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 »

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Gravitee posted:

My husband and I have been pre approved for a loan (YAY) and we want to start to look at houses. How do you go about finding a good realtor? Everyone I've asked either didn't like theirs very much or the realtor they used is in a different county.

Not trying to poop on your parade but getting pre-approval is easy (they pre-approve most everyone), its actually closing the deal that can take forever/be difficult, so expect difficulties there. Particularly if you're shooting for a "magic" 4% rate on the loan.

# ¿ May 31, 2009 17:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 12:09

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Ultimate Mango posted:

The appraiser even made an offhand comment about the low price on the comps he pulled, and was unwilling to listen to anything our agent had to say.

Dude the appraiser isn't supposed to listen to word one the agent has to say on the subject of appraising. During the boom things got pretty loose and agents would talk to appraisers all the time so they could "hit their numbers", but that poo poo does not fly anymore. Not even close. Now maybe he hosed up, but maybe he didn't, either which way I'd talk to another agent in your area just in case for CYA purposes.

Ultimate Mango posted:

As it is, our agent is putting together a different set of comps for the buyer's lender and we'll have to see how they respond. There's no way we can soak up a 10% delta and have both deals work.

Then don't buy, or better yet wait. Housing prices in many areas are still going down, just more slowly due to gov. intervention, that same house your interested in might end up a whole lot cheaper in a year or 2. No reason to rush into something as expensive as a home.

Leperflesh posted:

I'm not sure that short sales should never be used as part of the comps, but certainly they shouldn't be used as the only comparable sales, unless a majority of the sales in your area are short sales.

It doesn't have to be a majority, just a significant amount of short sales WILL effect comps and yes the appraiser has to account for them no matter what the realtor says. Just what amounts to "significant" will vary depending on who you talk to and where you live. Most realtors will vehemently deny they play any role in the appraisal process though, especially right now when they're desperate for business.

Leperflesh posted:

Given how reluctant and conservative the lender banks are right now

You ever try to get a home loan in the 70's or 80's, or heck even during the 90's bust? The stuff that people are seeing as excessive today was normal back then, people are just still used to low/no doc loans with 0 down and such. Having to do real work to qualify for a loan is alien to them but will soon become the new norm.

Happydayz posted:

Assume higher interest rates in Spring 2011.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. At least one of the GSE's sees rates hitting ~6% in 2010. That is probably optimistic IMO. There is also reason to believe that we'll see another big leg down in housing prices despite the gov's desperate attempts to prop them up, which have so far only resulted in an echo boom that is fading fast.

You can work out the details with any online mortgage calc, but as a sweeping generalization a high(er) interest rate on a cheap(er) home is better than an more expensive home with a low interest rate. So if you believe that home prices will tank further in your area over the next few years then wait, if you think we've hit bottom then buy. Personally I'd wait.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2009 06:11

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

The banks, as a whole, are actively restricting how much money they're willing to loan, period.

They're supposed to! Thats called prudent lending! You can certainly argue that it makes things more difficult for the borrower (it does), but it also means that in general the banks should start getting higher quality loans which will be much less likely to default. If they had done that from the get go the bubble could possibly have never occurred, or at least would've been much less severe and we wouldn't have had to do as much or maybe even any bailouts. Thats a good thing right?

Leperflesh posted:

This is why the Executive branch is pushing the banks so hard; they're trying to convince them to open up and lend more. Not just real estate loans, but (especially) small business loans too.

At best he is foolish and doesn't understand that the banks can't do that and lend prudently (and if they don't lend prudently they go bankrupt or get bailed out...), at worst he is being cynical and knows the banks can't provide more easy credit but will publicly demand for them to do so to look good for the voters.

Leperflesh posted:

I agree that the tightening of lending qualifications is just a return to previous practice, and also that it's a good thing (generally). But it's not the whole picture by a long shot.

This credit bubble was huge and went on for a long time and people got used to it and saw it as "normal" over the years, particularly those who grew up during it, they built their lifestyles around it. So the adjustment to sane lending and housing prices is also probably going to be a long and painful one, since people are going to see the "new" standards as unreasonable if not insane as they'll have to make major adjustments in their lifestyles to accommodate it. How many people you know have 15-30% down payment saved up and a 26-36% DTI plus have a 700+ FICO? How many people are even capable of saving that much within a few years given todays wages and housing prices? The answer is probably not many.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2009 20:28

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

What is the purpose of a bank? It is to invest the money of its depositors, thereby earning interest for them, and scraping some of that off the top to profit. That's what a bank is.

No disagreement there, I don't believe I said otherwise.

Leperflesh posted:

The bank has a fiscal responsibility to balance risk vs. potential earnings, to insure it doesn't lose money.

Same here.

Leperflesh posted:

However, it also has a fiscal responsibility to invest that money.

Except when it cannot do so prudently, the alternative is to lend improperly and lose their investors money, which as you note above they're not supposed to do.

Leperflesh posted:

The banks are sitting on billions of dollars. Trillions, put together. They've got to invest it somewhere.

The banks' balance sheets are trashed, if they lend that money they go bankrupt. Also they're being paid by the FED to hold it. Yes I'm serious, they're being paid interest to hold onto money by the FED, they started doing that last year.

Leperflesh posted:

It doesn't all have to be real estate or small business loans, but it's got to go somewhere.

They're guaranteed to make money right now by doing nothing by the FED, and much more than just small business loans and RE is effected.

Leperflesh posted:

All the Executive is doing is trying to ensure the pendulum doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction (from foolish, easy credit to unreasonably strict, difficult credit) because that hurts the economy a lot.

Too much credit helped cause all this mess so more credit is the answer? Its an issue of insolvency not liquidity, even the gov. admits they can't fix insolvency with more liquidity, they just refuse to admit that the banks are insolvent. Which is why they keep playing extend and pretend games.

Leperflesh posted:

In the past (even in like the 70s and 80s) I think there was, normally, more willingness to work with the situation and discover if the appraisal was reasonable or not.

Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't buy a house in 1985. It's just an observation.

It doesn't matter what time you point to, if you're underwater on your loan and/or trying to sell in a declining market then you're pretty much screwed.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 28, 2009

# ¿ Dec 28, 2009 21:55

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Ultimate Mango posted:

Isn't the appraisal supposed to support the value the bank should be able to get if for some reason they ended up owning the house, and had to sell it?

Banks care about the mortgage getting paid, not necessarily the sale price.

Ultimate Mango posted:

In that case, why wouldn't an appraiser consider short time on market and multiple offers at or above listing price?

Just a few years ago during the boom this was the norm and look what happened. We've had a bust since then, and yes there has been some increase in sales/demand, thats all artificial due to gov. involvement. When the gov. stops stimulating sales they're expecting prices/demand to plummet again, which will have an effect on jobs, which will feed back into foreclosures and their balance sheet. There is no such thing as a V shaped housing recovery....particularly with the job market the way it is or with declining wages to boot.

Ultimate Mango posted:

It seems like that is the price the market will bear.

I'm sorry but I'd say those are greater fools rushing in to buy. Again, there was a time just a few years ago when people would line up to bid up prices, it was insane then and its insane now. If you can get one of the to go for it then I guess you win out, good on you, but you can't build a market on the Greater-Fool.

Ultimate Mango posted:

The appraiser was blatantly incorrect in some of the facts in his report, which suggest that he either didn't doesn't know this area or didn't do his job properly.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know you or the appraiser or your area and I haven't seen the appraisal, so I can't take your word on this. I've seen to many people who think their area is special or that their house is all that, "its different here" just doesn't seem to pan out.

Ultimate Mango posted:

All parties involved except the appraiser all want to work together to get this done, so there is hope that we'll get through this.

I hope things work out for you, but I'm worried that you and others like you are making mistakes, ones that will either blow up in your face or in someone else's.

Leperflesh posted:

That is a blatantly twisted innacurate way to present what I (and the Exec) is saying.

No, that is my (poor) attempt at hyperbole. My bad.

Leperflesh posted:

Too much foolish credit caused all this mess, so some "amount" (actually, quality) of credit less than that, but more than what we are seeing today, is the answer. The dial was at 11, now it's at 3, and we want it to be at a nice moderate 5.

I get what you're saying but I think you're way off. It generally takes years of savings, a job, and real financial restraint to build high quality credit. Borrowers are still getting hammered by the bad economy, they've had no time recover and the banks know it.

Leperflesh posted:

However, all of the major banks have or are about to pay back their TARP money, and several have reported substantial profits this quarter.

Both profits and TARP payback money have been gotten from the gov, not because they've improved their situation.

Leperflesh posted:

It is not accurate to say that "the banks are insolvent". They are solvent largely because the government has helped them to unload their toxic assets. They do not want to accumulate new toxic assets and as a result they are being overly cautious, but all of the very large banks - with Chase being the straggler - are now in a financially stable and solvent position.

You do know they extended TARP, and that there are many banks that aren't paying it back right? Over 50 of them, up from 33 just a few months ago. Meanwhile foreclosures are still occurring at a rapid pace just not being counted on the banks' books to avoid write downs. The banks and gov. are playing extend and pretend, nothing has been fixed.

Leperflesh posted:

We are discussing a bank's reaction to evidence that a house might be worth less than is apparent. We are not discussing someone who is "underwater on their loan".

My understanding was he was trying to sell for about what he got it, my bad. But that still wouldn't change things.

Leperflesh posted:

And as for selling in a declining market... as long as there are buyers, it is possible to sell,

Sure, if you drop your price enough you can sell, thats always true. Most people can't afford to do that much if at all, that is where the "screwed" part comes in.

Leperflesh posted:

and "pretty much screwed" depends on several factors (what you originally paid, which market you're in, how much you still owe, what your house can sell for, how much inventory in your area at your price point, condition, advertising, etc. etc.

Its a sweeping generalization, but in most areas all of things are going to work against a seller right now.

Leperflesh posted:

I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with you, PC... just disagreeing with the absolutism and sky-falling tone to your posts. Let's try to avoid hyperbole in a thread about advice. This isn't LF.

Yea people would call me "negative" back in 2005 when I'd talk about the housing market too, it may not be fun to listen to, particularly if you're selling/buying right now but its not really much of an "argument". Also I never post in LF either, but fair enough I'll shut up now. You want to you can always PM me or something.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2009 00:22

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

belle of my ballz posted:

Renting an equivalent property would cost me roughly 500$ per month then buying it

Rent a cheaper property than. That sounds weird since normally its a good idea to buy when its more expensive to rent but even in Canada there was a housing bubble that went on for years, so rents have been blown up too. They'll come down but it'll take years.

belle of my ballz posted:

Doesn't make sense to rent

At 5.5x gross income it doesn't make sense to buy either though, even if your 15-20% down payment is taken care of. 2.5-3x is the "ideal" max, less is of course better but usually hard to pull off, unless of course you're willing to wait out a bursting bubble+recession.

belle of my ballz posted:

Worse comes to worse I rent it out, but I think i'll be stable here for the next five years at least.

Dude your 21. You could save up the money to outright buy a house if your careful by the time you're 30, or at least put a big(er) fat down payment on much cheaper homes in 2-4 years. Either which way time is on your side, no rush.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2010 12:58

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

And appraisals didn't contribute to the bubble, negatively or positively.

That is untrue, plenty of appraisers would "hit the numbers" upon request to make a deal go through during the bubble. If you didn't play ball you didn't get work and lost your job. That is half the reason they've tried to revamp the process by introducing stuff like the HVCC which is bitterly opposed by realtors because its supposed to keep them away from the appraiser.

quote:

But, as the Appraisal Institute recently testified to Congress, appraisers are under increasing pressure from lenders, mortgage bankers and real estate agents to "hit their number" when appraising property.

Rather than come up with an independent estimate of a home's value, appraisers -- who are typically independent contractors -- say they are being told to base their estimate on a predetermined value.
...
"All [lenders and brokers] want to do is hit the number because if they don't hit the number the deal doesn't go through and if the deal doesn't go through they don't get the commission," said Zielinski.

In theory, it's in a bank's best interest to make sure its loans are based on accurate appraisals, said M. Thomas Martin, of the National Mortgage Complaint Center in Seattle. "But if you're selling the loans to the secondary market, you really don't care," he said. "The higher the value, the better."

Leperflesh posted:

There is no way to asses some magical 'intrinsic value', that doesn't exist.

True, but affordability is also a factor that has to be considered, otherwise you end up in a boom or a bubble if things get really crazy.

Leperflesh posted:

It is actually the case that an appraiser should usually find the property to be worth exactly your bid. That's because an accepted bid is very strong evidence that that is the 'market value' of the property!

No they're supposed to look at the local market as a whole, among other things (ie. foreclosures, location, home condition, etc.), your bid alone won't play a role in determining value. Now if you want to overpay there is nothing stopping you from doing that of course.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jan 29, 2010

# ¿ Jan 29, 2010 23:21

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

That sounds like fraud to me.

Yea, it pretty much is. There were also some pretty elaborate scams where the realtor, seller, buyer, and appraiser would all collaborate together to drive up the price of a few homes that they'd sell back and forth between eachother and then pocket the money and run. A few of them used straw buyers to jack up prices on whole communities. You don't hear about them much because they were usually ran in the poorest of immigrant communities where most people didn't speak english so well.

Leperflesh posted:

Blaming appraisers for this is a stretch. Maybe they were part of the problem, but not a big part.

Oh absolutely, didn't mean to suggest that they were the sole cause. Everything you said applies too. I personally put the most blame on the gov. regulators, law makers, and bankers, but that is very much IMO.

Leperflesh posted:

An appraiser appraising a particular house shouldn't skew his final number based on abstract societal goals;

AFAIK they won't look at the buyers' income (that is for the LO/broker/realtor to do) but they do look at avg. income for the area. Or at least the used to. That isn't so abstract.

Leperflesh posted:

Do you think someone appraising a diamond ring should give it a lower value because people in africa were exploited in order to dig it up? Of course not; the diamond is worth what someone will pay for it, period.

Heh, diamonds aren't a good example to hold up though, lots of price fixing going on there by the cartels. I get what you're trying to say though, but homes are a necessity for most, affordability simply can't be ignored IMO.

Leperflesh posted:

Did I say your bid alone determines the final price?

Of course not, but it won't factor into it at all either. e: Well at least it didn't anyways. IMO that is a pretty lovely appraisal you've got there, but I guess things change don't they?

Leperflesh posted:

certainly the 'starting point'.

In a vaccum it would be, but homes are part of market, that is where they usually start in determining prices.

Leperflesh posted:

that's impossible to do perfectly.

Absolutely, but they can get very close, and little things won't have a big impact on the price (having marble counter tops certainly won't inflate the value of the home by $50K for instance, the old rule of thumb for most improvements was you got about 1/3 of what you put into it).

Leperflesh posted:

been evaluated by those very buyers.

It doesn't mean their evaluation is any good though. Most people don't know poo poo about home values, or affordability for that matter. Many otherwise intelligent people are total retards when it comes to money. Just look at what happened during the bubble man. That is why the appraisal process is so important...

Leperflesh posted:

That best offer is very good evidence of what the market will bear. How could you ignore it? To argue the house is "worth" less is to ignore that someone is willing to pay that number.

During the bubble people could place some very high best offers because of the loans they could get, would you consider their bids still valid? If not why not?

Leperflesh posted:

All a bank needs to know is whether at least one more buyer would likely be willing to pay that number, given time... if so, then the house could be resold for that amount and that's what it's worth.

Banks actually care more about the mortgage getting paid, since if the person defaults the bank is on the hook for the mortgage total regardless of the homes' value, affordability is the overriding concern for them. At least it is now anyways, during the bubble they didn't care, they just sold the paper on the MBS market.

Leperflesh posted:

The Income Approach is not utilized as these homes are purchased for residential amenities rather than income stream. The value conclusion is the result of a Summary Report.

Hahah, wow. That is a pretty big deal for them to ignore rents even if you wouldn't rent the place as rents depend heavily on local avg. income. If rents are much much lower in your area than owning then that is a pretty good sign you're in a overvalued area. Normally if you can rent for about the same as it costs to buy you're in a undervalued area, the problem is this time around the bubble went on so long it inflated rents too, but that is a whole other topic.

Leperflesh posted:

If there is no strong indicator that the recent value and/or trending value is substantially different

That is the part that you should be focusing on there.

Leperflesh posted:

Here's an excerpt from my appraisal:

They're just saying they went with your sales price since it pretty much agreed with all the other data they had to determine price. You can't just ignore that part before what you bolded you know.

Leperflesh posted:

So if the appraiser "consults" with parties and is "encouraged" in any way to hit a particular value, and then signs this document, guess what they've just committed fraud.

There is a reason why I and the article I linked used the phrase "hit the numbers" in quotes like that you know. They were playing cute with the law. No one would say they wanted a price of x, everyone involved knew that was illegal, they would just kind've mention off hand that the deal wouldn't go through if the price wasn't x when they were talking with the appraiser. That doesn't make what was done any less illegal, but it does make it very hard to prove in many cases what was going on.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2010 02:57

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Sorry, didn't read the topic for a while, just catching up...

Leperflesh posted:

but, it should be understood that there is a huge difference between subprime mortgages and the other types, in terms of quality (that is to say, the rate of default we should expect).

Most defaults right now are prime. Subprime and Alt-A are worse in terms of percentage of them defaulting but there are far more prime loans total. Also the documentation and standards were relaxed for prime loans too during the bubble, in short the prime loans of recent years in many cases aren't as good as the prime loans of yesteryears.

Leperflesh posted:

It is also the case that the resets of alt-a and option-ARMs are mitigated by the continuing very low interest rates.

True, but this is just putting off the day of reckoning until rates rise again. Ultimately programs like HAMP were supposed to get these people to refi into a prime loan, but they're finding out the vast majority can't do it. FWIW the GSE's are expecting rates to rise to ~6% later this year. We'll have to wait and see, IMO this is probably optimistic.

Leperflesh posted:

The vast pool of "shadow inventory" that has been reported on for nearly a year now keeps failing to materialize. I've read, and posted in this thread, a number of articles warning about the huge numbers of mortgages that are way, way behind on payments, but (for reasons that seem increasingly uncertain) the banks have not yet put into foreclosure. But when are they going to show up in the market?

When the banks are forced to put them on the market. Until that happens it could be years before you see them.

Leperflesh posted:

my own research has shown a rapidly decreasing inventory all through the late summer and fall...That is the opposite of what we should expect, if the warnings about high unemployment and tons of bad mortgages and all that shadow inventory are valid.

So what's going on?

Seasonality. Inventory and sales always decrease at the end and beginning of the year and then pick up again towards the middle of the year.

e: woops, wrong pic sorry.
Can't find the right chart I've got it somewhere sorry, but you can see what I'm talking about there.

Sales usually increase relative to prior months of every new year too. I'd expect to see the NAR and such to start blabbing about a recovery come May or June like they always do...YoY usually things are down or stagnant though.

Leperflesh posted:

but that runs exactly counter to the universal explanation I've always heard, that banks "hate" to hold on to houses that aren't getting payments made, preferring to sell at a substantial loss rather than hold them. Has that changed so radically this year, and yet nobody has figured it out?

If they sell now they have to take market value which is a big loss. By holding inventory off the market and not selling they're actually propping up their balance sheets in an rear end backwards manner as well as slowing price declines. Normally though the banks don't want to hold property since they get no money, but nothing about the current situation is normal at all.

Leperflesh posted:

but the simple truth is, nobody really knows

Perfect timing is indeed IMpossible (e: lol), but housing busts and recoveries are slow as gently caress, they take years man. YEARS. If you can call the trend correctly you'll do fine, and the trend is everything is in the crapper for now and the foreseeable future, so prices will continue to go down for a long while yet.

Leperflesh posted:

and even really, really smart people whose entire job is to figure this poo poo out, are throwing up their hands and admitting it's all pretty much unpredictable for the next year or two.

Just who are these really really smart people? They can't be that smart if they get thrown for a loop by some gov. intervention while watching unemployment continuing to climb, wages to drop, and foreclosures to continue at a brisk pace.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jan 30, 2010

# ¿ Jan 30, 2010 03:31

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

OK I apologize for not replying earlier, been working 12hr shifts lately so my routine for the past 3 days has been sleep/shower/work/sleep non-stop, so no time to screw with my internets.

Leperflesh posted:

I can't possibly spend the time to keep up with this style of debate, quoting every line of my post and responding to it.

You probably wouldn't end up typing much more than you do every now and then like you did a few pages back there. You actually typed more stuff than I did in that reply to borderpatrol a few pages back.

Leperflesh posted:

Let me instead summarize by saying: no, an appraiser should not care or take into account the factors that might be "artificially" pushing a price upwards or downwards.

If the prices are being skewed and he just shrugs and goes along with it you know they can get in trouble right?

Leperflesh posted:

Whether those factors are reasonable or unreasonable, the value of the house is what it will sell for, period. End of story.

If this was true they wouldn't look at other factors at all, they wouldn't even bother with an appraiser, they'd just mark down what the price it was sold for was and call it day. They of course do not do this though, why do you think that is so?

Leperflesh posted:

If everyone is getting ridicu-loans and being unreasonable and prices are wildly out of whack compared to rents, so what?....Cartels (DeBeers) hold back inventory and advertise to "artificially" inflate diamond prices to ridiculous levels. So what?.... I certainly would not want some appraiser telling me my diamond is only worth $3k, even though I could sell it for $5k, because blah blah DeBeers it's so unfair.

What you're saying here literally amounts to " :smug:

gently caress you, gonna get mine :smug:

" even if you have to gently caress over some Greater Fools to do it.

Leperflesh posted:

The banks should not rely on an appraisal to assess whether the buyers can afford their loan. They do their own due diligence (or fail to do it) based on the buyer's particular circumstances.

This is correct, however if the banks' don't know the proper value of the property than they can't really do a correct assessment then either can they?

Leperflesh posted:

They're just a tool for the bank to help them decide whether or not to extend a secured loan to someone.

Apparently its a pretty important one though.

Leperflesh posted:

unemployment is actually pretty much flat the last few months

Not really. Unemployment was down in Nov. (technically we actually gained jobs to do changes in how they counted the unemployed, ~4-5K IIRC) but up again by 80K in Dec. Not nearly as bad as it was 6-7 months ago or so as you note, but that is still very firmly in the bad category. Especially given the current levels of unemployed and underemployed.

Leperflesh posted:

foreclosures are also trending flat, not up;

Sure about that?

quote:

Foreclosure filings increased 14% in December from November, the first monthly increase since foreclosure activity peaked in July, according to a RealtyTrac report out Thursday.

Foreclosure filings were reported on 349,519 properties in December, which were also 15% higher than in December 2008, RealtyTrac said.
...

Even if they were down it wouldn't matter though because even if the economic situation stopped getting worse today you'd still have millions of more foreclosures coming once the loans start to reset. Don't forget all the shadow inventory either.

Leperflesh posted:

and I haven't seen any recent wage reports but I believe they're flat too. I am speaking in terms of the last quarter, not the last week.

Real wages are down 1% for the year of 2009. Doesn't sound so bad when you put it like that, but you've got to keep things in context:

Leperflesh posted:

Consumer confidence is up

Without money or credit to spend this doesn't count for much.

Leperflesh posted:

and the economy is now growing rapidly.

That is just the gov. spending money which is inflating the GDP, it looks real impressive but the underlying real economy is still falling a part, and if they stop spending you'll see that GDP number drop like a rock. Its quite possible that they will have to stop spending wether they like it or not.

OK.\/\/\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Feb 1, 2010

# ¿ Feb 1, 2010 22:16

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

jerkstore77 posted:

Also, I just read https://www.patrick.net and now I'm all depressed about all this.

That is nothing to be depressed about, that guy is helping people dodge bullets, you included. You should be happy! He is giving pretty good info. with solid reasoning and data to back up why it still isn't good to buy yet and to know when it is good to buy.

Is there any reason why you wouldn't want to know that sort of thing? Or were just hoping to buy now now now for whatever reason and the info. he gives is puncturing your dreams? Is it really that horrible to wait a few more years and save 10's of thousands, or possibly hundreds of thousands more if you were hoping to buy?

If you don't want to take that guys' (or my) word for it (and want to ignore SplitDestiny's link too while you're at it) then google around, all the info. he is giving is considered to be basic knowledge when buying (or selling) homes. The only thing I would add to it is that I think the bubble went on so long that rents got skewed upwards and that the long term trend for jobs/wages is negative, so we'll probably see an overshoot to the downside for home prices. That will likely take years though due to market forces and government intervention. If that sounds crazy then consider that in many places prices have declined to where they were in 2003-4, and yet are still dropping, but it took almost 4-5 years (most places peaked around 2005-2006) to get to that point. Then go read up a bit about what happened during other booms/busts like the one in the early 90's and in the early 80's. You'll learn a lot.

AppleCider:
Looks like you're in a tough spot, and AFAICS it could play out in any number of ways, which may leave you screwed or better off. I would really ask a realtor/lawyer to see if you're correct about the local laws first, they'll probably know more than anyone here, and what they say could really make all the difference. What you're saying sounds correct to me, but IANAL.

It smells fishy to me, since it wasn't in the disclosure and you're saying there is damage that is clearly viewable from the ground with shingles or pieces of shingles on the ground. How in the hell could they have missed that? If you're really really are set on that home I'd try to get them to lower the price of the house at least double the amount of what you were quoted for repairs. When I say double I mean double BTW. That isn't some sort of negotiating tactic that you let them talk you down a bit so that their ego's are stroked. There is a good chance that the damage is worse than it looks, maybe much worse, and there are always some extra little surprises to be found after you move in that really start to nickle ($50) and dime ($100) you to death.

Personally I'd walk away if I could and try renting for another few months or move elsewhere. Somebody tries that crap, it is a clear signal to me that they are not dealing honestly and are trying to screw me over, and homes are freaking expensive. Even a cheap one is expensive. Maybe I'm a weirdo but I have no problem putting up with the hassle and renting elsewhere even if it means spending a grand or so to move + deposit on a new rent. Compared to the cost of a home, or a new roof, that is cheap.

Hopefully you're not stuck, because if you are the sellers' probably already know and know that you likely won't walk away from it, since you won't have any way to negotiate with them other than bluffing or yelling. Neither of which have worked well IME. Good luck either which way.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2010 18:55

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

tadashi posted:

I was wondering if anyone knows of a way for an inspector to see behind the stucco before I own the house and am stuck with what is back there. Even though the stucco has only been on the house 7 years and it seems to be well done, they didn't put the usual dividers in that prevent moisture from rising from the ground.

Depends on your inspector and home. As Leper noted some of them will try to eyeball it and if they can't and see no obvious damage then they'll just shrug and move on. They aren't going to be ripping stuff out and poking holes in your walls if that is what has you worried. So if the dividers aren't there and its easily visible you're gonna get dinged for that.

That being said there are inspection cameras made for looking through small holes and tight spots, there is nothing stopping an inspector from using one.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2010 11:32

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

dwoloz posted:

Thanks for the recommendation Leperflesh

Today I inspected the house in some good detail except for the attic and roof. A dual pane window has a hole in it, door draming inside and out is poo poo, one bedrooms wood floor is visibly warped from water damage, a new foundation was built on top of the old (the old appeared to have sunk and is now at soil level). I'm having a pest inspection done tomorrow and looking to get a contractor in to give me a bid for repairs.

Dude, unless you work out a deal that gets you that home sold for next to nothing (I mean that literally BTW, 280K is a lot for a home with that sort of damage and its almost a sure thing there will much more hidden damage, especially if there has been enough water in the home to warp the foor) run don't walk away from that thing. You're probably going to end up spending a shitload on repairs, and there are plenty of homes out there to choose from right now.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2010 20:54

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

dwoloz posted:

I take it that you are not familiar with the Bay Area housing market because there is in fact not a lot out there right now and $185/sqft is considered a deal around here.

Right now it probably is, but in a year or 2? It'll probably be lower.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 05:00

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Rents were pushed up by the boom and are heavily dependent on wages and jobs. Its a sweeping generalization but most anywhere you go there will be downward pressure on rents for years since there will be downward pressure on all of those things for the foreseeable future.

In general trying to rent a SFR or condo is a bad idea. If you want to buy to rent something after a few years of paying down the interest/principal you should shoot for becoming a slum lord.

I'm not kidding.

If that turns you off just wait for a few years. The supply of homes is huge and they aren't going anywhere. Prices will keep going down most everywhere in the US for quite a while. You may feel like you're throwing your money away on renting, but if you buy a home/condo you're still going to have money going out the door until a)you pay off the mortgage or b)you find someone to pay you more than what you bought it for or c)find someone willing to rent from you for more than the PITI. Option c is very very hard to pull off to say the least.

Inflationary measures will also probably cause rates to rise, which will put more downward pressure on prices as well. FWIW I think we'll have steep inflation for a long time, but I also think they'll push rates way up. High single to low double digit interest might be a reality in a few years. I think that'll really do a number on home prices, but then I'm also considered pretty doomer, so YMMV.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 26, 2010

# ¿ Feb 26, 2010 06:47

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

greasyhands posted:

Vancouver is probably worse as it's a result of a relatively recent explosion in prices. It looks very much like a bubble. Manhattan's prices have always been like this and they've stood the test of the real estate cycle...I guess it just really is worth it to people living in Manhattan.

The bubbles take a long time to deflate. They start in the worst areas first and then they slowly work their way inward to the best places, running like a boom in reverse, it'll take years but they come down too. Prices like what you see in Manhattan are insane, even if you're rich (you'd have to make something like $230K a year to afford a $700K home for instance, maybe not rich by some standards but you're firmly in the top 5% wage earning percentile) you'd be foolish to pay that much. Cheaper/better to buy something out of the city and spend the money you save on a cab into the city for work or whatever if you can't be bothered to drive yourself.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2010 23:05

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

greasyhands posted:

I don't disagree with you and I'd never move to Manhattan unless I became very wealthy.. I'm just saying Manhattan's real estate pricing has proven time and time again to not really be a bubble- yes it has swings, but it's nothing like the Bay area, or Phoenix, or Las Vegasm or.... Vancouver. Manhattan's extremely high real estate values are fundamental, not speculative. Maybe you're right though, it might fall out like it did on the West coast.

The truly exceptional places will do better of course, but even the exceptional places did bubble up quite a bit. Just pick a property and look at its price 8-10 years ago vs. now. If its gone up some ridiculous amount like 100% in that time frame you'll know it bubbled like everything else, and so in the end must bust like everything else.

That is why bubbles/booms are so horrible and should be avoided at all cost, they always bust no matter what, you just never know quite when it'll happen. Anyways, we still have quite a bit more pain coming in the housing market. This is the updated version of that Credit Suisse chart:

Looking at that, it seems we'll get continued price declines all the way out til' late 2012, so you have to factor in at least 2 more years that'll be on par or worse than what you saw happen in 2009. Bear in mind that we had those declines even though the gov./various states have had multiple mortgage moratoriums, massive price propping programs like HAMP and HARP, and rates have been at historical lows. Depending on how things work out you may see price declines go on for much much longer, or have a steeper decline over a shorter period of time.

PMI is usually for the length of the entire contract unless specified otherwise, which would be weird. Never heard of time/payment limited PMI.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Mar 4, 2010

# ¿ Mar 3, 2010 23:32

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Maggot Monster posted:

Oh my god, I loving HATE buying a house. We offered $220 on a $249 listing, it crept up and we offered $235. They wanted $239 so we agreed and they then immediately said no, and removed the house from the market. WHAT THE gently caress.

No need to rush guys, there are going to be plenty of more homes on the market and there are still some more significant price declines baked into the cake.

BofA to increase foreclosure rate 600% in 2010.

Bear in mind that we'll probably overshoot on the downside, so a projected 22% decline is probably optimistic.

e: OK my bad

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Apr 8, 2010 23:14

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

UrbanFarmer posted:

I realize the chance of interest rates going up substantially in the next 3-5 years is low, but still.

Rates are at historical lows right now, usually they tend to be around 4-5% in "normal" times...so its likely rates will rise quite a bit from where they currently are.

Ozmiander posted:

Awesome. I've been avoiding quotes for an ARM mostly because of horror stories. Guess the people telling them just bought way more than they could really afford during an artificial low.

It should be noted that although there is a cap that cap can still be pretty high. The cap can vary depending on your contract quite a bit but 10% or so seems common to me. You have to work out how affordable the loan is on both extremes to really judge if the risk is worth it to you IMO.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2011 03:01

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Usually "under water" is meant to mean that you owe more on it than the property is worth regardless of how much equity you have. Depending on where you look around for your numbers ~20% of homeowners are in that boat right now. Also you have to bear in mind equity doesn't really mean too much unless you're going to sell or possibly refinance or take out a HELOC or something and even then it doesn't seem to count for much unless you have a large amount or even majority of the mortgage paid down. What banks really really care about now is ability to pay, which is based on DTI, credit score, and income.

edit: Hard to find a definitive definition but that doesn't seem to be so. Due to the extreme amount prices got over valued, particularly what they sell for today, having "some" equity really doesn't mean much so most short sell losses tend to be pretty bad AFAIK. Which makes sense since not many will have paid down the mortgage enough in 3-4 years to have 20% or more equity in a home, usually they're still paying off mostly interest at that point.
\/\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jun 13, 2011

# ¿ Jun 13, 2011 00:20

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

2nd-ing the "termite damage? run tha gently caress away" sentiment. There are a ton of houses out there on the market take your time and find the right one without any issues, much less a nightmare one like termites. I have seen houses that looked perfectly OK but were half eaten through once you started to go into the walls. You will likely not know the true extent of the damage until after you've bought the place and pulled open the walls. Your kid will not become deformed if you rent for a while nor will your pets die if they stay in a kennel for a while and storage is dirt cheap for someone in your finanical position much less vs. the cost of even a cheap home. You got $60k in the bank after a what, 10-20% downpayment on a $100k home, and you worry about storage? Come on you gotta be kidding. At least get the price knocked down $10-20k more or something for termite damage if you can't let the place go.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jun 29, 2011

# ¿ Jun 29, 2011 04:19

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Mr. Moose Knuckle posted:

Ugh. Chiming in on the DO NEVER BUY. Recently bought house just got a ton of water in the basement. Even though it should have had drain tile, apparently 2+ inches of water in a couple of hours will overwhelm it?

Waiting on it to stop seeping in from the walls so I can go back to sucking it out. At least the sump pump worked and took a majority of it out.

Depends lots on the soil and grade of the property as well as the grade of the ground the drain tile was placed on and weather such but that probably shouldn't be happening if everything was done properly when installed and planned.

If you're "lucky" the tile is just clogged or something and its just a matter of digging down to the footing and putting in a silt filter over the drain tile and maybe some crushed gravel too. If you're unlucky you might end up having to do stuff like putting in curtain drains as well as regrade around the house and yard on top of this and you may even still need a sump pump for those rare days when it gets really bad. I've heard bentonite concrete pressurized and squirted underground around the foundation will somes time be good enough but there is no way they can truly guarantee it'll work. They may say they can but don't believe it.

Anyways none of this stuff is impossible to do its just usually "Oh gawd I have to sit down for a minute and work out which organ to sell." expensive if you pay someone to do it all for you. Try to do as much of the work as you can and you'll save heaps, just make sure you have someone who knows what they're doing help you and plan things out before you do anything. It really really sucks to have to do this sort of stuff over again because you didn't do it right the first time or you didn't correctly identify the problem before charging ahead.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2011 04:04

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Orange Sunshine posted:

We may have figured out how to sound isolate a unit, but we aren't doing it.

FISHMANPET posted:

Basically, masonry and cement are way better than wood. It's possible to do with wood, but I'm guessing most people don't go through the effort to do it right.

It was perfectly possible to build sound isolated units even 50 or more years ago out of wood or block, the problem is they almost never do it today or ever really is because its expensive and has to be planned into the initial construction most of the time to be effective. This is why even most condo/apt units built today or even in the future, even out of concrete or block, will still have sound penetration issues no matter what.

TraderStav posted:

Put your money in a low-cost index fund (obviously as a part of a multi-asset class diversified portfolio) and you will outpace any potential real-estate investment with significantly less headaches.

Why does everyone want to do things the hard way?! Investing is easy. Spend less than you earn, invest the rest into a low-cost diversified portfolio, watch your net worth grow faster than everyone else...

This is the long slow way of earning wealth via investments, most people want to get at least moderately wealthy while they're still young. Also lots of folks have had their wealth wiped out in the .com and credit bubbles on Wall St. too over the past decade. Stocks aren't really any guarantee of wealth accumulation in the long run either it seems.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Jul 16, 2011

# ¿ Jul 16, 2011 03:09

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

TraderStav posted:

I did not say buy high risk stocks. I said a diversified portfolio of assets.

Sure the low risk stuff is safer but not truly guaranteed still and takes "forever" to grow into a decent amount of cash when you're like most people and you're starting from say just a few thousand dollars to invest. Right or wrong people in general don't want to wait decades, that is all there is to it, but I'm sure you knew that already.

TraderStav posted:

Do not equate stocks with buying the hot stuff on CNBC. (don't watch CNBC for editorial, it's garbage)

I know that but most people seem not too, its them you have to tell and it still seems unlikely they'd listen or that you could get a big enough audience together to make a difference.

gvibes posted:

Very few people get moderately wealthy while they're young.

I agree and didn't say otherwise. I was pointing out that people in general will likely not be able to use stocks to get wealthy or at least get a moderate pile of cash for retirement not only for reasons of market conditions but because they have to be able to resist their own urges (make money fast) as well as the ones foisted on them by the media. You can point to avg. earnings over time and all but from I've seen of the last decade or 2 most of the "little people" spend most of their time getting burned on Wall St. instead of making money, and they weren't always buying CDO's and MBS's or .coms. Basically I don't really think "invest in Wall St." seems to work as a general financial cure all.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2011 02:37

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

drat Bananas posted:

Does anyone have any good resources for a noob's guide to *building* a house?

I would start with this one here. This is not a "this is how you build a stick frame house or find the proper depth for your footings etc." book. Its actually almost entirely about the legal minutiae involved with buying the land, water rights, picking a plot, etc. IOW its all the stuff you have to at least have a passing familiarity with before you go building your home. Its also geared towards building a rural (country) home but most of the info. still applies elsewhere and is for total house building noobs.

It also however does have some great simplified checklists towards the back of the book so if you really wanted to you could make use of most of the knowledge without having read or even understood it. It is a little old now (2001 or so) so some of the loan info. and advice is out of date but the particulars of the paperwork are still accurate.

You might want to look into dry stack construction if you decide to DIY most or all of the home. Its supposed to be one of the cheaper and easier ways to build, but beware that doesn't mean it will actually be easy or cheap to do.

drat Bananas posted:

Maybe just a typical timeline with the standard intricacies of it or whatever.

Really hard to say with any accuracy without knowing lots of details on the lot, house plan, construction method, and wether this is a total DIY project or if you'll have professional help and you guys would just be the gofers or something. It can easily take most of a year if you're total construction noobs and are doing all the work yourself + maybe have some pro family help you once in a while, this way can save you lots of money though. If you have pros doing all the work and planning though they can have a house up in 3 months or less easy. Very expensive going this route of course, even if you get lots of family help.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Sep 29, 2011

# ¿ Sep 29, 2011 23:05

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Pillowpants posted:

We're looking to buy next year and I'm pretty sure I'll be doubling my expenses, but really...6k for a roof?

The cost varies quite a bit. Depends on the size of the roof, the roof pitch (steeper pitch = much higher price, better resistance to weather though), materials, etc. If you have only 1 layer of shingles on you can slap another on top of it which saves lots. After 2 layers you have to tear it down to the wood which is very expensive to say the least due to the labor involved.

Most shingles are asphalt which are the cheapest type but they also tend to fall apart faster than the given rating and the warranties are a joke. In places like CA you can get away with them lasting longer because of the weather but elsewhere it isn't uncommon to see 30 yr rated shingles needing replacing after 20 years or so. This is still true even for the 40 year shingles BTW.

The only roofs that will really last 30 years or more reliably are either incredibly expensive (ie. clay or concrete tile, clay is best) or mind blowingly expensive (ie. zinc/metal). Worth it if you can afford them though. Installed properly they can last a life time, in the case of zinc over a lifetime. I think there are buildings in the EU that have zinc roofs well over 100 years old now and they're still fine.

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Oct 4, 2011

# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 02:30

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

moana posted:

Really wish the government would subsidize solar instead of oil.

Depending on the state you live in I thought there was a huge tax credit for solar or something?

gvibes posted:

I am spending ~$27k on a kitchen/bath remodel. Do never buy. I could probably have shaved maybe $4k off of that by going with a super-cheap granite and bottom-end appliances.

Granite is nice but you can do some cool things with cast in place concrete sinks/counter top and it can be cheaper too.

Have to reseal it every few years though but then that is true of granite as well normally.

e: Total custom work that fancy is indeed expensive. Most concrete counter top/sink guys have a bunch of molds you can choose from and you mix and match those how you like. That is how you get closer the low end of the price spread here rather than the top.
\/\/\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Oct 4, 2011

# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 20:02

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

I know stone counters are the big thing (and have been for like a decade or more) but I really think there's nothing wrong with formica/laminate counters.

Oh absolutely, particularly if you want to save cash but still want something durable. Bang for the buck is unbeatable IMO. There are some very cool things you can do with laminate too if you like the custom look. The problem is for the custom laminate stuff (ie. complex beveled edges, design inlay, etc.) the cost is so high that you might as well buy low end concrete or low end granite anyways.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 21:30

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

daggerdragon posted:

DO NEVER BUY retail cabinets unless you really don't want to build your own/install them yourself.

The big problem is the cabinets IME if you decide to use laminate counter tops. Cheap retail cabinets are particle board + foil poo poo boxes...and the moderate prices ones aren't much better. You don't start getting decent retail cabinets until you start spending over $400 (bargain price), usually more like $700 a pop. Truly good retail cabinets are where you end up spending $10K+. DIY is where you can really save a lot here but unless you have the tools and some experience or experienced help then it might not be worth it to try.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2011 22:08

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

senor punk posted:

Use real estate websites like Zillow

IME Zillow is great for home history and pictures and stuff but tends to overshoot on the price by quite a bit. Generally low balling is the norm right now, so don't be afraid to offer 10-20% less than listed price. Used to be people would get really offended at that, and a few still do, but now they rarely even blink.

senor punk posted:

which isn't that crazy unless you think the place could spawn a bidding war.

Most of the bidding wars going on right now are manufactured by the realtor FYI guys. Usually you can walk away from the realtor if he starts with the "another person just bid higher than you!! hurry gotta beat them if you want the house of your ~dreams~" crap and you'll get a call a few days later with a number close to what you wanted in the first place. There is so much supply out there still that you should do that anyways even if a real bidding war does start. You'll likely end up finding the house of your dreams several times for the same or better price.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 01:17

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Leperflesh posted:

I feel it's wrong to give a "rule" about where bidding wars are coming from without clearly qualifying it by mentioning which market you're familiar with.

Yea that is why I said "most" instead of "all". Not trying to lawyer or nitpick what you're saying because I agree with it, just thought I was clear. Guess not. :smith:

There are some real bidding wars out there but few and far between. If you do get engaged with a real one I'd back off because the supply out there is still insane right now, plenty of "~dream homes~" to go around for less than what you'll likely end up paying after a bidding war.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2011 02:07

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

whaam posted:

I know this varies pretty wildly from market to market, but adding an attached double garage with a finished upstairs to an existing house in a rural area of the north-east, are we talking ballpark of $50000 or $80000?

You gotta find a construction/contractor guy in your area and ask him. Get at least 3 quotes, price will vary quite a bit from person to person.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2011 21:12

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Short term there is generally a shortage of rentals, or rather affordable rentals, which has caused rental price to go up or stay high depending on where you live.

This has also pushed lots of would be renters back home to mom n' pop since the prices are just too drat high to buy or rent for many or most right now. Either that or they're forced to take on another room mate or 2 to make ends meet. =

# ¿ Oct 13, 2011 23:05

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Guacala posted:

Is there a point of diminishing returns when renovating? We're trying to be as cost effective as we can, especially by doing most of the labor ourselves.

House Porn

First off great work. That is a lot of effort to do all that. Your house wouldn't happen to be in Boise would it?

Secondly if you're doing all or nearly all of the work yourself then you'll usually break even or come out ahead on renovations since you save a ton of money doing it like that.

e: Yea that is true too. If you don't have the cash but do have the time it can be worthwhile though.\/\/\/\/

PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 16, 2011

# ¿ Oct 16, 2011 03:55

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Except there are plenty of cheap homes without any issues that are move in ready on the market right now and they're getting cheaper all the time given home inventory, foreclosures, falling wages/benefits, still high unemployment, rising cost of living, etc.

Also ~~most~~ nearly all people can't afford to overpay right now or ever really. That sort of mentality is straight outta peak bubble BUY NOW OR BE PRICED OUT FOREVER years and does no one any good.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 09:22

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

jerkstore77 posted:

In my situation this hasn't been the case the last few months.

Give it some time. Inventory is usually pulled off the market after summer and then put back on once spring comes around. There are also lots of homes being held off the market by the banks to prop up prices, depending on who you ask and what numbers you look at its somewhere around 3-8 million homes nationwide, which is the so called "shadow inventory". The banks want you to be stupid and jump in and rush without thinking. Don't be their fool. Especially to the tune of ~$400K.

# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 19:12

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Konstantin posted:

In that case, paying more than appraised value may make sense, especially if the home has a combination of attributes that are very valuable to you and difficult to find.

Nope. It doesn't make sense at all to overpay in today's down market for those reasons. Its far more sensible to rent if you're in any of those situations you mentioned since you can keep your mobility and move much more easily if your job situation goes bad or the situation changes (ie. budget cuts make that "good" school go bad). This also allows you to wait out the housing market declines. The only time it really makes sense to buy right now is if it meets your needs and is a really really good deal.

ArterialToo posted:

In situations such as those aren't you mostly paying for the land itself, which in some cases would actually be worth more if the "plywood shack" was leveled?

There was a bubble in land prices too that popped. You won't make money or even break even bulldozing shacks on 1/10th acre lots and selling the land for more than you paid as a quick n' easy flip.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2011 02:12

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

WeaselWeaz posted:

I have an older house and I'm looking for some lead paint advice.

Encapsulating only works as well as the underlying paint/wallpaper layers stick to the surface. So if you've got peeling and cracking wallpaper/paint and you encapsulate over it it'll just keep on peeling and cracking off taking your new encapsulating paint/treatment with it.

If the underlying paint/wallpaper is holding up well and just coming off in a few spots where wear from doors and such is causing it fall off then encapsulation + re-balancing doors so they don't rub on the wood work and/or installing door stops/bumpers could work.

It'll still be a bit of a gamble really. The only sure shot method to deal with lead paint is to have it all stripped out properly but that is expensive to pay someone to do and very difficult and time consuming to DIY so understandably few people do it.

New-to-you home buying advice for the first timers:

Personally lead paint is a deal breaker when buying a house. The paint in many of these homes is starting to get fairly old now and most people aren't careful to maintain it either. So its usually in bad shape and encapsulation usually works out to be a bit of a hail mary play. Particularly in bathrooms and around doors/windows. Short of the seller agreeing (and actually doing, always get proof and inspect it yourself before and after!) to strip out the old lead paint or they lower the selling price substantively to allow me to pay out of pocket for it to get done. Allllways low ball like a motherfucker when doing the latter because there will always be hidden, and very expensive, problems with these homes that the seller won't tell you about and you won't find until you start the process of lead removal.

The seller won't do either?

Walk away.

Plenty of other homes out there for you to fall in love with.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2014 11:30

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

Chin Strap posted:

5) The only big immediate change we would want to do is replace all carpet with something hard, bamboo preferably (assuming there aren't already good hardwood floors underneath the carpet). Is this easy enough to do DIY?

Depends on your skill set and how much time you have. If you're handy, have the right tools, and know how to use them its very DIY-able and would be easy for someone like you. In a moderate sized (say 1,500sq ft) house that had a fairly simple lay out you could probably do it by yourself over 3-5 week ends.

If that doesn't describe you or if that sounds like too much time/effort to invest I'd look into vinyl plank. It goes in quicker since the plank sections are much bigger than hardwood plank sections and its also pretty drat durable while still looking nice too.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2014 15:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 12:09

PC LOAD LETTER: May 23, 2005; WTF?!

That is true even with the good stuff too BTW that has been hardened. There is lots of cheap stuff out there at Home Depot or Costco that looks drat nice, and hey its (relatively) cheap! But lots of complaints too about the bamboo wearing (ie. 2-3 yr) prematurely since it wasn't hardened properly. There really is no way for the end buyer to tell if the manufacturer did it right, particularly with the stained stuff since hardened bamboo that is unstained will have a naturally darker color to it.

I like bamboo too and plan on making a desktop out of a 4'x8' sheet of the stuff but there are too many issues with it right now as flooring IMO. And with animals to consider too...well they beat up on the floors harder than kids. Even if they don't poop and pee on it.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2014 03:18

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 »