[garysears]

I think this effectively raises the interest rate on all FHA loans by 1.5%. How is raising the minimum down payment not better? Raising the minimum down payment would save more money in the long run (if that is the goal, but I’m not sure what the real goal is here).

I wonder if the 3.5% down buyers will be quicker to walk on an underwater house when they see that extra 4k per year extra down the drain for the foreseeable future.

I think if enacted this changes the rent/buy numbers significantly for the marginal crowd (if anyone does numbers).

[garysears]

If you aren’t going to live in the condo, why are you attracted to this particular deal? I think there are many other deals out there that will net you a better return on your down payment. I would be looking to pay 80K or less (depends on area). I would be attracted to places where the investor owned ratio is too high for the Fannie Mae rules. I would look to pay cash. Why compete with FHA 3.5% down?

Condos are risky due to the potential for HOA fiascos and bankruptcies. I would do some careful due diligence before putting my money at risk.

I agree with assuming zero appreciation. Do the math on PITI and rents and assume some downside to rents. Factor in vacancies with turnover. For maintenance, do some research on normal costs and be generous. Now see how the deal pencils out. If it is about break even why would you do all the landlord work for free?

Full disclosure: I am not a landlord but this is how I am approaching my search for my primary residence. I refuse to put myself into financial extremis and will either find a deal that will easily cashflow as a rental or I will not buy.

With all the distress out there, a little determination should lead you to a deal that makes sense.

[garysears]

If you aren’t going to live in the condo, why are you attracted to this particular deal? I think there are many other deals out there that will net you a better return on your down payment. I would be looking to pay 80K or less (depends on area). I would be attracted to places where the investor owned ratio is too high for the Fannie Mae rules. I would look to pay cash. Why compete with FHA 3.5% down?

Condos are risky due to the potential for HOA fiascos and bankruptcies. I would do some careful due diligence before putting my money at risk.

I agree with assuming zero appreciation. Do the math on PITI and rents and assume some downside to rents. Factor in vacancies with turnover. For maintenance, do some research on normal costs and be generous. Now see how the deal pencils out. If it is about break even why would you do all the landlord work for free?

Full disclosure: I am not a landlord but this is how I am approaching my search for my primary residence. I refuse to put myself into financial extremis and will either find a deal that will easily cashflow as a rental or I will not buy.

With all the distress out there, a little determination should lead you to a deal that makes sense.

[garysears]

If you aren’t going to live in the condo, why are you attracted to this particular deal? I think there are many other deals out there that will net you a better return on your down payment. I would be looking to pay 80K or less (depends on area). I would be attracted to places where the investor owned ratio is too high for the Fannie Mae rules. I would look to pay cash. Why compete with FHA 3.5% down?

Condos are risky due to the potential for HOA fiascos and bankruptcies. I would do some careful due diligence before putting my money at risk.

I agree with assuming zero appreciation. Do the math on PITI and rents and assume some downside to rents. Factor in vacancies with turnover. For maintenance, do some research on normal costs and be generous. Now see how the deal pencils out. If it is about break even why would you do all the landlord work for free?

Full disclosure: I am not a landlord but this is how I am approaching my search for my primary residence. I refuse to put myself into financial extremis and will either find a deal that will easily cashflow as a rental or I will not buy.

With all the distress out there, a little determination should lead you to a deal that makes sense.

[garysears]

If you aren’t going to live in the condo, why are you attracted to this particular deal? I think there are many other deals out there that will net you a better return on your down payment. I would be looking to pay 80K or less (depends on area). I would be attracted to places where the investor owned ratio is too high for the Fannie Mae rules. I would look to pay cash. Why compete with FHA 3.5% down?

Condos are risky due to the potential for HOA fiascos and bankruptcies. I would do some careful due diligence before putting my money at risk.

I agree with assuming zero appreciation. Do the math on PITI and rents and assume some downside to rents. Factor in vacancies with turnover. For maintenance, do some research on normal costs and be generous. Now see how the deal pencils out. If it is about break even why would you do all the landlord work for free?

Full disclosure: I am not a landlord but this is how I am approaching my search for my primary residence. I refuse to put myself into financial extremis and will either find a deal that will easily cashflow as a rental or I will not buy.

With all the distress out there, a little determination should lead you to a deal that makes sense.

[garysears]

If you aren’t going to live in the condo, why are you attracted to this particular deal? I think there are many other deals out there that will net you a better return on your down payment. I would be looking to pay 80K or less (depends on area). I would be attracted to places where the investor owned ratio is too high for the Fannie Mae rules. I would look to pay cash. Why compete with FHA 3.5% down?

Condos are risky due to the potential for HOA fiascos and bankruptcies. I would do some careful due diligence before putting my money at risk.

I agree with assuming zero appreciation. Do the math on PITI and rents and assume some downside to rents. Factor in vacancies with turnover. For maintenance, do some research on normal costs and be generous. Now see how the deal pencils out. If it is about break even why would you do all the landlord work for free?

Full disclosure: I am not a landlord but this is how I am approaching my search for my primary residence. I refuse to put myself into financial extremis and will either find a deal that will easily cashflow as a rental or I will not buy.

With all the distress out there, a little determination should lead you to a deal that makes sense.

[garysears]

“…is as absurd as eliminating speed limits on the freeway”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Ok, this got my attention. I grew up in Montana. Shortly before I got my drivers license the federally imposed speed limit was repealed. Montana went back to no daytime speed limit. That is correct. The signs actually read “reasonable and prudent”. I took a picture of one for historical purposes.

Repealing the speed limit was not a disaster in terms of carnage. It was a disaster in terms of enforcing the “reasonable and prudent” law. Today Montana has a daytime speed limit because of legal challenges. If I recall correctly, sometime soon after the speed limit went away, a study showed the average statewide speed increased maybe 1-2 mph and that was largely attributed to out of state drivers pushing the limits of good sense when they hit the border. Most residents didn’t change their driving habits at all. The previous federal speed limit had been pretty much ignored as the standard fine was just five dollars.

I’m not sold on the theory that self regulation can never be effective. I think if penalties for major screwups are certain and visibly enforced, even corporations might act in their own self interests and obey the regulations on the books. Who wants to bet if BP is taken down hard that all the other big oil companies will take a round turn on making SURE it doesn’t happen to them?

Just wanted to throw a counter idea out. I’m cynical enough to expect BP to get off relatively easy.

[garysears]

“…is as absurd as eliminating speed limits on the freeway”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Ok, this got my attention. I grew up in Montana. Shortly before I got my drivers license the federally imposed speed limit was repealed. Montana went back to no daytime speed limit. That is correct. The signs actually read “reasonable and prudent”. I took a picture of one for historical purposes.

Repealing the speed limit was not a disaster in terms of carnage. It was a disaster in terms of enforcing the “reasonable and prudent” law. Today Montana has a daytime speed limit because of legal challenges. If I recall correctly, sometime soon after the speed limit went away, a study showed the average statewide speed increased maybe 1-2 mph and that was largely attributed to out of state drivers pushing the limits of good sense when they hit the border. Most residents didn’t change their driving habits at all. The previous federal speed limit had been pretty much ignored as the standard fine was just five dollars.

I’m not sold on the theory that self regulation can never be effective. I think if penalties for major screwups are certain and visibly enforced, even corporations might act in their own self interests and obey the regulations on the books. Who wants to bet if BP is taken down hard that all the other big oil companies will take a round turn on making SURE it doesn’t happen to them?

Just wanted to throw a counter idea out. I’m cynical enough to expect BP to get off relatively easy.

[garysears]

“…is as absurd as eliminating speed limits on the freeway”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Ok, this got my attention. I grew up in Montana. Shortly before I got my drivers license the federally imposed speed limit was repealed. Montana went back to no daytime speed limit. That is correct. The signs actually read “reasonable and prudent”. I took a picture of one for historical purposes.

Repealing the speed limit was not a disaster in terms of carnage. It was a disaster in terms of enforcing the “reasonable and prudent” law. Today Montana has a daytime speed limit because of legal challenges. If I recall correctly, sometime soon after the speed limit went away, a study showed the average statewide speed increased maybe 1-2 mph and that was largely attributed to out of state drivers pushing the limits of good sense when they hit the border. Most residents didn’t change their driving habits at all. The previous federal speed limit had been pretty much ignored as the standard fine was just five dollars.

I’m not sold on the theory that self regulation can never be effective. I think if penalties for major screwups are certain and visibly enforced, even corporations might act in their own self interests and obey the regulations on the books. Who wants to bet if BP is taken down hard that all the other big oil companies will take a round turn on making SURE it doesn’t happen to them?

Just wanted to throw a counter idea out. I’m cynical enough to expect BP to get off relatively easy.

[garysears]

“…is as absurd as eliminating speed limits on the freeway”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Ok, this got my attention. I grew up in Montana. Shortly before I got my drivers license the federally imposed speed limit was repealed. Montana went back to no daytime speed limit. That is correct. The signs actually read “reasonable and prudent”. I took a picture of one for historical purposes.

Repealing the speed limit was not a disaster in terms of carnage. It was a disaster in terms of enforcing the “reasonable and prudent” law. Today Montana has a daytime speed limit because of legal challenges. If I recall correctly, sometime soon after the speed limit went away, a study showed the average statewide speed increased maybe 1-2 mph and that was largely attributed to out of state drivers pushing the limits of good sense when they hit the border. Most residents didn’t change their driving habits at all. The previous federal speed limit had been pretty much ignored as the standard fine was just five dollars.

I’m not sold on the theory that self regulation can never be effective. I think if penalties for major screwups are certain and visibly enforced, even corporations might act in their own self interests and obey the regulations on the books. Who wants to bet if BP is taken down hard that all the other big oil companies will take a round turn on making SURE it doesn’t happen to them?

Just wanted to throw a counter idea out. I’m cynical enough to expect BP to get off relatively easy.

[garysears]

“…is as absurd as eliminating speed limits on the freeway”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

Ok, this got my attention. I grew up in Montana. Shortly before I got my drivers license the federally imposed speed limit was repealed. Montana went back to no daytime speed limit. That is correct. The signs actually read “reasonable and prudent”. I took a picture of one for historical purposes.

Repealing the speed limit was not a disaster in terms of carnage. It was a disaster in terms of enforcing the “reasonable and prudent” law. Today Montana has a daytime speed limit because of legal challenges. If I recall correctly, sometime soon after the speed limit went away, a study showed the average statewide speed increased maybe 1-2 mph and that was largely attributed to out of state drivers pushing the limits of good sense when they hit the border. Most residents didn’t change their driving habits at all. The previous federal speed limit had been pretty much ignored as the standard fine was just five dollars.

I’m not sold on the theory that self regulation can never be effective. I think if penalties for major screwups are certain and visibly enforced, even corporations might act in their own self interests and obey the regulations on the books. Who wants to bet if BP is taken down hard that all the other big oil companies will take a round turn on making SURE it doesn’t happen to them?

Just wanted to throw a counter idea out. I’m cynical enough to expect BP to get off relatively easy.

[garysears]

RE: “Highest and Best Offer”

My first offer is my highest and best. It is easier that way. If that isn’t good enough, I am not interested. I hate realtor games.

Somehow I got into escrow in this market with this philosophy. We are under contract now for $25k less than my initial offer. If we fall out of escrow I will make another offer for less.

[garysears]

RE: “Highest and Best Offer”

My first offer is my highest and best. It is easier that way. If that isn’t good enough, I am not interested. I hate realtor games.

Somehow I got into escrow in this market with this philosophy. We are under contract now for $25k less than my initial offer. If we fall out of escrow I will make another offer for less.

[garysears]

RE: “Highest and Best Offer”

My first offer is my highest and best. It is easier that way. If that isn’t good enough, I am not interested. I hate realtor games.

Somehow I got into escrow in this market with this philosophy. We are under contract now for $25k less than my initial offer. If we fall out of escrow I will make another offer for less.

[garysears]

RE: “Highest and Best Offer”

My first offer is my highest and best. It is easier that way. If that isn’t good enough, I am not interested. I hate realtor games.

Somehow I got into escrow in this market with this philosophy. We are under contract now for $25k less than my initial offer. If we fall out of escrow I will make another offer for less.

[Author]

Posts