|
Leperflesh posted:Got an offer accepted today. Bank-owned house, we are FHA. What are the odds we can close by Nov. 30? Our finance guy says it's unlikely, but he knows a couple of banks that tend to be fastest and will "see what he can do". We offered exactly what the seller was asking, so it seems more likely that it'll appraise, and when we saw the house, it appeared to be in pretty good condition. We didn't see anything that an FHA inspector would likely balk at. I really, really doubt you'll make the cut-off with an FHA loan and an REO to boot. What did you stipulate in your offer as to when closing will be? EDIT 1: appraisal has nothing to do with offering what the seller was asking (or lower); it has to do with comparable sales in the immediate area. EDIT 2: one way to hurry the closing process would have been to get pre-approved/pre-qualified with your lender prior to making you offers. If you did so and began the bulk of the paperwork process ahead of time, this speeds things up greatly. Unfortunately, many things are just outside of your control during escrow. GOOD LUCK! AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 3, 2009 |
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Thanks, man. We did get pre-qualified but that was back in June. I expect they'll require all-new rounds of paperwork, and I have no idea if we'll even be using the same bank (my finance guy says he shops around and gets the best deal that particular day, from a bunch of different banks). Our offer stipulated 45 days for closing; my agent said if we said 30 they might not accept the offer, because 45 was more usual. I figured the appraisal mattered because it's a requirement of getting the loan (that the house appraise for at least the sale price). I think the comps will show similar prices, we've been shopping in the area for months and $240 is very typical of what houses have been going for around there. Actually we bid on a house just up the street back on Oct. 2; same size, same number of beds/baths, 50 yards away, we bid $236 and we were outbid. Mind you, that house had two illegal additinal rooms not accounted-for in the square footage; they were lovely and falling apart and our plan was to rip them out, but that might have enhanced the selling price for that house anyway. I think we're ready to supply all paperwork that they'll ask for: bank statements, tax return, paycheck stubs, etc. We get 17 days for inspections. I figure if we blow through those faster maybe that'll gain us a week? Our agent is going to suggest several inspectors and I don't mind working the phones to find people who can do it immediately. I can take time off work with no notice if need be as well. So it seems to me the two big things are, the loan application and approval process, and whatever the seller-bank has to to on their end once we're done with our inspection period. I don't really have a sense of what that involves. Maybe I'm missing another detail somewhere as well... Edit: Oh, and the FHA inspector. They have to approve the house (they check for safety and stuff, there has to be a working kitchen stove and fridge, no exposed wiring, all kinds of random bullshit). No idea if we have to sit on our thumbs for weeks waiting on them or if they're very prompt and timely or what. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Our offer stipulated 45 days for closing; my agent said if we said 30 they might not accept the offer, because 45 was more usual. It's my understanding that the shorter the escrow period, the more appealing it is to the seller. Of course, you're entering into a contract to close in that time frame and if you can't, and you can't get an extension from the seller, you may be out of contract (and lose your 3% deposit). But in any case, stipulating a 45-day close doesn't mean you can't close early. It will be tough with an FHA loan because of the additional requirements both in terms of the underwriting process and the additional inspection parameters. I may have this wrong, but I think you'll have two inspections, one for yourself, you want to know the condition of the home you're buying, and one inspection on behalf of the FHA (they want to know they're lending you money for a home that's in decent condition). To try and speed things up, you can schedule your inspections (termite and general) as well as the appraisal to occur concurrently, ASAP. Your lender will schedule the appraisal, but if you have a good rapport with them, they will try to hurry this along. Mine did this for me. The danger with this is that if the either of the inspections come back with deal-breaking negatives or if you don't appraise, you're out the $800-$1000 in inpection/appraisal fees. The alternative is to schedule the inspections, wait until the report comes back, and if you like what you see, then schedule the appraisal. This way you haven't laid out $400 for the appraisal only to have wasted it because you didn't like the termite report and want to back out. We had the luxury of time, so we did the termite ($200), the general inspection ($525), and then the appraisal ($400) in three seperate steps, only moving on (and paying for) the next step once we liked what we saw in the reports. You want to do as much as you can to get everything needed into the hands of the underwriter as fast as possible. Once there, it's pretty much out of your hands. Just for reference, I live in California and closed last week on my home (conventional financing, 45-day escrow) and I have a co-worker who closed a few months ago with an FHA. I could have done a 30-day without much difficulty, but a 25-day close might have taken some doing. AARP LARPer fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
Yeah it's probably worth it for us to go ahead and get the inspections going right away. I've assumed that if I get into escrow I'm going to have sunk costs on inspections even if the deal falls through. I don't think there's much chance of us failing to qualify for the loan (I could supposedly afford a good $100k more for a house, according to BS actuarial tables, and we both have very good credit) so the only issue is the condition and value of the house, and we gotta pay to find that out regardless. I knew the seller would be happy with a faster close than 45 days. I guess the concern my realtor had was that if we said 30 days, and they saw we were FHA, they might think we'd likely fail to close that fast and it'd look funny. I dunno I should ask him again, maybe I'm remembering the reasoning wrong. For reference, this is a house in Concord, CA. We offered $240,800 which is what they were asking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 01:12
|
|
|
S'up, fellow Bay Area (future) homeowner. I live in Pacifica. Okay, I see where you're agent is coming from and it makes a lot of sense. I believe having very good FICO scores will help speed things up for you -- I beleive that what made things very easy for us. Of course, we did all we could on our end by having all our documents ready to go upon start of escrow: * paystubs * checking/savings/IRA/401(k) statements * stocks/bonds * credit card statements * car/student loan statements As part of the loan qualification process, the lender will want evidence that you have enough in assets available to cover a certain number of mortgage payments, above and beyond your downpayment. Because we had a 20% conventional, we only had to show proof, and I had my 401(k) statement which satisfied them. With an FHA on the other hand, you may have to place this money into an impound account prior to escrow. Your loan guy will cover all this. I'm just trying to warn you that you'll have to face a lot of closing costs including pro-rated propery tax, homeowner's insurance for an entire year, daily interest until the loan start date, etc. You sound like you've thought this out very well and are getting everying all lined up properly. If you can't make the cut-off date, it isn't for your lack of prep. I hope you have smooth sailing and can get it done it time!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 01:31
|
|
|
I really appreciate your posts, because you've just gone through this and you're confirming a lot of stuff I figured out from random Internet reading. I'm aware there are a lot of up-front costs for FHA. I've got the cash ready to cover those, and my 401(k) is looking pretty solid right now. Shouldn't have any problem qualifying or handling those costs. I need to sort them out, but I have most of the statements you mention already. My bank statements are electronic, but I can print them off and that seems to be acceptable - at least, it was fine when we prequalified. Concord and contra costa county have their semi-annual tax date in November, so the pro-rated taxes should be quite small (and in any case the taxes up there are pretty low). I was told the homeowner's insurance I'd only have to have 3 or 4 months pre-paid; if it's a full year, that'll be at least an extra grand, but I think I can cover that. Daily interest till the loan start date is fine. For the down payment + costs and fees, I've got about $17k in cash (not counting whatever my wife has, which is just a few hundred). My math says that should be enough. If it's not, well... there's options, although I'd prefer not to borrow against my 401(k) or from family members if I can avoid it. Edit: oh, and as a Pacifica goon, your gull avatar gains some pretty nice context. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 4, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 01:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Got an offer accepted today. Bank-owned house, we are FHA. What are the odds we can close by Nov. 30? Zero, which are also the odds of the housing credit not being extended in some form, so I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
It's that "in some form" that has me worried about it. Not that I wouldn't be buying a house anyway without the $8k, only, it would be tremendously sucky if I closed like Nov. 4th, and then it either isn't renewed, or the renewed deal isn't as good or we don't qualify for it for some reason or whatever. I'm looking at this as a risk/reward scenario. Some extra work and effort on my part reduces the risk that I'll both close after Nov. 30, and not qualify for whatever program might exist after Nov. 30. I just want to understand how likely it is that extra work on my part could actually affect the equation (you say 'zero percent' which only proves that you either do not understand probabilities, or are engaging in hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, neither of which is especially helpful to me, I'm afraid. I'll put your vote down in the "very unlikely" column though.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 02:05
|
|
|
Electronic bank statements were just fine for documentation. You'll also be able to sign many things and simply email a PDF of them back and forth. I forgot about homeowner's insurance. Once you're certain you want the home and the inspections are good, get your policy in order. Our insurance guy was top-notch and worked with the title company to make sure they were aware that a policy was in place. The lender will want to know about this too. If you have AAA, use them for your home too. The premium on my home with a $1000 deductible is $660 a year or so. I think I could have paid $570 or so with a $2000 deductible. It's not very expensive, but here's the kicker: I got my auto insurance reduced by $300 by having multiple policies through AAA! So in essence, I'm only paying $360 a year for the additional home coverage. It sounds like Contra Costa County is on the same tax payment schedule as San Mateo. I was pro-rated and had to pay about 118 days of tax. You'll probably have to come up with 80 days or so. The next tax installment is due no later than April 10. Your annual tax rate will be approximately 1.2% of your purchase price (so about $3K for you). So you'll owe about $1,500 for that April 10th installment. Let me know if you have any other questions and I'll try and answer them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 02:08
|
|
|
I've got Amica for auto insurance and they'll be my first quote for the homeowner's policy. I'll also be buying supplemental earthquake insurance (the concord fault is RIGHT THERE, and like all of the East Bay, it's long overdue). I LOVE Amica. They've been, far and away, the most friendly, helpful, responsive insurance company I've ever had. The only thing that they do that is slightly annoying is they constantly try to sell me life insurance... but in a very polite way (I already have it through work so I just say no thanks). I had a claim and they actually returned my phone calls, called back the next day to see if everything was OK (the other guy was at fault and his insurance wound up covering it all), and when I call them I unfailingly get a human being the first try. Seriously they're great. (Oh and also when I switched off of GMAC to Amica, I saved $600 a year, and the next nearest quotes from Geico, esurance, farmers, provident, etc. were all more than DOUBLE. Crazy.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 02:15
|
|
|
I passed on earthquake insurance. Our realtor, who is also a family friend I trust and an engineer(!), said it was unnecessary for a single-story, wood framed house resting on a concrete perimeter foundation. Earthquake insurance offered by AAA is really intended for catastrophic damage which is unlikely to happen to our structure. I imagine we'll have cracking and our chimney is likely to fall over, but this wouldn't be covered under the 15% deductible anyway. I think our quote was for $550 a year for earthquake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
Most of Concord is in a liquifaction zone, because it's built on alluvial deposits along a wide, open river valley that is part of the lower Sacramento river delta. Furthermore, the Concord fault is long overdue for a big adjustment, and it's within 5 miles of pretty much every house in Concord. If your house in Pacifica is on bedrock, you'll probably be OK for most earthquakes (although not, I suspect, a direct quake along the San Andreas with an epicenter near Pacifica at 7.0+). (I've took 15 units of geology classes when I was in college...) You might find this interesting: Go here, and click on Future Earthquake Scenarios or Shaking Potential. You can play around with it, but basically you can zoom in on your zip code and see what the shaking potential is for various earthquake scenarios. Personally, and this is no slight to you, but as a native Californian, I think not having earthquake insurance on a California house is similar to not having flood insurance on a house on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, or not having tornado insurance on a house in Oklahoma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
House credit extension passes Senate. The tax credit was attached to the unemployment benefit extension bill, which has passed the Senate with a unanimous (98-0) vote. The bill extends the $8000 credit through April, and adds a $6500 credit for homebuyers who have been in their current home for at least 5 years. It seems unlikely that the House would strip the provision from their copy of the bill. There is virtually no chance Obama would veto it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 19:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:House credit extension passes Senate. The tax credit was attached to the unemployment benefit extension bill, which has passed the Senate with a unanimous (98-0) vote. The bill extends the $8000 credit through April, and adds a $6500 credit for homebuyers who have been in their current home for at least 5 years. So my wife and I didn't qualify for the new homeowners tax credit because before we were married she had owned a home which she sold in 2007(less than the allowed 3 years). She had lived in this home for 5+ years. We purchased our new home just a few months ago...is this bill going to be retroactive and would we qualify for the 6500?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
I don't know, but it seems unlikely. The idea of a stimulus bill is to stimulate people into doing something; obviously you were willing to buy your new house without being stimulated. I can understand how you might feel, though - if only you had waited, you might have had a shot at an extra six and a half grand in spending money! I'm sorry. Edit: here is the text of the relevant amendment. Reading it, it is amending the law, so maybe it IS retroactive! It seems they've amended the previous law to extend the date, and also amended the previous law for long-time homeowners. I am not a lawyer. I suggest you consult a pro. Edit edit: Whoops I should read further: THOMAS posted:(j) Effective Dates- So, not retroactive. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
hmmm...looking more into the bill and it seems we just might be....(looking at the 8 years part) (b) Special Rule for Long-time Residents of Same Principal Residence- Subsection (c) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(6) EXCEPTION FOR LONG-TIME RESIDENTS OF SAME PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE- In the case of an individual (and, if married, such individual's spouse) who has owned and used the same residence as such individual's principal residence for any 5-consecutive-year period during the 8-year period ending on the date of the purchase of a subsequent principal residence, such individual shall be treated as a first-time homebuyer for purposes of this section with respect to the purchase of such subsequent residence.'. (c) Modification of Dollar and Income Limitations- (1) DOLLAR LIMITATION- Subsection (b)(1) of section 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: `(D) SPECIAL RULE FOR LONG-TIME RESIDENTS OF SAME PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE- In the case of a taxpayer to whom a credit under subsection (a) is allowed by reason of subsection (c)(6), subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall be applied by substituting `$6,500' for `$8,000' and `$3,250' for `$4,000'.'. edit: looks like we were looking at the same thing/same time there....def going to consult a pro if it passes into law edit2: son of a bitch BrokenLinux fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:20
|
|
|
There's also Senate amendments to the HR bill. This is sausage being made. I think a conference committee will have to work out differences before the bill is complete. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Nov 5, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:24
|
|
|
Looking at the effective dates...wouldn't : (b)Special Rule for Long-time Residents of Same Principal Residence Fall under : (1) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by subsections (b), (c), (d), and (g) shall apply to residences purchased after the date of the enactment of this Act. And be retroactive back to dec. 31 (or w/e this original bill was enacted)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 20:29
|
|
|
I thought "this Act" would refer to the bill currently working through congress, and not the law it is amending. But I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 21:00
|
|
|
aaaaand passed by house http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aYnkx.7jfyXE
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
The $6500 won't apply if you already bought your home, it will either be from Nov 30 or from when the bill is signed (today?). The whole point of the credit is to spur people to buy homes, not to hand out checks to those that already have. I would have liked to see the credit not extended, but at least they were nice enough to up the income limits so housing in the more expensive (and hardest hit areas) of the country will qualify.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2009 21:21
|
|
|
I was watching HGTV today and saw a homebuyer avoid PMI by renovating some of the house before she moved in. How does this work (or is it bullshit)? After googling around for a while, I found a few articles that said PMI is based off of your appraised value instead of the price you pay. Does this mean if I get a steal of a house I can avoid PMI even if I need a loan for 100% of the price? i.e. A house appraises for 500k but gets sold for 400k. Is PMI required for that 400k loan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 22:34
|
|
|
It's not bullshit, but the homebuyer would probably have had to pay for the renovations out of pocket, rather than rolling the cost into the loan. She could just have easily taken that cash and added it to the down payment to get up above 20% down, and not paid PMI that way as well. Otherwise, the implication is that her renovations added much more to the value of the house than they actually cost... which is possible, I guess, if the house had some horrible cosmetic damage that was cheapish to fix but made it uninhabitable or something. Or adding bedrooms maybe, if that could be done cheaply. Seems like a stretch though. PMI is insurance for the mortgage, and it's based on the difference between what you owe on the loan and the appraised value of the house. Sometimes there are restrictions about how quickly you can buy off the PMI. For example, on an FHA loan, you pay the FHA insurance (which is a substitute for the PMI) for a mimimum of 5 years, even if you pay down the debt fast enough that you get above 22% in less time. One thing though. What you pay for a house is really what it's worth. I would not count on avoiding PMI just because a house I'm buying is supposedly worth 20% more than what I'm paying for it, unless I was buying it from a relative or something at an agreed-upon discount. Because otherwise, the highest bid on the house is what it was actually 'worth', at the most. If I somehow got a house for 20% less than appraised value, I'd be very suspicious of that appraisal and assume that house values are dropping in my area, fast enough that the comps haven't caught up and when they do, my appraised value will drop. I do not know (maybe someone else can say) how often a house gets re-appraised for the purpose of determining PMI, or what you can do if you disagree with that appraisal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2009 22:45
|
|
|
Speaking of PMI, I have a coworker who's in the process of buying a house and she told me we didn't necessarily need a 20% down payment. I asked "What about PMI? Don't you end up paying like an extra hundred bucks or more a month due to that if you don't have the down payment?" and she said that since the place she's trying to get is out in the country outside city lines that there was no PMI. She's knowledgeable and has a pretty good head on her shoulders so I'm inclined to believe that this is the case rather than somebody just fed her some bullshit and she bought it, but I thought I'd ask here anyway. If this is true it'd be pretty cool because I want a place out in the country anyway (Milwaukee taxes are insane) and while we definitely intend to save up 20% if we can it'd be nice to know that if we found a really great place we could afford that we could cut it a bit short and not get screwed in PMI payments for it. For the record I don't think that's likely to happen as we're both making between $9 and $10 an hour working full-time and unless housing prices keep dropping in the Milwaukee area we're going to have to find better jobs before we can pull it off but hey I can dream.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
Chajara posted:Speaking of PMI, I have a coworker who's in the process of buying a house and she told me we didn't necessarily need a 20% down payment. I asked "What about PMI? Don't you end up paying like an extra hundred bucks or more a month due to that if you don't have the down payment?" and she said that since the place she's trying to get is out in the country outside city lines that there was no PMI. I've never heard of anything like that. The bank cares about the loan, not the location. Unless she found some special program, she will be paying PMI. While banks love to see 20% down, the fact of the matter is that most first time buyers don't put that much down and haven't for the longest time. Even back in the late 80s the average first time buyer only put down 10%. That dropped to almost nothing during the bubble years and is now rising again, but my point is that you don't (and haven't needed) 20% for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 18:16
|
|
|
Chajara posted:Speaking of PMI, I have a coworker who's in the process of buying a house and she told me we didn't necessarily need a 20% down payment. I asked "What about PMI? Don't you end up paying like an extra hundred bucks or more a month due to that if you don't have the down payment?" and she said that since the place she's trying to get is out in the country outside city lines that there was no PMI. She's knowledgeable and has a pretty good head on her shoulders so I'm inclined to believe that this is the case rather than somebody just fed her some bullshit and she bought it, but I thought I'd ask here anyway. If this is true it'd be pretty cool because I want a place out in the country anyway (Milwaukee taxes are insane) and while we definitely intend to save up 20% if we can it'd be nice to know that if we found a really great place we could afford that we could cut it a bit short and not get screwed in PMI payments for it. There's a USDA Rural Development loan program out there right now. 100% financing, low credit score requirements, no mortgage insurance, no downpayment. Everyone and their mom is jumping on this thing right now if the house they want qualifies and they don't make too much money. http://eligibility.sc.egov.usda.gov/eligibility/welcomeAction.do The other big option right now are FHA mortgages which only require 3.5% down. You pay 1.75% in up front mortgage insurance (MI) that usually gets financed into your loan, (one time fee) and then .55% a year. It's much cheaper than Private Mortgage Insurance on a conventional loan. On a 160K loan, FHA MI is only 73 bucks a month.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 18:33
|
|
|
Then again, my current loan is >$200k and my PMI is $60/mo, so I'm not sure there's a general rule here. Edit: Not FHA
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 19:21
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:There's a USDA Rural Development loan program out there right now. 100% financing, low credit score requirements, no mortgage insurance, no downpayment. Perhaps this is it then. I didn't have time to press her for details, we work in a busy deli and she's a chef and constantly running back and forth in the back. If I get the chance I'll ask her about it next time I see her. Thanks 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 20:05
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:Then again, my current loan is >$200k and my PMI is $60/mo, so I'm not sure there's a general rule here. True. On a conventional loan it can depend on credit score, LTV, and a ton of other poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
Hi Internet I'm thinking about purchasing my first home: a 180-200k house in the Portland, OR area which I'd like to live in and rent out two bedrooms. I have 90k in available funds (35k market invested, the rest liquid). I have zero liabilities/debt and good credit. I've been a self employed business owner for 9 years and currently make $30k a year. I have some loan questions: 1) Is 28% the established maximum percentage of monthly income a mortgage payment can be? 2) How is monthly income verified for people who are self employed? Tax records? Do they check a certain number of years back? 3) Is projected income something they consider? ie is the income from renting out two bedrooms of the house considered? My research tells me I'd be looking at $600-$800 per month 4) Mortgage insurance is not something that I need because of my >20% down, correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2009 23:03
|
|
|
dwoloz posted:1) Is 28% the established maximum percentage of monthly income a mortgage payment can be? quote:2) How is monthly income verified for people who are self employed? Tax records? Do they check a certain number of years back? quote:3) Is projected income something they consider? ie is the income from renting out two bedrooms of the house considered? My research tells me I'd be looking at $600-$800 per month quote:4) Mortgage insurance is not something that I need because of my >20% down, correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2009 23:41
|
|
|
dwoloz posted:
When they were giving everyone and anyone a mortgage during the bubble, this was completely allowed to factor in but they have clamped down on this heavily. In other news, I finally got my tax credit. Closed June 30th, got the check in the mail today...with interest!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 06:03
|
|
|
Chajara posted:Speaking of PMI, I have a coworker who's in the process of buying a house and she told me we didn't necessarily need a 20% down payment. I asked "What about PMI? Don't you end up paying like an extra hundred bucks or more a month due to that if you don't have the down payment?" and she said that since the place she's trying to get is out in the country outside city lines that there was no PMI. She's knowledgeable and has a pretty good head on her shoulders so I'm inclined to believe that this is the case rather than somebody just fed her some bullshit and she bought it, but I thought I'd ask here anyway. dwoloz posted:3) Is projected income something they consider? ie is the income from renting out two bedrooms of the house considered? My research tells me I'd be looking at $600-$800 per month Now, if you make over $125k (even as a married couple - same amount) and start deducting real estate losses, you're not allowed to! So basically, if you make good money and are young and single, I advise against buying real estate that could ever lose money (meaning, almost everything). I don't like the idea of making GBS threads where you eat, and looking back I think you should only buy homes with a single purpose - you rent the whole thing out and it's pure business or you buy it to live in it. Any blend of the two results in compromises that work against each other to your disadvantage no matter what. moana posted:You don't want your mortgage payment to depend on someone else's income.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 16:21
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:As much as this is sound and all, it's exactly how commercial real estate and managed residential real estate works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
Hm, thanks for the responses Here's how I look at my situation: I make ~2500 a month, have no bills to pay, don't own a car and spend about $200 on food. Given my $90k down on a $180k house, my mortgage payment for a 15 year fixed would be $776.51 (assuming no PMI and 1.25% prop tax). Surely no stretch; this is actually what I've been paying for rent. I'd assume I'd be putting additional money into the house given its likely state for my desired price range, but those expenses can be spaced out and made on an "as funds are available" basis. I have complete confidence I could pay, the only issue is convincing a bank of that. I feel like the system is fairly stacked against me considering the amount of irresponsible fucktards but still feel like there must be some solution. Any more sage advice? Maybe particular lenders who would be understanding/put more stock in my situation? Lenders that accept bank statements as proof of income would also be appreciated dwoloz fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Nov 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 07:03
|
|
|
Make sure that your calculation includes not just the mortgage payment and property taxes, but insurance, maintenance costs (houses need constant maintenance), increased expenses for utilities (houses use more than rooms or apartments), and a healthy margin for other unforseen expenses. Depending on your situation you may also need a substantial budget for furniture. Even if you want a fairly Spartan lifestyle, you might find you need curtains, rugs, kitchen appliances, washer/dryer, a lawnmower, etc. Even if the house comes with some of these things, they can break and need repair or replacement. Still, it seems like your budget is pretty good. Your biggest obstacle will be getting a loan. On our loan application, for example, we can't even list two of my wife's three jobs, because she's had them for less than two years; the broker is adding an adendum to list them, and he says the bank will take note of that, but in the actual calculations they're ignoring her income from those two jobs, so from their perspective we're supposedly making something like $1000/month less than we're actually making. Fortunately we both have excellent credit, and I make most of our income; and we're not buying more than we can afford, so it's OK. You may find you can get a loan, but just not at very good terms to begin with (comparatively speaking). With such a large down payment, and a 15-year mortgage, even fairly lousy terms should still be pretty affordable. You won't know till you try! Go get pre-qualified. It's free, and it'll tell you where you stand better than anyone in this thread can. Edit: Oh, one more thing. Our paperwork included copies of a years' worth of rent checks. If you can prove that you've been paying that $800 a month consistently and on-time for at least a year, that might go a long way towards establishing your creditworthiness. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Nov 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 08:59
|
|
|
dwoloz posted:Lenders that accept bank statements as proof of income would also be appreciated
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
dwoloz posted:Hm, thanks for the responses A good mortgage broker should be able to find a loan for you, but you might not like the terms. It won't be conventional with a low 5% rate. Might be in the 6.5 to 10% area.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:... Good tip! My rental history hasn't been that consistent as I've been traveling on and off since January but thats good to think about, maybe I have some records along those lines moana posted:I really don't think you're going to find anyone who does this anymore. Maybe 5 years ago. Why won't tax records suffice? Have you not been paying taxes on everything? I'll be completely honest and say yes, my tax records won't suffice; I've not reported all of my income. Would it be wise to not move around my money much at this point? I'm thinking about moving my money from it's current low interest bearing account to a higher one but worry that would complicated matters once I apply for a loan. A 6% rate I suppose I could live with, although not getting the 4.375% my credit union is offering would be disappointing
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Moving your money around doesn't matter; they'll only ask for the most recent bank statements to show how much actual cash you have. Underreporting your income, on the other hand, is not going to be recoverable. If you didn't report income, as far as a lender is concerned, it didn't exist, period. You absolutely will not be able to get around that. If the gap is substantial, I would go so far as to say that you must wait an extra year or two, reporting all your income, before applying for a mortgage. If the gap is small (you underreported by like 10% or less), then maybe the amount of income you reported will be enough to qualify for a loan anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 19:28
|
|