally, I think if there's a trend in home prices that's 120 years long, it'd be asinine to throw it out in favor of 3 years of bubble prices. That's like arguing that the true price of a striated tulip bulb is f15,000 rather than $0.99.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2009 18:50

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

FidgetyRat posted:

Because its impossible to predict the future with absolute certainty.. it MAY follow historical trends, or it may not thereby creating entirely new historical trends. So therefore there is no evidence, just guesses.

While it's true that it's impossible to predict with absolutely certainty, some guesses are significantly more likely to happen than others and are based on better data and assumptions. By your logic, there is no evidence for anything, financial or otherwise. If we can't analyze historical patterns and draw logical conclusions based on them, there's no point in even intelligently discussing anything.

Throwing your hands up in the air and crying that we can't know anything with absolute certainty is a cop out. It's basically an excuse to not even try. And that's a pretty lovely way to live one's life. Rather, everyone should weigh the evidence against their situation and make an informed decision.

My money (literally) is on housing prices continuing to drop. I arrived that position after analyzing market trends and the fundamental issues that affect home prices. Of course I don't know for certain what will happen, but by my research, home prices are much more likely to go down to historical trends than to remain at a clearly unaffordable level for most people in major markets.

Furthermore, you have demonstrated a clear inability to distinguish your individual market conditions from nationwide trends. Yet you still try to talk as someone informed on those same macro trends. Please stop.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2009 22:13

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Black Jasper posted:

Are there any pitfalls unique to this arrangement that I have to look out for? I trust the owners, so I'm not worried about getting hosed.

The issue is always going to be price. The overwhelming majority of home owners over estimate the value of their homes, often unintentionally. They may honestly think they're giving you a good deal, but in fact will be ripping you off. Also, the typical selling price of a house has 6% commission paid by the seller to the real estate agents. Therefore, your agreed upon price should be ~3% lower than the appraised value of the home. An appraiser should run you a couple hundred and is well worth the peace of mind.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2009 02:06

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Ophelia's Ashes posted:

Yes we have $17,000 in hand and in an emergency fund I have 6k.

So you're saying that you make $111k/yr, the majority of the money you have saved was a gift, you have ~1-2 mo worth of an emergency fund, half your down-payment is an unsecured loan, and you're going to buy a $40k car as a gift to yourself?

I'm going to go ahead and say that you should hold off on buying the house for a while.

Edit: Oh, and your car payments are going to be ~$1000, not $500, unless you're putting $20k down and financing out to 5 years.

swenblack fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Jul 16, 2009

# ¿ Jul 16, 2009 01:24

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Ophelia's Ashes posted:

Obviously my monthly income will be lower when taxes are taken off, but I'm still not seeing why I can't afford a nice car. I'm truthfully not trying to be difficult, I am just not getting it obviously. I need you to explain to me why it is a terrible idea for me to purchase an expensive car. Maybe my concept of housing payments are low or whatever it is.

First of all, the special APR really helps. But by my math, $40k at 5% on a 4 year note gives you payments of ~$920.

My original point is that buying a house will be one of the biggest financial decisions you will ever make, and should be made only with adequate consideration. If your justification for going $35k in debt to buy a car is that you are almost out of debt, you probably aren't mature enough to buy a house. While its true that you can probably afford it and that many other people in your position do it and it works out, you're still opening yourself up for a lot of risk if you do it for the wrong reasons and without considering the risks.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2009 03:35

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Zombie Dictator posted:

Even though we're in the middle of a real estate crisis, everyone I know lives in an area that hasn't lost value. Funny how that works.

I know, it's amazing. Also, everyone seems to live in that one small local market amidst a much larger market that never experienced a run-up in price.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2009 19:05

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Konstantin posted:

So if they decided to counter-offer 243k, would you have accepted? That is essentially what they are doing. As for the price, do you feel it is fair? Did the inspections discover any major issues that may need to be addressed in the medium or long term? Does this house have unique attributes that you value and other properties you looked at do not have? Do you feel comfortable spending the next decade or two of your life there? The fact that you spent 1k doesn't matter, it is a sunk cost and should have no bearing on your decision.

$2,000 is $2,000. The fallacy of sunk costs works both ways. If Velochis had a contract to buy a bag of chips for $0.50 and all of a sudden he found out it would cost him $2,000.50, everyone here would tell him to back out of the deal. If $2,000 changes whether the deal is in his best interest, Velochis needs to re-evaluate buying the home. None of us can offer anything meaningful without seeing the property. If he's still willing to walk away from the property, he might play hardball back, ignore the gently caress-off notice, and ask his realtor to show him more properties.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2013 02:49

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Bloody Queef posted:

I know people have boners over USAA, but what kind of lovely bank charges you for preapproval? Make sure their fees are in line with the market. Every single bank I've dealt with did free preapprovals and charging for one seems really loving shady.

USAA has become increasingly shady over the past couple years. I tried to refinance with them two years ago. They charged me a $300 "deposit" and then they missed closing three times. They would never answer the phone nor return my phone calls. When I finally told the I had enough (via e-mail), they wouldn't refund the "deposit." I'd stay far, far away from USAA mortgages.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2014 13:33

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

mindphlux posted:

so I figure this would be a good place to ask this : are variable rate plans generally the cheaper option for natural gas, or fixed plans?

I've been researching the companies in my market (GA), and everything I'm reading makes it sound like fixed rate plans are just for babbehs who can't stomach their gas bills being a lot higher in the winter than summer. but, when I look at our local government's public service commission website, which records average bill prices for each company's plans by month, it looks like fixed rate plans are actually cheaper in a 12 month period.

hours of furious googling and number crunching later, I still have no firm answer. anyone here have any thoughts?

The fixed plans are pretty much a scam in my area. I get a couple letters a month from my natural gas company extolling the benefits of switching to a fixed plan. However, when I ran the numbers, I found out I'd pay ~60% more on the fixed plan than I was paying on the variable plan. Also, the fine print on the fixed plan actually said that if it was cheaper than the variable plan over the course of a year, they could bill me for the difference.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 12:25

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Grumpwagon posted:

I've always done the variable plan, so grain of salt, but don't they recalculate your average every 12 (or whatever) months and refund (or at least apply to next month's bill) overages?

I'd assume every utility company is free to set their fixed plan however they want or however they're allowed to by the local regulations. I think at best you'd pay the same with a fixed plan as a variable plan, but the potential is to pay significantly more with the fixed plan if you're bad at math or the utility company is as shady as mine.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 13:31

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Cranbe posted:

Holy poo poo. Do you own a 8,000sqft house in Alaska or something? Are you sure you don't have a marijuana grow operation in your basement?

The Ukraine crisis caused a massive spike in natural gas prices. Pretty much everyone ended up paying a lot more that month.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 16:38

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

slap me silly posted:

My gas company sets the bill based on last year's average, then bills you (or refunds you) in one chunk at the end of the year to make up any difference from your actual usage. My electric company does the same, but with a rolling 12-month average. I do both of these because it's convenient and there's no extra fee. Some companies charge a different rate for this?

See my post above, but yes. My company charges a fixed price that's about 60% over their estimate of your projected usage.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 16:40

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Steve French posted:

But he was talking about his electric bill?

D'oh. I don't read so good.

# ¿ May 15, 2014 20:27

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

a shameful boehner posted:

God loving damnit.

I got this from my loan originator earlier today:

That is loving absurd. $1,368 just to extend the rate lock 30 days? That's 46% of the closing cost concession made by the seller to me. My rate with 5% down in a conventional loan is 4.375%.

The fact that the seller had the option to extend the close date out 30 days was communicated to the originator at the outset of the process, so to all of a sudden be informed that it's now going to cost me almost $1,400 is just crazy to me. According to my realtor, the sellers have had a bad experience with a rent back in the past and that isn't a viable option.

Given that the closing date on the property is still more than 30 days out (July 15th), should I immediately start looking for a different loan originator? What are my options here? I've let the guy know I'm not happy and I want alternatives, so I'll give him some time, but still. Frustrating as gently caress.

I ran into a similar situation buying my house. I was able to negotiate the fee away by informing my bank I no longer intended to close with them. The bank has already done all the work they're going to do, but nobody, including the bank, gets paid until the loan closes. My bank called me back less than ten minutes after I hit send on the e-mail willing to waive the fee. I'd also start working with a mortgage broker to get a competing rate.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2014 12:39

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Warpaint posted:

Just a reminder to not turn down owner's title insurance. Not even sure if you really can, but don't.

My house and 2 others next to it were built in 2007 and the builder went out of business, so it remained mostly finished for 3 years until an investor bought it in 2010 and finished it. Put in cabinets and carpet and appliances and things like that. They listed it in 2011 and it didn't sell until I bought it mid 2012. Last week I got a notice of a mechanic's lien against the property that wasn't discovered by 2 different title searches. It seems the builder never paid the concrete company that poured the driveway. Filed a claim with title insurance that settled and paid the attorney to release the lien with no further action needed on my part, but if I had passed on title insurance it would have been about 1900 out of my pocket to release the lien. I'm hoping that's the only thing that will come up like that.

That was a fun notice to receive on Christmas Eve. Do never buy (without title insurance).

"Always turn down owner's title insurance." At least that's what my dad (a retired real estate attorney) told me. He had never heard of a successful claim against it in his entire career. That, coupled with the depth that most lenders go in their title searches, means that the likelihood of an undiscovered title defect is spectacularly low. And if they discover anything, they'll put in a contingency that you fix it or they won't loan you the money to buy the home. Out of curiosity, how much was your title insurance premium?

# ¿ Jan 1, 2015 05:57

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Warpaint posted:

Really? Huh. My experience was exactly the opposite. Premium was 378 rolled into my closing costs. I actually had no trouble whatsoever making a claim. They asked for a copy of my policy, hud1, and the notice. I emailed it to them and they called the attorney listed on the lien notice and took care of it in a day.

A 5 year old mechanics lien not coming up on a title search is pretty :psyduck:

. I'd wager the probability of that happening and the party actually trying to collect in the future (without a lien on file with the county) is negligible. Usually ~50% of your owner's title insurance premium goes to the real estate agent and/or closing agent if you use the one they recommend. If you feel you need title insurance, at least get some independent quotes. It sounds like you didn't pay too much for it (my quote was $1550) and you obviously came out ahead, but other people should do more research on it.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2015 13:44

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

QuarkJets posted:

Well, yeah, but that's why you buy owner's insurance. Owner's insurance is cheap (as a fraction of the purchase price) because claims are rare, and claims are rare because usually the transfer of title goes without a hitch. But sometimes it doesn't, and if you don't want to be subject to that kind of small but potentially disastrous risk then you buy owner's insurance.

You should also consider that for most of your father's career there wasn't a huge real estate boom followed by a huge real estate bust along with countless foreclosures, many of which were filed incompetently. We entered into a purchase contract on 2 different foreclosed homes that turned out to have cloudy title as a result of misfiled paperwork; this was turned up in the title search and brought up by the insurer, but small details like a filing date that is 30 days later than the court-mandated filing date or a missing attorney disclosure that no one's looking for could easily be missed. It's also not surprising that the housing boom, which was accompanied by the creation of a bunch of new construction companies, might have created more situations where an existing lien goes undiscovered. Most of these newer homes will be sold and owned without issue, but as a home purchaser there's always that chance that you'll be one of the people who gets hosed

Most people don't understand title insurance and subsequently overpay for it. First of all, it generally only covers undisclosed lines. In your case, title insurance does nothing. Also, in general, if a lien isn't recorded with the county within the statue of limitations (150 days where I live) it isn't collectible. In Warpaint's example, the lien was almost certainly uncollectible and the probability the title insurance company actually paid the guy is quite low. Finally, the outcome of an undisclosed lien is usually a lawsuit (which is rarely successful), not the loss of the property in question.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2015 20:20

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

therobit posted:

In Oregon the seller pays for the buyer's title policy as part of closing costs, but personally I like the peace of mind that I get from it. Odds are slim that there will be an unrecorded lien but the consequences can be awful if it is of any size. Plus with how many releases I have run across that were filed at the wrong county I can certainly imagine a situation where you could have a heloc or something that wasn't uncovered in the title search because it was filed wrong. I don't know how the courts would handle that but I imagine it would be a pain in the rear end to deal with.

The seller does not pay the buyer's closing costs. Please stop perpetuating this idea. Only one party is bringing money to the table. Also, a title search is an audit of the official registry (as opposed to a Google search)--if it doesn't turn up a lien, then they odds of the lien being collectible are almost zero. In your example, an incorrectly filed lien release means that we don't know if the properly filed, valid lien is still in effect. That simply does not equate to an improperly filed lien that is not attached to your property subsequently being attached to it.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2015 20:42

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

esquilax posted:

Crosspost from the newbie finance thread:

So - I bought a place in August at 30 year fixed, 4.125%. I got a call today from the mortgage lender that I used, saying I could refinance at 30 year fixed, 3.75%. This is completely free with no closing costs, he assures, because it's within a year of purchase and that's a thing they do.

It seems a little too good to be true - is there anything that I should be concerned about or should look into in depth before I refi?

I did this twice within the first two years of my current home (in 2010 and 2011 when rates were in free-fall). Both times the rate and outstanding balance went down. Just don't commit any money until you see a HUD-1. The only "catch" is that it resets your loan term to 30 years, so make sure to account for that in your comparison.

Also, what SlapActionJackson said in the previous post is important.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2015 22:20

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Steve Yun posted:

Hey, is Lending Tree a good place to get a refi? I'm 4 years into a 20 year mortgage at 5.5%

If you're at 5.5 and you don't have poo poo credit, any place is a good place to get a refi.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2015 04:36

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

LabyaMynora posted:

I don't know, can that possibly hurt getting mortgage approval? Like am I better off just applying for the mortgage as though she's a housewife, or would it actually be better to include her financials even if they've been unsteady during the past year?

I hear there are Real Estate agents that will help find you a place to rent... is there like some secret underground society of rentals that don't suck that aren't advertised, that you need a secret handshake and an agent to get?

I'll field these two. Adding a borrower can't really hurt your application, because the banks look at qualified income. Not having a W-2 makes things hard, but you'll probably just have to send them a copy of your entire tax return. Some banks frown on this and others are fine with it. Either way, a decent mortgage broker can help you. They don't get paid if you don't get a home, so they're highly motivated to make things work. Just check whatever rate you're getting against bankrate and zillow to make sure you're not paying above market rates.

Secondly, there is a hidden market for rentals in most markets, but it's people who want to sell their homes but can't get enough money to do so, so instead they rent them out. Real estate agents get paid referrals for hooking up renters with owner-rented homes. They'd much rather get the commission, but it is a decent consolation prize.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2015 04:56

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Spamtron7000 posted:

This happened to me when my mortgage broker was selling my loan off. They ended up telling me it was because they couldn't take payment because the loan was in transition.

Same here. Mortgage brokers just aren't set up to handle payments in the way that major banks are.

# ¿ May 7, 2015 03:48

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

Leperflesh posted:

Do not take this sort of advice from the party that benefits financially from it. Even if rates go up by an eighth, how many years will it take to get that thousand dollars back?

Do the math, I bet it's a lot of years. (I'd do it for you but I'd need to know the size of the loan, obviously.)

It's ~$25/month per $200,000 borrowed. So around 3-4 years if it's around the national median. Definitely worth it if rates actually go up, but they've been stuck at this level for 3.5 years. Rates fluctuate by 1/4 of a point on an almost daily basis, so while it's probably not the optimal decision, paying $1k to lock in at near unprecedented historical lows isn't necessarily bad.

# ¿ May 15, 2015 04:22

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

QuarkJets posted:

The 'Eagle' policy (I assume from First American?) that you're talking about is basically a full Owner's policy. You should get it.

No, you shouldn't. Title defects are a huge scare factor for new home buyers, but actual successful claims against title insurance are absurdly rare. My dad (a retired real estate lawyer) hasn't heard of a successful claim in 35 years of practice. If there is a title defect, the title search you pay for will discover it. In the unlikely case it doesn't, the lender's title insurance you are forced to buy will cover the lawyering required to fix the defect. Most owner's title insurance policy have a >50% commission paid to the closing agent, so if you actually think you need it, shop around, don't just take the quote your closing agent is giving you.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2015 00:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:12

swenblack: Jan 14, 2004

QuarkJets posted:

We already had this exact conversation something like 6 months ago

And yet you're still giving the same really, really bad advice. I bet you tell people it's stupid not to buy extended warranties on their new cars too. The point of my anecdote is that people should ask a real estate attorney they trust if title insurance is right for them before paying a 100% mark-up on something they probably don't need.

Are you a title insurance salesman, by any chance?

# ¿ Jun 13, 2015 01:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > House-buying thread - Why is everyone involved in this process so deeply stupid?

«‹›2 »