vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be ""other than house debt"" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage.
Let me give you the benefit of my experience. I paid a bunch of points (4) when I bought my first house for similar reasons than you mentioned including: Why I wish I hadn't: (1) Interest rates plummeted (not as likely to happen today) and I wound up refinancing the loan within the fist 10 years negating the savings that I would have had over the life of the loan. Also, it made me feel stupid for paying close to $5K to knock 1% or so off the loan rate only to have an even lower rate offered to me with no points within a decade. (2) I didn't take into account that I'm the type of person who would try to pay the loan off early, and I did. Way Early. So even if I hadn't refinanced, the extra points were really a waste of money. (3) In the US, at least, you can't always deduct ALL of the money you paid in points in the first year. You may have to spread that deduction over several years. (4) You are right about the alternative being better (investing the points), since the benefit of paying them is at most 1-2% on your loan, you don't even need a 6-7% return to make it a better deal to invest them. HOWEVER, I get skeptical when people compare paying interest to returns on invested money like that. If you don't pay the points will you actually invest that money for the 30 years (or whatever the term of the loan is)? It's easy to say that when you are talking theoreticals, but $5k in your pocket is also pretty tempting when the deal is done. Good luck with the new house!
"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this ""remortgaging"" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land)."
The new payment on $172,500 3.5% 15yr would be $1233/mo compared to $1614/mo now (26 bi-weekly payments, but 12 months.) Assuming the difference is nearly all interest, the savings is closer to $285/mo than 381. Note, actual savings are different, the actual savings is based on the difference in interest over the year. Since the term will be changing, I'm looking at cash flow, which is the larger concern, in my opinion. $17,000/285 is 60 months. This is your break even time to payoff the $17000, higher actually since the $17K will be accruing interest. I didn't see any mention of closing costs or other expenses. Obviously, that has to be factored in as well. I think the trade off isn't worth it. As the other answers suggest, the rental is too close to break-even now. The cost of repairs on two houses is an issue. In my opinion, it's less about the expenses being huge than being random. You don't get billed $35/mo to paint the house. You wake up, see too many spots showing wear, and get a $3000 bill. Same for all high cost items, Roof, HVAC, etc. You are permitted to borrow 50% of your 401(k) balance, so you have $64K in the account. I don't know your age, this might be great or a bit low. I'd keep saving, not putting any extra toward either mortgage until I had an emergency fund that was more than sufficient. The fund needs to handle the unexpected expenses as well as the months of unemployment. In general, 6-9 months of these expenses is recommended. To be clear, there are times a 401(k) loan can make sense. I just don't see that it does now. (Disclaimer - when analyzing refis there are two approaches. The first is to look at interest saved. After all, interest is the expense, principal payments go right to your balance sheet.
In the spring of this year FHA increased their rates for Mortgage Protection insurance. (I am looking for a good refernceon the government website) Non Government reference Annual MIP For an FHA Streamline Refinance that replaces a FHA loan endorsed on, or after, June 1, 2009, the annual MIP varies based on loan type and loan-to-value. The annual MIP schedule, for loans with case numbers assigned on, of after, June 1, 2009 : For your example the monthly payment would be: $184,192*(1.2/100)*(1/12) = ~ $184.19  You were quoted 179.57 a month
"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely.
That's why they're taking the deal. But it's not like they completely stole all that money. I don't have any stats, but I'd assume most of those people who got their loans are still in their homes. (Sorry, I could be way off. Please correct) But they still are bastards for not letting me refinance. Could have just been because they saw this penalty coming.
"I'm a visual person so the idea of a 30 year mortgage didn't make much sense to me until I could see it  This isn't exact but it's pretty close. The green Interest lines represent the money you're giving to the bank as a ""thank you"" for lending you a large amount of cash up front. As you've already figured out, that's at least the same amount as the price of the home! As much down-payment as is reasonable. Keep one eye on beating the interest Best of luck!"
From the link posted in the other response, it looks like you with be charged 1.3% of the loan value for MMI.  With an 85% LTV loan, in effect, you are paying 1.3% for the 5% down payment you don't have. Let me offer this with a few numbers. $100K home, $85K loan. 1.3% of $85K is $1105/year in MMI. This is for the fact that you are missing the $5000 extra deposit to get to 80% LTV.  This is over 20% in cost for that missing money. Most credit cards are below this rate. If one were at a 95% LTV, I understand that it might be tough to raise the remaining money needed, but in this case, 5% is so close the fee cost actually becomes absurd.
Some lenders want to discourage the borrower from making these additional payments because they want to sell this as a service. They might set this up for you, or they have a contract with a 3rd party to set it up. These services generally charge you to initiate the process, and may have a recurring fee. They take 1/2 a payment every 2 weeks. Then forward the money on the first of the month to the lender. Once a year they will send in the 13th monthly payment. This gives them control of up to a months payment per account.  There is no law that says they have to accept early payments. So check the documents to make sure it is allowed for that mortgage. Then send in a test payment directing that the excess funds go to pay down principal. Verify online that the extra funds were credited correctly. Even it works once the borrower will have to keep checking to make sure it is handled correctly each month.
You can afford the mortgage but would you have had enough for the down payment? I certainly didn't have $50 grand laying around when I was in my 20s (which is what you'd need to put down on a 250k house if 20 percent convention holds)
"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage.  The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you.  The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances.  For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate.  This would double the benefit to you.  First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now.  In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment).  Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance.  This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the ""Brexit"" issue.  By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
The reason the loan amount is showing is because it is a default - the fact that you live in a non-recourse state doesn't change the fact that a loan obligation that had your name on it was defaulted upon. I don't think there is much you can do now given that your name was still on the mortgages.
"Residential mortgages normally explicitly state that the property cannot be let without explicit permission, whereas BTL mortgages typically require that the property be let. There are other differences. Residential mortgages are regulated, which means that consumers have a degree of protection from mis-selling; most BTLs are not, as landlords are expected to know what they're doing. Affordability of residential mortgages are based on your income, since that is how you are going to pay for them. BTLs are (mostly) assessed based on the property's rental income, since it's that that will fund the mortgage. Finally, residential mortgages are typically done on a repayment basis, so that at the end of the term, you've paid off the entire loan, whereas BTLs are typically interest-only, on the assumption that you'll either sell the property, or remortgage, at the end of the term. (I've used words like ""typically"" a lot to give an overall picture of the differences. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that, and there are exceptions to a lot of the above descriptions.)"
"The statistic you cited comes from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, a survey that they do every three years, most recently in 2013.  This was reported in the September 2014 issue of the Federal Reserve Bulletin.  They list the percentage of Americans with any type of debt as 74.5 in 2013, down slightly from 74.9 in 2010. The Bulletin also has a table with a breakdown of the types of debt that people have, and primary residence mortgages are at the top of the list.  So the answer is yes, the 75% statistic includes Americans with home mortgages.* The bigger question is, are you really ""in debt"" if you have a home mortgage?  The answer to that is also yes.  When you take out a mortgage, you really do own the house.  You decide who lives there, you decide what changes you are going to make to it, and you are responsible for the upkeep.  But the mortgage debt you have is secured by the house.  This means that if you refuse to pay, the bank is allowed to take possession of the house.  They don't even get the ""whole"" house, though; they will sell it to recoup their losses, and give you back whatever equity you had in the house after the loan is satisfied. Is it good debt?  Many people think that if you are borrowing money to purchase an appreciating asset, the debt is acceptable.  With this definition, a car loan is bad, credit card debt is very bad, and a home mortgage might be okay.  Even Dave Ramsey, radio host and champion of the debt-free lifestyle, is not opposed to home mortgages.  Home mortgages allow people to purchase a home that they would otherwise be unable to afford. * Interestingly, according to the bulletin appendix, credit card balances were only included as debt for the survey purposes if there was a balance after the most recent bill was paid, not including purchases made after the bill.  So people that do not carry a balance on their credit card were not considered ""in debt"" in this statistic."
As other people have said, a few thousand dollars isn't going to make any significant difference in what you pay - if you put an extra 1% down, and redraw all the documents accordingly, your payments are going to be roughly 1% less per month.  So, for example, $1800 per month would become $1780 or so per month.   You're much better off keeping the money as an emergency fund: When you buy a house, there are a lot of things that can go wrong (as is the case with your car, if you have one, and with medical expenses, and helping out a relative, not to mention losing your job, and so on).  It doesn't sound like you have all that much money, because if you did, you would have put 20% down and avoided Private Mortgage Insurance, saving yourself a lot more money than 1%. So having a few more thousand in the bank sounds like a good thing.
Whether applying for a job or buying a house, Offer a more specific price like $72,500, which tells them you thought hard about the price. $70K is too 'round' of a number. Additionally, your financial ability/condition can be a factor too. If you have 20% down, and your Realtor assures the seller that your transaction will go down without a hitch, and you'll be approved for a mortgage, they may accept your offer of $72,500 over the other guys $78K offer if [s]he has less desirable finances. Good Luck!
That makes no sense at all. They try to compare and that's exactly the same as comparing apples versus oranges. Mortgage is long-term loan, so for the first many years the huge part of the payment will go to repaying interest, so that ratio 1 will indeed be something like 20% or more despite the fact that the interest rate on the mortgage is much lower - something around 6%. HELOC will have the interest rate of 6%, but it will have the same structure so that you have equal payments, so if you compute that ratio 1 it will be very close to that of the mortgage. The bottom line is - if HELOCs were that great noone would apply for mortgages. You should stick to making extra payments towards the principal on the mortgage.
"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to ""What would the property give you?"" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both?
You probably won't get a mortgage. UDSA has a 41% ratio of monthly debt to monthly income limit, and a score of 660 or better. A 250,000 mortgage at current rates for 30 year mortgage is about $1560/mo. (included in this figure is the 1% mortgage insurance premium, the .4% annual fee, the current rate for a 660 credit rating, the 2% points fee added at the front of the mortgage, typical closing cost added to transaction, and the .5% fee for over-mortgage insurance for the first 3 years since your mortgage will be higher than the value of the house due to these additional fees) Credit card payments = $120 ($60 times 2) Car payments = $542 ($271 for your car, $271 for the car you will be getting) Student loan = $50/month Child Support = $500/month Total = $2772/month Your income per month is 82000/12 = $6833/month $2772/$6833 = 40.6%...  This is awfully close to the limit, so they likely would also look at your ability to save.  Not seeing savings in the above example, I assume it is low.  USDA site One mortgage help site breaks down some of the requirements into layman's language. Not knowing your exact location (county/state) and how many children you have, it is hard to be sure whether you make too much to qualify.  This link shows the income limits by number of people in the house and the county/state.  There are few places in which you could be living that would qualify you to any of their programs unless you have a several children. As others have posted, I suggest you get your debt down.
I realize this question is a few years old now, but I wanted to address one of the OP's questions that hadn't been answered yet (my answer is framed as though the question were recent): However, on the plus side, the monthly payment would likely be $200 less/mo with this house vs our current rent. On a 30 year mortgage it would be almost $3-400 less. This makes me think that I could use the difference to pay directly toward the principal each month. Is my logic sound? The way amortization works, if the interest rate between 30 and 15 were the same, then making principal-only prepayments on the 30 year to cover the difference in monthly payments would result in the exactly the same schedule as if you did minimum payments on the 15-year - i.e. the numbers would be practically indistinguishable.  Of course, in practice the interest rate is slightly better on the 15-year, which makes the 30-year with prepayments compare slightly less favorably. If you're confident that you'll be able to reliably keep up with the monthly payments, the 15-year would minimize the total amount of interest you pay, and help you get off of PMI slightly faster.  But the 30-year w/ prepayments gives you the option to skip a prepayment or two if you run into any financial difficulty, which is a nice option to have.  But you do have to be disciplined about making the prepayments every month.
It's easier to get approval for a smaller loan, and more down means less borrowed.  Also, more down means more they can recover if they have to foreclose.
No. You have to reimburse the current mortgage you have and negociate a new one for your new house. A mortgage is a loan from a financial institution that accepts to give you money if you pay it back the total amount adding interests. Interests are the price you pay to the financial institution for it to give you money for a while. In the mortgage you have an legal agreement with the financial institution on how to reimburse the total amount that is given to you for a while. Breaking that agreement is breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that when 30% of your mortgage is reimbursed, the financial institution own your house, legally, for real, at 70%: your live in the house own by the financial institution at 70%. It is the same exact logic for a car loan. The mortgage goes with a specific house at a legal address that you live in as a primary residence.