More likely they'll fall "further", not "farther"...

/DNRTFA

As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

I investigated the HARP II refi with Chase, since they now service my loan. They have implemented an impressive series of hoops that seem designed to frustrate people into giving up.

Plus, as the article mentions, HARP II is supposed to be for people who are still current on their loans, while the Chase paperwork asks you to defend why you've fallen behind.

It's obvious that Chase has no desire to participate in these programs.

I plan to just suck it up for a few more years. My rate isn't all that bad. If we can just cut back a bit until I can get my wages up, we'll be fine.

stewbert: I investigated the HARP II refi with Chase, since they now service my loan. They have implemented an impressive series of hoops that seem designed to frustrate people into giving up.

I don't know about HARP, but Chase hounded me to refinance. They called me everyday, sent emails, and sent an unsolicited overnight package with refinance approval documents and offered to have someone come to my home to pick them up.

Most people can't because they are this:

bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Where I live, to buy a one floor "condo" in a three floor building it's around the $250-300K mark. To buy the entire house, you're looking upwards of $750K-1M; a brand new property a block away from me just sold for $780K. I live in an older, working-class neighborhood filled mostly with immigrants and hipsters in a major midwestern city. It's safe, but borders a very unsafe area.

If you live out in the middle of nowhere and can buy a big house with a lot of land for $200K and you love it so much you want to be there forever, that's one thing. But if you like being in a city, chances are you're going to ultimately get the better deal renting. You're not locked in, you have mobility if things change, and you're not spending a quarter million bucks for one floor of a house. Where I live, mortgage plus all the insurances and taxes would be far more than my rent -- I would guess close to double what I pay. I never see it as feasible or even a smart idea to buy something here. The calculations always show it as a colossal waste of money.

I would much rather rent in the city and buy land with a cabin way up north for vacations. If I could do business in the city but live for months at a time up at the cabin, that would be ideal.

When interest rates are finally forced up by government borrowing, the price of that house is going to tank even harder.

Have you heard? They're giving away free farkings at the bank!

jgi: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Where I live, to buy a one floor "condo" in a three floor building it's around the $250-300K mark. To buy the entire house, you're looking upwards of $750K-1M; a brand new property a block away from me just sold for $780K. I live in an older, working-class neighborhood filled mostly with immigrants and hipsters in a major midwestern city. It's safe, but borders a very unsafe area.

If you live out in the middle of nowhere and can buy a big house with a lot of land for $200K and you love it so much you want to be there forever, that's one thing. But if you like being in a city, chances are you're going to ultimately get the better deal renting. You're not locked in, you have mobility if things change, and you're not spending a quarter million bucks for one floor of a house. Where I live, mortgage plus all the insurances and taxes would be far more than my rent -- I would guess close to double what I pay. I never see it as feasible or even a smart idea to buy something here. The calculations always show it as a colossal waste of money.

I would much rather rent in the city and buy land with a cabin way up north for vacations. If I could do business in the city but live for months at a time up at the cabin, that would be ideal.

Generally only works in cities with rent control long term

bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Yes.
Not effective if you want to keep any of that hard-earned money.
Because everyone knows home prices always go UP!
INVESTMENT is the only answer!
Growth, endless GROWTH is the only way out of the poverty trap!

Never mind that discredited myth of actually saving some money and spending less than you earn.

HotIgneous Intruder: Because everyone knows home prices always go UP!

Arthur Jumbles: Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

Has nothing to do with house prices. Has to do with rent prices.

Arthur Jumbles: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

---

Rent is skyrocketing up the ass in a lot of areas because a lot of people still don't even have the option to buy.

If you have solid credit, it's becoming more economical to buy a condo and pay your mortgage, taxes, the stupid condo fee, maintenance, and even PMI than to rent a shiatty apartment. Assuming you get a 30-year fixed, you won't have to worry about your payments going up. Even if the value of your condo goes down to zero, you're no worse off than a renter who keeps paying in and still owns jack. The only downside is if you lose your job and have to default, but then you're back to square one as a renter anyway--you'll just have to put up larger deposits as someone with shiat credit, but staying a renter means paying more and more anyway.

I wouldn't be saying this if rent wasn't rising so fast in major markets, but it is, and I don't see it collapsing like a bubble--maybe leveling off, but not falling back to early 00s rates.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Arthur Jumbles: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

---

Rent is skyrocketing up the ass in a lot of areas because a lot of people still don't even have the option to buy.

If you have solid credit, it's becoming more economical to buy a condo and pay your mortgage, taxes, the stupid condo fee, maintenance, and even PMI than to rent a shiatty apartment. Assuming you get a 30-year fixed, you won't have to worry about your payments going up. Even if the value of your condo goes down to zero, you're no worse off than a renter who keeps paying in and still owns jack. The only downside is if you lose your job and have to default, but then you're back to square one as a renter anyway--you'll just have to put up larger deposits as someone with shiat credit, but staying a renter means paying more and more anyway.

I wouldn't be saying this if rent wasn't rising so fast in major markets, but it is, and I don't see it collapsing like a bubble--maybe leveling off, but not falling back to early 00s rates.

---

I forgot to mention, there's also the tax deduction on the interest you pay, which constitutes the vast majority of your monthly payments early in the mortgage. It's like being able to deduct most of your rent.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: The only downside is if you lose your job and have to default, but then you're back to square one as a renter anyway--you'll just have to put up larger deposits as someone with shiat credit, but staying a renter means paying more and more anyway.

Not just that, but given enough time with rent inflation, you can rent the place out and undercut the market if you were that desperate.

I wouldn't be saying this if rent wasn't rising so fast in major markets, but it is, and I don't see it collapsing like a bubble--maybe leveling off, but not falling back to early 00s rates.

Rent is rising and will continue to rise until upfront housing costs are low enough AND people aren't afraid that they'll have to move to find work(which is the same argument given in every thread)

bhcompy:
Rent is rising and will continue to rise until upfront housing costs are low enough AND people aren't afraid that they'll have to move to find work(which is the same argument given in every thread)

Maybe where you are... rent is down 20-30% around here. House prices are down by almost 50% and still falling.

This is all a good thing.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Arthur Jumbles: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

---

Rent is skyrocketing up the ass in a lot of areas because a lot of people still don't even have the option to buy.

If you have solid credit, it's becoming more economical to buy a condo and pay your mortgage, taxes, the stupid condo fee, maintenance, and even PMI than to rent a shiatty apartment. Assuming you get a 30-year fixed, you won't have to worry about your payments going up. Even if the value of your condo goes down to zero, you're no worse off than a renter who keeps paying in and still owns jack. The only downside is if you lose your job and have to default, but then you're back to square one as a renter anyway--you'll just have to put up larger deposits as someone with shiat credit, but staying a renter means paying more and more anyway.

I wouldn't be saying this if rent wasn't rising so fast in major markets, but it is, and I don't see it collapsing like a bubble--maybe leveling off, but not falling back to early 00s rates.

Strange, rents are pretty stagnant in Chicago and it's directly connected to the building boom of the early 2000's and the glut of underwater condo owners renting out their white elephants to avoid foreclosure. Maybe Chicago's housing market is atypical but even still given the poor job market not being tied to a mortgage seems like a boon unless you don't mind destroying your credit. Besides, we're only just beginning to see the results of the shoddy construction practices that occurred during the boom that are going to make owning a hell of a lot more expensive for most new buyers.

IMHO, owning only makes sense if you own it outright (i.e. no mortgage) or if your property is generating you income. In an urban market the ideal is an owner-occupied 3 or 4 flat with a residential mortgage.... even with the stagnant rents your property is always bringing in cash flow instead of draining it away.

KilaKitu: More likely they'll fall "further", not "farther"...

/DNRTFA

Did you know that further and farther are a matter of personal preference; not some rule of grammar. Further, did you know that only pedantic asshats worry about further and farther? We're not talking about it's/its or even they're/their/there; in fact, we're talking about your pseudo-intellectualism.

/Not subby
//if you're going to be a grammar Nazi, please have the courtesy to know what the fark it is you're talking about.

Arthur Jumbles: Strange, rents are pretty stagnant in Chicago and it's directly connected to the building boom of the early 2000's and the glut of underwater condo owners renting out their white elephants to avoid foreclosure. Maybe Chicago's housing market is atypical but even still given the poor job market not being tied to a mortgage seems like a boon unless you don't mind destroying your credit. Besides, we're only just beginning to see the results of the shoddy construction practices that occurred during the boom that are going to make owning a hell of a lot more expensive for most new buyers.

IMHO, owning only makes sense if you own it outright (i.e. no mortgage) or if your property is generating you income. In an urban market the ideal is an owner-occupied 3 or 4 flat with a residential mortgage.... even with the stagnant rents your property is always bringing in cash flow instead of draining it away.

---

If you could pay $2,000/month total (mortgage, taxes, fee) to own a 2BR condo, or $10,000/month (and trending upwards) to rent a comparable apartment, you'd buy, right?

Obviously that's an unrealistically extreme example, but what about $5,000/month rent? $3,000?

Everyone's threshold is different depending on their personal situation, but $2,000 vs. $3,000 is pretty close to what's going on in Boston and DC. Maybe not in Chicago, but you can go to this site and see what's going on in various cities:

http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/

This isn't the "buying is a great investment opportunity" bullshiat of before the crash. This is strictly a matter of the lesser of two evils.

stewbert: I investigated the HARP II refi with Chase, since they now service my loan. They have implemented an impressive series of hoops that seem designed to frustrate people into giving up.

Plus, as the article mentions, HARP II is supposed to be for people who are still current on their loans, while the Chase paperwork asks you to defend why you've fallen behind.

It's obvious that Chase has no desire to participate in these programs.

I plan to just suck it up for a few more years. My rate isn't all that bad. If we can just cut back a bit until I can get my wages up, we'll be fine.

I work on HARP loans

Have you been delinquent on your mortgage in the past 12 months?
Do you have judgements on your credit?
Do you have a second mortgage/heloc?
Do you live in TX and own a property that was financed under the TX50A6 provision?

If not, I call bullshiat on your assertion
HARP is easy if you have a FNMA or FHLMC backed loan.

The low-end "working class" houses around me are between $300k-$600k. Rents are between $1600 and $2300 a month for equivalent houses. Needless to say it makes much more sense to rent. Anything nicer and more "middle-class" you'll be forking over 700k-1.5M.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: Arthur Jumbles: Strange, rents are pretty stagnant in Chicago and it's directly connected to the building boom of the early 2000's and the glut of underwater condo owners renting out their white elephants to avoid foreclosure. Maybe Chicago's housing market is atypical but even still given the poor job market not being tied to a mortgage seems like a boon unless you don't mind destroying your credit. Besides, we're only just beginning to see the results of the shoddy construction practices that occurred during the boom that are going to make owning a hell of a lot more expensive for most new buyers.

IMHO, owning only makes sense if you own it outright (i.e. no mortgage) or if your property is generating you income. In an urban market the ideal is an owner-occupied 3 or 4 flat with a residential mortgage.... even with the stagnant rents your property is always bringing in cash flow instead of draining it away.

---

If you could pay $2,000/month total (mortgage, taxes, fee) to own a 2BR condo, or $10,000/month (and trending upwards) to rent a comparable apartment, you'd buy, right?

Obviously that's an unrealistically extreme example, but what about $5,000/month rent? $3,000?

Everyone's threshold is different depending on their personal situation, but $2,000 vs. $3,000 is pretty close to what's going on in Boston and DC. Maybe not in Chicago, but you can go to this site and see what's going on in various cities:

http://rentbits.com/rb/t/rental-rates/

This isn't the "buying is a great investment opportunity" bullshiat of before the crash. This is strictly a matter of the lesser of two evils.

I'm near Boston (currently about 6 miles out). We were renting a 1 bedroom, 1 bath apartment for $1500/month. We ended up putting 20% down on a house in a similarly-priced town and we pay $1550/month including tax and insurance escrow for a 4 bedroom, 2 bath house that is double the square footage of the apartment, not including the basement and outside areas. Rents are ridiculous around here, especially in the suburbs, compared to owning.

Arthur Jumbles: Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

When you rent you're paying for the mortgage, taxes and profit of the landlord.

Arthur Jumbles: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.





I'm guessing math isn't one of your strong points, Sweet Cheeks.

MugzyBrown: Arthur Jumbles: Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

When you rent you're paying for the mortgage, taxes and profit of the landlord.

Yes, because I'd much rather be paying a larger amount for those costs on my own.

/The Tard is strong in this thread.

Back to the topic at hand; here is my bank's current 30 year fixed mortgage rates:

For those of you not in the know, the negative sign in front of the 0.375 means that the bank is paying the three-eighth's point for the loan not the buyer.

/Approved for a $525,000.00 no down payment, 30 year fixed with no PMI home loan.

//Still gonna sit it out for a while since we (O.C.) are nooooo where near hitting bottom.

///Not even close.

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Approved for a $525,000.00 no down payment, 30 year fixed with no PMI home loan.

Uh, what? Why would they do that, especially if homes in your area are "nowhere near hitting bottom"?

Or is USAA uniquely generous because it serves a niche market?

stiletto_the_wise: The low-end "working class" houses around me are between $300k-$600k. Rents are between $1600 and $2300 a month for equivalent houses. Needless to say it makes much more sense to rent. Anything nicer and more "middle-class" you'll be forking over 700k-1.5M.

Sure, but were the prices(buy/rent) in Sunnyvale 15 years ago? And where will they be in 15 years? The location is one that is a) built out and b) guarantees commutable job opportunities. That leans more in the favor of locking in your price today than waiting for 15 years of rent inflation in an area that is historically expensive to both buy and rent.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Approved for a $525,000.00 no down payment, 30 year fixed with no PMI home loan.

Uh, what? Why would they do that, especially if homes in your area are "nowhere near hitting bottom"?

Or is USAA uniquely generous because it serves a niche market?

VA Loan.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: Approved for a $525,000.00 no down payment, 30 year fixed with no PMI home loan.

Uh, what? Why would they do that, especially if homes in your area are "nowhere near hitting bottom"?

Or is USAA uniquely generous because it serves a niche market?

????

AFAIK, banks are in the business of providing home loans based on current market value. Not based on speculative future values.

Although, around here, it's not all that speculative....




/YMMV

You are still being facetious in using your VA example as a realistic example. VA loans are for a very, very small amount of the population.

There are plenty of rent or buy calculators online to help you make a decision whether or not to buy a home. I'll be buying in the next 6 months because I've just moved back to my smaller, cheaper home town to take up a better paying job so I can now afford it. But I'm not viewing home ownership as purely an investment, it's more an emotional thing. I'm looking forward to the freedom in being able to do what I want with my own property.

MrJesus: VA Loan.

That's what I figured.

I Am The Egg Matt Drudge Smears Upon His Body: ????

AFAIK, banks are in the business of providing home loans based on current market value. Not based on speculative future values.

Although, around here, it's not all that speculative....

A jumbo 30-year fixed loan with nothing down and no PMI is pretty much unheard of in this climate. Are you a vet? If so that would make sense, since the loan would be guaranteed.

VA Loan does cost you between 1.25 and 2.15 percentage fees depending on how much you put down.

Though most just roll that cost into the cost of the loan. It's still nowhere near as painful as PMI, but it definitely isn't "free money" either.

Yankees Team Gynecologist: This is strictly a matter of the lesser of two evils.

It seems like, more and more lately, that the lesser of two evils is the overarching operational paradigm here in the land where nothing is free.

HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

Ummm... when you buy a house, YOU own it. The bank owns the mortgage.

MrJesus: You are still being facetious in using your VA example as a realistic example. VA loans are for a very, very small amount of the population.

True, but the vast majority of people in the US can earn them at some point in their lives.

HotIgneous Intruder: Yankees Team Gynecologist: This is strictly a matter of the lesser of two evils.

It seems like, more and more lately, that the lesser of two evils is the overarching operational paradigm here in the land where nothing is free.

Choosing between a donut and cake is the lesser of two evils.

Just closed a refi on single fam in NYC...went from 6.125% to 3.8%...our monthly payments are now lower (all included taxes etc) than what we were paying in rent individually. Housing prices in Nyc region have stayed pretty solid too. Of course my FICO score is 800, so there is that.

Byno: KilaKitu: More likely they'll fall "further", not "farther"...

/DNRTFA

Did you know that further and farther are a matter of personal preference; not some rule of grammar. Further, did you know that only pedantic asshats worry about further and farther? We're not talking about it's/its or even they're/their/there; in fact, we're talking about your pseudo-intellectualism.

/Not subby
//if you're going to be a grammar Nazi, please have the courtesy to know what the fark it is you're talking about.


Speaking of pedantic asshats worrying about further and farther, which obviously you are, this link explains it in simple terms, even you can understand: Link (new window). And if you're too lazy to lick, here's the gist:

"The quick and dirty tip is to use "farther" for physical distance and "further" for metaphorical, or figurative, distance. It's easy to remember because "farther" has the word "far" in it, and "far" obviously relates to physical distance."

Further, the author in the article did use it appropriately. Some of us worry about grammar - without being grammar nazis - because it's important. Otherwise we slide into text-speak as writing and there goes modern civilization.

Arthur Jumbles: bhcompy: HotIgneous Intruder: As if I really want to pay a bank rent so that I can say I "own" a building it actually owns while assuming all tax, maintenance, and insurance costs and liabilities.

How about No.

That's fine for a few years. Not effective long term

Only if you assume housing prices will rise, which I feel might be a false assumption. Rising property prices were the result of economics conditions that no longer exist, namely the existence of the United States as the sole manufacturing powerhouse after WWII.

You forgot inflation.

I have lived half my life without knowing the feeling of having a mortgage and will live the other half the same way.

ratagorda: stewbert: I investigated the HARP II refi with Chase, since they now service my loan. They have implemented an impressive series of hoops that seem designed to frustrate people into giving up.

Plus, as the article mentions, HARP II is supposed to be for people who are still current on their loans, while the Chase paperwork asks you to defend why you've fallen behind.

It's obvious that Chase has no desire to participate in these programs.

I plan to just suck it up for a few more years. My rate isn't all that bad. If we can just cut back a bit until I can get my wages up, we'll be fine.

I work on HARP loans

Have you been delinquent on your mortgage in the past 12 months?
Do you have judgements on your credit?
Do you have a second mortgage/heloc?
Do you live in TX and own a property that was financed under the TX50A6 provision?

If not, I call bullshiat on your assertion
HARP is easy if you have a FNMA or FHLMC backed loan.

Call all the bullshiat you want. When I try to fill out the forms, the system logs me off before I can even complete them. When I wrote my justification, when printed it only displayed one sentence.

The online forms are the bullshiat here.

Chase sucks, and I wish they didn't own my loan. I'll get over it.

stewbert: Chase sucks,

I've been with Chase for 20 years and have nothing but good things to say.

ThisNameSux: stewbert: Chase sucks,

I've been with Chase for 20 years and have nothing but good things to say.

When the credit crunch happened they upped my APR to 29.99% and they wouldn't undo it(I have good credit, never missed a payment/late). So I went to a credit union for my CC and never looked back. Now, instead of having a card with a variable APR+prime, I have a fixed 12.5% CC permanently. I'm okay with that.

bhcompy: When the credit crunch happened they upped my APR to 29.99% and they wouldn't undo it(I have good credit, never missed a payment/late). So I went to a credit union for my CC and never looked back. Now, instead of having a card with a variable APR+prime, I have a fixed 12.5% CC permanently. I'm okay with that.

Chase never farked with my 10.99 rate. Sounds like your credit isn't as good as you think.

ThisNameSux: bhcompy: When the credit crunch happened they upped my APR to 29.99% and they wouldn't undo it(I have good credit, never missed a payment/late). So I went to a credit union for my CC and never looked back. Now, instead of having a card with a variable APR+prime, I have a fixed 12.5% CC permanently. I'm okay with that.

Chase never farked with my 10.99 rate. Sounds like your credit isn't as good as you think.

Been north of 750 since I became an adult, was approved for a home loan at the same time(during the credit crunch when no one with a blemish could get approved for anything), etc. Chase is shiat, like HSBC(at least they had the common decency to just cancel my account rather than raise my rate)

bhcompy: Chase is shiat, like HSBC(at least they had the common decency to just cancel my account rather than raise my rate)

LOL yeah, canceling your account is the better option if you're too stupid to think for yourself.