Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SD Realtor
ParticipantRight and as you see for over 300 days no stooge has fallen for that.
ParticipantRight and as you see for over 300 days no stooge has fallen for that.
ParticipantRight and as you see for over 300 days no stooge has fallen for that.
ParticipantOne simulation I would run would be to consider borrowing from the 401k to eliminate the PMI. The calculation is trivial, essentially add up the PMI and the differential in interest and then consider if you would be able to match that return for the amount of time it would take you to be able to remove the pmi. I know that the time period is somewhat arbitrary however (and this is personal) I cannot stand giving away money. PMI alone is 4800 a year by your calculation above so in 10 years you are close to 50k. Similarly with 20% down your origination costs will be less so you need to add that in as well. Add in the smaller amount of interest you will pay over (pick what is less, the life of the loan or the length of time before you sell the home)and it may be an eye-opener for you.
Now if you are the type of person that will walk away from the home should it depreciate or something like that, then disregard what I said and go 3.5% FHA. If not then running a simulation of what I proposed above may be useful unless you feel you will be making a substantially better return on the 401k.
Just food for thought.
ParticipantOne simulation I would run would be to consider borrowing from the 401k to eliminate the PMI. The calculation is trivial, essentially add up the PMI and the differential in interest and then consider if you would be able to match that return for the amount of time it would take you to be able to remove the pmi. I know that the time period is somewhat arbitrary however (and this is personal) I cannot stand giving away money. PMI alone is 4800 a year by your calculation above so in 10 years you are close to 50k. Similarly with 20% down your origination costs will be less so you need to add that in as well. Add in the smaller amount of interest you will pay over (pick what is less, the life of the loan or the length of time before you sell the home)and it may be an eye-opener for you.
Now if you are the type of person that will walk away from the home should it depreciate or something like that, then disregard what I said and go 3.5% FHA. If not then running a simulation of what I proposed above may be useful unless you feel you will be making a substantially better return on the 401k.
Just food for thought.
ParticipantOne simulation I would run would be to consider borrowing from the 401k to eliminate the PMI. The calculation is trivial, essentially add up the PMI and the differential in interest and then consider if you would be able to match that return for the amount of time it would take you to be able to remove the pmi. I know that the time period is somewhat arbitrary however (and this is personal) I cannot stand giving away money. PMI alone is 4800 a year by your calculation above so in 10 years you are close to 50k. Similarly with 20% down your origination costs will be less so you need to add that in as well. Add in the smaller amount of interest you will pay over (pick what is less, the life of the loan or the length of time before you sell the home)and it may be an eye-opener for you.
Now if you are the type of person that will walk away from the home should it depreciate or something like that, then disregard what I said and go 3.5% FHA. If not then running a simulation of what I proposed above may be useful unless you feel you will be making a substantially better return on the 401k.
Just food for thought.
ParticipantOne simulation I would run would be to consider borrowing from the 401k to eliminate the PMI. The calculation is trivial, essentially add up the PMI and the differential in interest and then consider if you would be able to match that return for the amount of time it would take you to be able to remove the pmi. I know that the time period is somewhat arbitrary however (and this is personal) I cannot stand giving away money. PMI alone is 4800 a year by your calculation above so in 10 years you are close to 50k. Similarly with 20% down your origination costs will be less so you need to add that in as well. Add in the smaller amount of interest you will pay over (pick what is less, the life of the loan or the length of time before you sell the home)and it may be an eye-opener for you.
Now if you are the type of person that will walk away from the home should it depreciate or something like that, then disregard what I said and go 3.5% FHA. If not then running a simulation of what I proposed above may be useful unless you feel you will be making a substantially better return on the 401k.
Just food for thought.
ParticipantOne simulation I would run would be to consider borrowing from the 401k to eliminate the PMI. The calculation is trivial, essentially add up the PMI and the differential in interest and then consider if you would be able to match that return for the amount of time it would take you to be able to remove the pmi. I know that the time period is somewhat arbitrary however (and this is personal) I cannot stand giving away money. PMI alone is 4800 a year by your calculation above so in 10 years you are close to 50k. Similarly with 20% down your origination costs will be less so you need to add that in as well. Add in the smaller amount of interest you will pay over (pick what is less, the life of the loan or the length of time before you sell the home)and it may be an eye-opener for you.
Now if you are the type of person that will walk away from the home should it depreciate or something like that, then disregard what I said and go 3.5% FHA. If not then running a simulation of what I proposed above may be useful unless you feel you will be making a substantially better return on the 401k.
Just food for thought.
ParticipantUmm… why do you call it reading between the lines? The text you quoted was the very first sentence in the remarks section. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The seller wants to remain in the home and lease it after the sale. So if you are someone looking to buy a rental you have an instant tenant. If you are looking to occupy the home, then obviously this is not the home for you. Given the fact the home has been on the market over 300 days and a notice of trustee sale was issued in March of 2010 eventually the homeowner will get booted after an eventual trustee sale.
I don’t know why this appears to be something between the lines.
ParticipantUmm… why do you call it reading between the lines? The text you quoted was the very first sentence in the remarks section. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The seller wants to remain in the home and lease it after the sale. So if you are someone looking to buy a rental you have an instant tenant. If you are looking to occupy the home, then obviously this is not the home for you. Given the fact the home has been on the market over 300 days and a notice of trustee sale was issued in March of 2010 eventually the homeowner will get booted after an eventual trustee sale.
I don’t know why this appears to be something between the lines.
ParticipantUmm… why do you call it reading between the lines? The text you quoted was the very first sentence in the remarks section. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The seller wants to remain in the home and lease it after the sale. So if you are someone looking to buy a rental you have an instant tenant. If you are looking to occupy the home, then obviously this is not the home for you. Given the fact the home has been on the market over 300 days and a notice of trustee sale was issued in March of 2010 eventually the homeowner will get booted after an eventual trustee sale.
I don’t know why this appears to be something between the lines.
ParticipantUmm… why do you call it reading between the lines? The text you quoted was the very first sentence in the remarks section. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The seller wants to remain in the home and lease it after the sale. So if you are someone looking to buy a rental you have an instant tenant. If you are looking to occupy the home, then obviously this is not the home for you. Given the fact the home has been on the market over 300 days and a notice of trustee sale was issued in March of 2010 eventually the homeowner will get booted after an eventual trustee sale.
I don’t know why this appears to be something between the lines.
ParticipantUmm… why do you call it reading between the lines? The text you quoted was the very first sentence in the remarks section. It seems pretty straight forward to me. The seller wants to remain in the home and lease it after the sale. So if you are someone looking to buy a rental you have an instant tenant. If you are looking to occupy the home, then obviously this is not the home for you. Given the fact the home has been on the market over 300 days and a notice of trustee sale was issued in March of 2010 eventually the homeowner will get booted after an eventual trustee sale.
I don’t know why this appears to be something between the lines.
ParticipantI would agree with what Scarlett said. I would be more comfortable with the 1750 sf homes down lower then where they are now. At the 500k price they are horrible investment properties. Most of those that were bought for investments were done so long ago. The majority were owner occupied and bought at a low price and then the owners moved on but kept the unit. I am not sure how low they will go because it is a nice area that has decent demand. I do believe they will move down though.
-
AuthorPosts
