|
xaarman posted:Hey all, I am looking at buying my house and am going back and forth if its a good idea or not. Personally, I would stay away from buying condos if at all possible. It's like all the downsides of living in a apartment combined with all the downsides of owning a house. I know in some cities condos are a big thing (san fran, ny, etc), but Omaha I don't see as a condo Mecca. Those HOA fees could go up as well. The houses are nice and will be MUCH easier to resell, but you have to ask yourself if you are willing to put in the extra work to keep the yard in respectable condition. You have to pay property taxes on a condo too so that's not really a housing con. The nice thing about the house is that the HOA (if there even is one) will be much less of a pain in the rear end than the condo's. Obviously you would have much more privacy as well. If you want to live in the city rent a condo or apartment. Don't buy a condo just to "own" something. The last thing you want is to be stuck with a condo you can't sell in the middle of Nebraska.
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Ashley Robertson posted:I've been working about 5 years in publishing Forget all about buying a house for now. Spend the next year learning how to live on a budget and how to save money. Five years in the workforce and you have $1000 in savings? Houses are huge money sinks you have to have some reserves man. Also $500 /month of $62K gross a year is literally 12% of your take home income going towards student loans. That will put a HUGE dent in your ability to buy a home as well. This may not apply to you, but in general I'd be wary of buying with a GF/BF unless you are definitely planning on getting married in the future, especially if you cannot afford the house on your own. Realjones fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jun 11, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2009 04:30
|
|
|
ManDingo posted:I ran accross this article today and thought it might be worth posting. That's exactly what the credit originally was in the first version of the stimulus bill before being reduced in the stimulus bill that finally passed. If it didn't pass the first time I don't see it happening again. Even if they do pass it people will just jack up the price of their houses $7K higher than the $8K they already have. The problem is that the economy is still in the shitter and home prices are still too high compared to historical values. Throwing money at it won't fix the problem in areas where the average home is still "worth" $300K when the median income is $50K.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2009 02:54
|
|
|
Uuudar posted:I just closed yesterday and $8000 is better than nothing, but $15k would be jaw-droppingly awesome. Hopefully this will apply to anything bought after 12/31/08. It's very doubtful that it will pass. First off because it didn't pass the first time it was proposed in the stimulus bill and second because it won't help. Sellers will just jack up their home prices another $7K like the $8K they did when the credit first became available. Besides, who wants to move up when it means they eat a $100K loss on their current house? So now you're only out $85K - great! If anything the underwater people would be more likely to move laterally or down so they could get out of their current situation without losing a home or having to write the bank a check. This stimulus would help first time buyers a little more, prospectors, and people who bought homes before the bust that are not underwater and looking to move up. It would not help the people who are underwater (not that I think they deserve help). Those people are either going to have to eat the loss or send in their keys and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:We continue to receive calls from residents wondering whether their property taxes will be reduced in response to the downturn in the real estate market. Unfortunately, that most likely will not happen. Property taxes are driven by the spending of your local taxing bodies, such as schools, villages, libraries and park districts. If assessments were frozen or reduced, but spending by taxing bodies increased, taxes would still go up. It's retarded and everyone knows it's retarded. A home's taxes should be based on it's assessment, and should go down if the assessment does down. The problem is that the people that use the money that comes from property taxes are already facing huge gaps in their budgets from foreclosed homes that aren't paying any property taxes anymore. If you bought a house tomm for $250K that sold for three years ago for $450K, the rates should definitely be adjusted (and you should have legal recourse for that), but I believe what the bank is saying is that if you bought a house for $450K and are staying in it they aren't about to adjust the rates downward just because the assessment is lower (which makes no sense and everyone knows it). quote:Is there proof of this, or is it just an assumption? As a buyer I see the $8000 as a nice perk, but considering I can't use it for the down payment, it doesn't really influence what I would pay for the house. Well it cannot be officially proven, but given that the credit is mentioned EVERYWHERE in real estate ads these days means that you better believe it influences things on the seller's financial side as well. Maybe they list their home for a couple grand more because they know that the buyer will be looking at the home as costing "their offer - 8000," or (and far more likely) they hold off on dropping the price of their home. As someone else mentioned as well sellers may be less likely to help out with closing costs and repairs because the buyer will be getting their $8000 in "free money" from the government to help out with that stuff. A simple way to see the influence will to be to see what happens once the credit goes away.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2009 03:59
|
|
|
Arzakon posted:I have wondered about this for a while, wouldn't the banks be paying the property taxes on these homes? I wouldn't think the government would just give them a pass because its a bank owned property rather than a person owned property. Seems to me if the bank wasn't paying the property tax the government would put a tax lien on the property. You are right. I was referring to the period between when the family stopped paying property taxes to when the bank took over...that can be a very long time in some cases. Now the bank is supposed to pay off those back taxes when they take over the home and auction it with a clean title, but that may not always be the case. Also, when the house sells at auction it will have to be reassessed, thus making the tax income on it lower. Another thing the bank can do (especially if the house was gutted) is just say "screw it" and not pay the taxes on it either and let the city come take it over to resell for tax money (which also takes a very long time).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2009 13:58
|
|
|
Rikes posted:I assume that reasoning #2 makes townhomes a better buy. I do want a 2-story place w/ an attached garage and that "house-like" feel, but I have seen some very nice ranch-style condos in my price range that I'd be happy to live in. Should I hold off a bit longer to see if I find a townhome I like? #1 may be true, but does it take the HOA fee into account, which will likely be significantly higher with the condo? Townhouses are more desirable than condos just like SFHs are more desirable than townhouses. If you can afford a townhouse definitely go with the townhouse. You will have an easier time reselling it even if it is not as nice inside simply because it's not a condo. A lot of people won't even look at condos.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2009 00:05
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:So based on this, the housing market won't recover until 2013 and i should not buy a house this year? It's a great chart, but the thing to consider is that the vast majority (I've read 65-75% depending on the source) of option-ARMS and other exotic mortgages are in four states: CA, NV, AZ, and FL. A 2013 recovery is probably realistic for these four states - they are still on the way down and have A LOT further to go. You can save a lot of money by waiting to buy in those states. The rest of the country should "recover" sooner, although buying a house from purely a monetary investment has rarely been a good idea anyway. The other thing to take note of is that a lot of these exotic mortgages are ALREADY resetting because either people can't keep up with even the teaser rates (which is just sad), or because the rates have reset early due to the negative amortization "trigger point" being reached. Like someone who was paying less than the interest on a loan has their rate reset when the value of the loan reaches 115% of it's original value (because the interest that they weren't paying was added to the loan balance). This is a good example of how insane these teaser rates where (look about halfway through the article for the red underlined text). You think someone is going to stay in a house when the monthly payment goes up 2.5x what they're paying now and the place is worth $200K less? Hell no! Welcome to 2010-2013 in CA, NV, AZ, and FL.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2009 00:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Anyway, what do you guys think. Am I an idiot for buying at all? Am I looking to spend too much? Or do you agree with every pro I've spoken to that I could "easily" afford $300k? And I'm particularly interested in opinions about the SF Bay Area market and it's unique peculiarities. You'd have to be insane to buy a house in CA right now. They still have the most alt-a and ARMs loans in the country that have yet to reset meaning more foreclosures and more bottoming out of the housing. Are you willing to buy a house now for $300K when it very likely will be worth $200K in the near future? Some CA zip codes are down more than 50% since the bubble peak and are still falling. If you can wait this thing out another year or two you can either get a lot more house for your 300 or get the same house a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
geetee posted:Is your salary over 75K or is your AGI over 75k? I would guess that he makes $100K gross, with $15K in his 401k bringing him down to $85Kish AGI. Pinkied_Brain posted:So - has anyone been in that area above the minimum for the tax credit but below the cutoff point, does it work ok? Do you think it's worth it to do it (my employer doesn't do any matching) - losing 15,000 now to gain 4000 later in the year, plus having 15,000 in my 401k? You can use your 2008 tax return AGI instead - was that below $85K? If it's not and you can manage the squeeze, it's probably worth it to max out that 401k to get your AGI down. Let's say your income is $100K and you are on pace to put $5K in your 401k this year, leaving you with AGI of $95K (and no credit). If you put in another $10K that will drop you to $85K and get you $4000 back. That's an instant 40% return on your $10K 401k contribution, and you even get a check in the mail for it! I would call whoever does your taxes and they could give you concrete numbers. Realjones fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Sep 30, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
BrokenLinux posted:I have a question about the first time home buyer tax credit (8k). You don't qualify; you both have to meet the three year rule. I assume the home your wife sold was her primary residence.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
I would really like to see the credit NOT be extended. A realtor was quoted in the washington post saying something like she was seeing people overbidding by more than $8K just to get the credit, even as they were being told they were overpaying. You know it must be insane if a realtor is admitting someone overpaid. The one thing that might keep the credit from getting extended is the news about the fraud with regards to claiming the credit. I would still bet my money on it being extended until June because it is "good politics" and the NAR\NAHB have a ton of money to throw at getting this thing passed. The question is, if it gets extended until June, what happens in June? Does the NAR go nuts again about how the credit needs to be extended again? At some point the credit will end and housing will have to recover without the subsidy. Lord knows what kind of bubbly chaos will insue if they make it $15K for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
quote:# Income eligibility for first-time home buyers stays at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for couples. Lame. I guess they really don't want single people to buy homes in high cost of living areas. At least the move up buyers will increase the inventory on the lower levels which will keep prices from spiking too much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Got an offer accepted today. Bank-owned house, we are FHA. What are the odds we can close by Nov. 30? Zero, which are also the odds of the housing credit not being extended in some form, so I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
The $6500 won't apply if you already bought your home, it will either be from Nov 30 or from when the bill is signed (today?). The whole point of the credit is to spur people to buy homes, not to hand out checks to those that already have. I would have liked to see the credit not extended, but at least they were nice enough to up the income limits so housing in the more expensive (and hardest hit areas) of the country will qualify.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2009 21:21
|
|
|
Chajara posted:Speaking of PMI, I have a coworker who's in the process of buying a house and she told me we didn't necessarily need a 20% down payment. I asked "What about PMI? Don't you end up paying like an extra hundred bucks or more a month due to that if you don't have the down payment?" and she said that since the place she's trying to get is out in the country outside city lines that there was no PMI. I've never heard of anything like that. The bank cares about the loan, not the location. Unless she found some special program, she will be paying PMI. While banks love to see 20% down, the fact of the matter is that most first time buyers don't put that much down and haven't for the longest time. Even back in the late 80s the average first time buyer only put down 10%. That dropped to almost nothing during the bubble years and is now rising again, but my point is that you don't (and haven't needed) 20% for a very long time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:Basically I can buy either in the spring of 2010 or 2011. Assume higher interest rates in Spring 2011. Generally increases in interest rates pushes down home values as it reduces the amount of home that people can purchase for a setmonthly payment. I would say that generally you are better off buying when rates are slightly higher because then there is the possibility that they could go down and you could then refinance at the lower rate. The problem with rates right now is that they only have one direction to go - up. That being said I don't think anyone expects rates to hit 7% or higher anytime soon so the price differences caused by rising rates may not be significant. The issue (if there even is one) is when you go to sell the home...if rates are 5% now, but 7% when you sell...well you likely won't get as much. PC LOAD LETTER posted:QUOTES Is a line by line retort really necessary? If you're responding to someone, how about responding to their post as a whole or at least in bigger chunks? You've got like 15 single line quotes in there which makes it impossible to read :\
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 06:23
|
|
QUOTES QUOTES
|
quote:Around the 10-12 year mark of ownership is where my carrying costs would roughly approximate what I could recoup in rental income. So if my plan was to buy as as primary residence, move out in 5 years, then rent thereafter, I would have about 5-7 years of eating carrying costs before the place could sustain itself on its own. I'll say "that's a bad idea." The best case scenario has him leaking money for at least five years after he moves out before he starts turning a profit on it. What happens if you can't find a long term tenant? Each month without a tenant is going to cost you what, like $1600? Can you afford to be paying rent for two places at once? If your condo appreciates, you'll come out alright. But if that condo drops 10% (a very real possibility), you are going to take a huge bath. Why not just rent a condo from someone else? The U.S. is full of people who own condos they wish they never bought.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 01:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think so. Not as a matter of course, anyway. It is possible to get a 0-down loan through the rural agricultural development program thing that has been mentioned in this thread previously, but only for buying rural property that qualifies, and those loans are insured/guaranteed by the government. FHA has a minimum 3.5% down loan program and as far as I know that's the lowest down you can otherwise get, regardless. NACA does 0% down loans (with no PMI as well), but their loan limits are about 50% of FHA, and they are anything but quick.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
I went to the first intake meeting for NACA and I guess they are ok, but they REALLY slow and won't due anything unless you constantly hound them. The counselors are really overworked and the lady I was with was very nice and I had all my stuff set and she said she'd send it on in a few weeks and then I'd be "NACA qualified" and ready to go. It was no surprise the lady never got back to me and I didn't bother hounding her since I wanted to wait and see what happened with the housing credit. The thing I didn't like about the program is this: let's say your max mortgage payment is $1400. You can't get a loan for place with a payment of $1500, but you can get a NACA mortgage for a three unit building with a $3000 mortgage and rent out the other two units (you have to live in the third). It makes no sense. They won't let you make ANY down payment, even if you want to. Any seller assistance has to be used to buy down the interest rate. A nice feature no doubt, but it does line NACA's coffers. The secondary lien is pretty lame as well. Also I believe it was $30 in membership dues that you have to pay before your first meeting, whether you ever get qualified or lot. I bet a substantial amount of their income is from people paying those $30 dues. The NACA office I went to had sold 300 homes in the last year. There were 400 people at the meeting I went to alone (and they have a meeting every week basically), so even if only 20% ever meet with a counselor...that's a lot of money. I would imagine that getting a seller to accept a NACA mortgage would be even harder than an FHA mortgage. It is a great deal once you get through all the hoops though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 02:12
|
|
|
Can you afford to pay for the condo and wherever you will be living once you start renting it? Tenants are not a guarantee. Even one month between tenants is a $1800 loss. Why would you voluntary put yourself in a situation to be out four grand a year and possibly more if you have tenant issues (plus all the headaches of being a landlord)? Personally I would never buy a condo. Rent from someone else, sure. To me condos are like all the disadvantages of being in an apartment combined with all the disadvantages of owning. The HOA fees just kill it. You could rent a 1br for $1700 for the next 3-5 years and keep your $70K as well. If you are that worried about inflation put some of your nest egg into tips or ibonds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
Michaelos posted:How impatient should I be about getting on my former landlord to give me back what is left of my security deposit after repairs? The Realtor sent out the Email with the pictures and any leftover work on March 3rd, and it's March 30th. Is he being slow, or am I being impatient? In most states it is 30 days. Did you give him written notice of your new address when you moved out? If it goes over the 30 day limit (this depends on the state), but in PA you can sue for double the security deposit if it is not returned by then. Screw "a couple weeks." I'd email him today asking what's up. It is the landlord's responsibility to return the security deposit in a timely manner, not lollygag around for weeks. You better believe if you were late on your rent he'd be calling you the next day to see what was up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
I'm sure he'll get it to you with plenty of time to spare. I'm not saying to be huge dick and be like "you've got 10 days left bub" it's just that have to remind them about doing it. Especially for landlords with lots of properties, they have so much stuff on their plate with current tenants that mailing a check to a past tenant sometimes gets put on the back burner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
ignore original post looks like I did get some responses from lenders. Am I insane to be considering a FHA 5/1 ARM? It's a 1/1/5 ARM and compared to a 4.5% fixed (5% down with single premium PMI paid at closing). It looks like you have to go out to year 10 before the ARM starts losing to the fixed. Realjones fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
With the new FHA PMI rules, single premium PMI is the way to go if you can swing 5% down. FHA - 3.5% down: 1% origination fee .90% PMI for at least 5 years 5% down single payment PMI (SPMI): $800 origination fee 1% single PMI charge (expressed as a point on HUD-1) No monthly PMI No interest rate adder The actual point charge will vary based on your credit score and market conditions, but that is what I received with excellent credit. I also had a different lender quote me 1.25 points, which included the SPMI charge and origination fee. You can see that over the first five years the SPMI saves you about 4% of the home purchase price vs FHA. You also never have to deal with getting PMI removed. The tax deduction for PMI is not a guarantee. Although it has been extended through 2011 it may not be extended again. The PMI deduction also has income limits. The higher interest rate no PMI option (LPMI) is ok if you don't plan on staying in the home for a long time. If you assume a .375% rate adder for LPMI the SPMI starts to come out ahead after year 4. If you end up staying in the home for like 10 years you will take a bath with LPMI compared to SPMI.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
jerkstore77 posted:So what happens if the seller of a house we put an offer on dies before signing the offer? She had verbally agreed to sell us the house at the offer price, but as far as we know, she didn't sign anything before the cancer got the best of her If she never formally signed the offer you have nothing. However, you can ask whoever is managing her estate. If they plan on selling her home I doubt they will have any problem selling to someone that she already had lined up. Certainly beats having to put it back on the market and deal with all that stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
You may be able to get better terms going with someone who is going to sell the loan since they are looking to unload it quickly and aren't concerned about making money over the life of the loan. I know when I was mortgage shopping the local mortgage places had better terms than the big banks. Their origination fees were like $800 instead of 1 full point, and interest rates were ~.25% lower. I went with a local lender that I knew was going to sell my loan ASAP, but they had the best terms by far and everything was done "in house" which made things go smoothly. I received notice that my loan had been sold 11 days after closing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Couple of points here for you: - definitely pull your credit score to make sure nothing is holding you back there - nothing says "I have no money" like FHA with closing costs rolled in. You need to save as much as possible and have your future wife start saving money as well. If you can get to 5% down to do conventional it will save you money in the long run. Here are the numbers for you for a $115K loan, 5%, $3800 property taxes - PITI $1070 465 interest 150 principal 50 home insurance (guess) 87 PMI 315 property taxes So of your $1070, $150 actually goes towards principal (avg over first three years). Over three years you will save $5400 towards principal. If you are in the 25% bracket you will save $215 a month, making your net payment $855, but that doesn't account for the standard deduction. Total throw away money the first three years? At least $25000, the actual amount depends on your tax situation. Just realize that with such a small down payment (basically 0 if you have to roll in closing costs) you aren't really saving anything over renting (at least the first couple of years).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Assuming a market that tracked the national average, all those people would have been financially better off renting during that entire period and saving all that interest and maintenance and tax money. That's basically a whole generation, not buying between their mid-20s and retirement age, having lost a giant pile of money to the American Dream. I do agree with you here, but investing and renting is not a surefire path to riches either. Couldn't the same concept apply to the stock market during the 2000s? All those people who thought they were getting a head start on retirement lost a decade. Maybe they didn't lose money, but it certainly wasn't the magical 8% a year that's always thrown around.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:Page 1 was considering the difference in cost with renting and buying a property to "pay yourself" and earn equity. The property in question is $314,900 with $15,000 down (<5% by like $600-800). Mortgage insurance of 3.19%, iirc. I know it was at least $8,000 anyway. Your numbers are off. First the interest rate on the mortgage 3.8%. Unless you are looking at an ARM or something 30 years are around 5% right now. It also doesn't look like you factored in the deduction for mortgage interest. The big thing when doing rent vs buy is that you have to compare equal size dwellings - ie buying a house vs renting one the same size. For, example you can't compare a 1 bedroom apt to a detached house. A $315K home should rent for more than $1200 a month, probably closer to $1600. What it really boils down to is appreciation. If the value stays stagnant or appreciates a little a year (say 2%), then you will be break even and be ahead of renting after the first five years or so - that's why people say don't buy a house if you aren't going to stay in the area for a while. In a depreciating market buying doesn't beat renting. Homes aren't good investments. Realjones fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Feb 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2011 23:51
|
|
|
SirPablo posted:Am I in left-field on this, or has anyone taken a similar or otherwise non-traditional view like this on home "owning"? I agree with you here, but you do have to see appreciation and/or principal paydown to cover closing costs in and out plus whatever you spend on maintenance for it to truly be a "hold" on your 20%.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Stunt Rock posted:My agent called me up today (after I got all the paperwork signed and the earnest money check ready) and told me that there was another bid on the house last minute and they're also paying cash for near the full amount. Probably the oldest trick in the book. Not saying it's true in your case, but it does happen. I would not get into a bidding war in this current buyer's market. If there is another all cash offer and you are doing a loan you have probably lost the house already anyway. If you want the house just submit your offer as it is and set it to expire in 48 hours or so. If you get a counter offer you can be pretty sure there was no other higher offer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:However, if you increase interest rates, it can immediately push people out of the pool that could have otherwise bought the house. True, but wouldn't it also bring a new "subset" of people into your home's price range as well? For example if you are selling a median home worth $200K and you have some people looking at it. Interest rates rise and now those people feel like they want to start looking at $180K homes instead. Wouldn't the people that were looking at $220K homes fall right into your $200K bracket? If you are trying to buy, then rising rates could price you out of your desired range. If you are selling, it seems that unless you have a home that is worth significantly more than the median (in that there aren't as many "move down" buyers available) it wouldn't have a huge effect on you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 16:25
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:The main problem for buying is that most of the people on this forum are young and not really ready to settle down. If you move in under seven years, it's a great way to piss away thousands of dollars in transaction costs for an asset you have very little equity in. Especially when you're exposed to the risk of the market falling. This is really what the thread is about. If your home appreciates a couple percent a year and you stay for 5+ years then you will do better off than renting, but neither of those are a guarantee. I have a friend that is moving and is trying to short sale his house his bought in 2005 @ $450K for $350K. 2005 was a great time to buy...in 2005. Now in 2011 we see that 2005-2007 was a terrible time to buy your first house. The big advantage of buying a home is dependent on the home appreciating, which, as we've seen in the past couple of years, is not a guarantee.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:What do you mean by cartel fee whether you use an agent or not? It typically costs 6% in realtor fees to sell a home. There is no reason in today's world for it to still cost 6% - it's a total racket. If you buy a home without a buyer's agent the listing agent will likely get the full 6% - you don't save any money. In a more perfect world if you didn't have a buyer's agent the listing agent would still get their 3% and the other 3% would either be returned to you at closing or you could work a discount with the seller. Since you are going to be paying for a buyer's agent even if you don't feel like you need one it makes sense to get one regardless. Personally I used a rebate agent and got 2% back at closing. I had to do the dirty work of finding homes, but my realtor did everything else from there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Where are you getting 0% loans from? There are a couple options out there, but they offset the 0% with fees and a jacked up interest rate so it kind of defeats the purpose. 3.5% is FHA, which is more reasonable, but the PMI is a bitch. If you don't even have 5% to put down what are you going to do when something breaks? Taking out HELOCs is not the thing to do for home repairs. Anyway there are few worse reasons to buy a home than "all my friends are" and "rates are really low right now."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:$60 for the plumber to come out and rod out the whole line, twice, all the way out to the main in the street. He chauked it up to old pipes and maybe a little too much TP. There wasn't anything wrong with our plumbing (thank god). Home warranties are great for easy fix it jobs like this, but from what I've read they are a complete nightmare if you need something like a dishwasher replaced or some sort of major work done. I received a home warranty from the seller as well and so far haven't had to use it (knock on wood). I'm not sure if it's worth renewing if I'm going to have to fight to get any major done though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:And still don't see where any of all that said responds to the "pride of ownership" idea. I just don't really take pride in something differently based on how I am paying for it. Because it's your opinion and no one is going to change it since you are happy with your current rental situation? In many states you have to vacate your rental home in as little as 30 days if it is sold. This can mean having to find a new rental house and being able to move into it in less than a month (and if you have kids within the same school district). It's just not something people want to ever have to deal with if they can avoid it. Pride of ownership is intangible. If you have attach no value whatsoever to it that's fine, but you have to be at least a little open to seeing how it does matter to many people.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 14:17
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Just to revise your numbers on PMI as I am in the middle of a transaction now. Over the course of a month I've seen PMI rates jump from .90% to 1.15%. On top of that they add 1% of your loan amount to the balance at closing. Have you looked into single payment PMI? I did 5% down conventional, paid 1 point at closing as a "single payment PMI charge," and so pay $0 in monthly PMI. Basically you are paying the PMI on the loan up front. If you're paying 1% AND another 1.15% yearly what kind of lender are you going with? Is your credit iffy or something? Seems like an awful lot for PMI.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
gvibes posted:Worst mistake of my life. Jorath posted:Worst financial decision of my life- lost %100 of our downpayment. Crawling out now, will probably rent for the same as the total we paying, and save up until we can just buy with more than %50 down for what's hopefully our last house ever. Did you guys buy in 2006/2007? Pretty much everyone who bought their first home in 2006/2007 got hosed. A lot of the "do never buy" sentiment seems to be "wish I hadn't bought a house right before the market crashed." I'm not saying you are dumb for buying...it is good for people to see that housing doesn't always go up and it is a risk that needs to be factored into a purchase decision. If you look at the NYT calculator, home appreciation is the biggest factor in buying beating renting. If the home isn't appreciating, it is never better to buy.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 03:18
|
|