vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Economically it doesn't make much difference, but I like to control the account because I can adjust the amount I put aide each month based on the new tax rates that come out each spring. This allow me finer control. I also know that the bills have been paid, I had one lender years ago that failed to pay the property tax bill, I had to end the money in to the county, and then pend months fighting the lender to get the money back. Now I avoid escrow accounts.  The money being collected by the mortgage servicing company for property taxes and property insurance goes into a separate account. The company insists on handling the funds to make sure that these bills are paid on time, thus protecting their investment. The failure to pay the taxes leaves the property subject to forfeiture via tax lien.  The failure to pay property insurance leaves the house unprotected if there is a fire or other incident. You can avoid the use of an escrow  account if you have enough equity in the account. Some lenders ask for you to provide proof of payment each year if you are going to pay it yourself.  At the end of each year the servicing company will provide you with an accounting for interest on the loan, and the amount of money spent on taxes and insurance. Also expect that they will make adjustments to the monthly withholding based on estimated increases for taxes and insurance.  Depending on your financial situation the interest, taxes may be included on Schedule A. If you have a rental property the interest, taxes and insurance are considered expenses that you can write off. The biggest issue with escrow accounts is that the company can have a buffer built in to protect them from unexpected increases. Many people view the calculation of the buffer a confusing and feel that they are overpaying.  If you want to avoid the escrow account you should make sure that each month you put the money into a separate account so that when the property tax bill is due you can pay it on time. When savings accounts earned significant interest it was possible to make a little money in the deal, but that hasn't been true for the last few years.
It's for the benefit of the bank, certainly.  You might consider it a convenience to write one check, but it comes at a cost. Your cost of money is the interest you pay on the most costly loan you carry. But the escrow account will usually get a low rate of interest, 1% or so today.  Also, as I describe in an article titled Fun With Schedule A there's a strategy for those who straddle the line between itemizing and taking the standard deduction. Paying your own tax allows you to pay as much as 6 quarters of property tax in one year and then just two quarters in the next. This opens up a biannual itemizing and a savings on your tax return.
pay off loans first, then invest. it's a guaranteed benefit. you could invest it and make great returns, or you could watch the market crash the next day and there goes your savings. no guarantee exists there. take the sure thing. that's my two cents.
For what its worth, I recently closed on a 30 year refinance mortage with an agent I found through Zillow.  The lender has a perfect 5/5 reputation score, whose office was located within 5 miles of my house, and as suggested by justkt on MrChrister's response, I checked out the business on the better business bureau and its online presence prior to going forward with the bank. The process was relatively painless, and the APR and closing costs were less than my previous loan with a federal credit union which I've used in the past.  I can't say if the bank I'll be using going forward is as good as the one I've used in the past, but overall I'm quite happy with it. I never met the individual in person but this saved both of us a fair amount of time honestly.
In general, for a home you live in, there's maintenance, which is just that, you pay to keep your house in good repair.  There's also real improvements. I spend $xxx to turn my poured cement basement into living space. Here, I keep my receipts and the cost (although not my labor) is added to the basis of my home when I sell.  The couple things that may offer a deduction have to do with energy. When I insulated my basement, there was a state tax credit which I got back when I filed taxes. There are also credits for installing solar panels.  What you've described in your question just sounds like one of the small joys of home ownership.
Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.
No, there is no advantage.  There may be some peace of mind at no cost if you are already in the lowest tax bracket.  Otherwise, it is actually disadvantageous. Consider the following scenario: RRSP HBP withdrawal $15000 ($1000/y repayment), You are required to pay back $1000 a year with no tax advantage. Any additional RRSP payments can be designated as HBP (no tax advantage) or as a regular RRSP contribution Tax = (Taxable Income - contributions) * rate. So, you are forgoing the tax benefit for no advantage.
"Banks make money on load origination fees. The ""points"" you pay or closing costs are the primary benefit to the banks. A vast majority of the time risks associated with the mortgage are sold to another party. FYI, the same is true with investment banks. In general, the transaction costs (which are ignored by modern finance theory) are the main thing running the incentives for the industry."
Hold onto that money, put it in savings. With such a change in the US government, who knows what will happen - and if things start to go sideways, having savings - so that you can continue paying your mortgage, and thus keep your house - is going to help you more than being able to throw more money at your mortgage principle. (Unless you can pay it off totally. Then do that.) I would build more of an emergency fund (2 years, just to be on the safe side), THEN see what other things are going on in your life, and what's going to be more advantageous for you. (That's a nice low interest rate. Not many other loans these days are going to have an interest rate that low.)
If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller.  There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan.  Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk.  It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability.  I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run.
I bought a house 6 months ago for $240,000 on an $80k salary am getting by just fine and am able to save money (and I live on Long Island, an extremely expensive area to live). I would look at finding a few more interest rate quotes; for instance, Wells Fargo is offering 4.25% right now for FHA (first time home buyers) loan (which only require 3.5% down). A lower interest rate will lower your monthly payment. Make the banks compete with one another - this little bit of leg-work will save you thousands upon thousands of dollars in the long run). Also, try to negotiate to NOT paying a point down on the mortgage - most of the time they are bull, especially in this economy (banks are desperate for new loans).  However, as others have said, do not assume or count on rent coming in to be able to afford your mortgage (unless you are married). What if your friend moves out and you cannot find another tenant?  However, I strongly recommend you talk to a financial adviser and your bank mortgage loan officer to work out the numbers - you will be surprised what you can afford when you factor in your income tax and mortgage interest write-offs.
It sounds like you may need to look into the different types of personal loans that are available to you. Typically, they are in 2 categories: secured vs unsecured. A personal loan is usually of the unsecured variety, meaning that the bank is loaning you money with no collateral to use if you default. These loans will have much higher interest rates than a secured loan. A prime example of a secured loan would be a mortgage or an equity line of credit.  If you want an unsecured personal loan to use towards making those improvements, then whether or not you receive the loan will depend on your credit rating and income status. As Aganju stated, these loans don't really care what the money is used for. Because it's not your property that you're fixing up, you won't be able to get a secured loan against that property. If your mother took out a loan against her home (like a second mortgage), she may be able to get a significantly lower interest rate than what you'll get with an unsecured loan. She could also look into a renovation/remodeling loan, which would require information regarding the work being done such as costs and how it will improve the value of the property. If she used an equity line of credit instead, then they don't typically care what the money will be used for as it's just a credit line against the equity she's already built into her mortgage payments over the years.
In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern.
"The ultimate purpose of Case-Schiller is to build contracts that you can use to stop worrying about this, for a price. You or your lender might buy cash settled put options based on the index, and hope that if your home falls in value, the your options become ""in the money"" to make up the shortfall. The major problem that I can see with this is finding people to take the other side of that contract. Renters would be the primary candidates, but Americans are on average so overweight in real estate that there really isn't anyone underexposed to real estate who would benefit from diversification, and the tax advantage will give people far cheaper avenues address this. Viewed in this light, your question has a sort of obvious answer: Case-Schiller is historical data, and you need to know about the future historical data. Case-Schiller can't do it alone, but you can use futures markets to predict it. Problem you'll have is that the market itself will optimize this temporal trade: if there's a market drop anticipated, the market will charge you more for market drop insurance."
Regardless. It’s a guaranteed 5.x%. Reducing student loans also allows you other benefits; i.e. reduces your credit risk allowing you to pull out more credit at a cheaper rate in the future etc. Unless you strongly believe in current bull market continuing.. (there is a high overvaluation from market principles atm and it has been the longest rise in history), you should go for the guaranteed change. Additionally, if your loan is pegged to variable interest rates such as the fed funds rate, be cognizant that the fed will probably continue rising rates for the near future of good times continue, meaning your rates will go up while markets go down. Long story short, would recommend paying down debt unless you’re quite confident in your skills.  Edit: quick note that if you can do both, this is the best option.
A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible."
It's a scam pushed through to benefit the banking system. Tax payments become income for the banks. Any alleged benefits for property holders are ultimately reduced by increased property prices, capital gains tax and estate taxes
Your rate of return for paying off this loan is 9%, and that's guaranteed. For reference, the best rate of return on a 10-year FDIC-insured certificate of deposit today is 3%. There's definitely something out there with better returns than paying off your loans, but there's definitely not going to be anything with better risk-adjusted returns than paying off your loans. Investors dream of guaranteed 9% rates of return. If you had something that could provide a guaranteed 9% rate of return, wannabe investors would be lining up at your door and tripping over each other to outbid each other until it actually closer to a 3% rate of return. :P (Postscript. Depending on whether your loans are tax-deductible and what your inflation expectations are, you could adjust those rates to make the comparison more accurate. But at 3% vs 9% the picture's pretty clear.)
If given the option of up front or monthly, here are some scenarios where it would be beneficial to pay the lease up front instead of monthly (neither of which are affected by inflation): Barring the above scenarios or some reason you don't want to keep money around (such as if you have some sort of addiction causing you to spend money, or you have an imminent lawsuit which will take all of your money), you are better off paying monthly.
If you make paying off those loans a priority,  you will find money where you can and also look for stuff to sell around your home and also look for as much extra work as you can stand.
Another factor:  When you sell this house and buy the next one, the more equity you have the easier the loan process tends to be.  We rolled prior equity into this house and had a downpayment over 50%--and the lender actually apologized for a technicality I had to deal with--they perfectly well knew it was a basically zero-risk loan.
"The advantages of the TFSA are  This makes them great for 50-somethings who didn't do any saving yet, for whom clawbacks when they drawdown RRSPs will have a big impact on taxes and government-related income. It also makes them great for ""I will save up for that car / my downpayment / the kids skating fees next year"" when the money would come out of an RRSP at the same or even a higher tax rate and would not have time to compound for long. This may apply to you. And finally it makes them great for highly paid people who just don't know what the heck to do with all the money that is piling up and have no intention of ever using any of it while they're working, but have filled up their RRSPs. My 20-somethings are using them because they pay essentially no taxes now, so are waiting to use their RRSP room later. If you have money that you are saving for something other than retirement, put it in a TFSA. If you've maxed the RRSP and still have money left over, put it in an TFSA. If you have children, consider an RESP first, because of the bonus money. But don't think TFSA first unless it's for timelimited saving like towards a car or renovation."
You understand it perfectly right. The thing with PMI is that when your home price rises (or your loan balance goes down) so that your loan balance is below the 80% of the current house price, the PMI goes away. The higher rate - does not. So, no-PMI option is much better. To the bank, as you suspected. Your calculations are correct. With the PMI you'll pay less interest, and more balance. As to the tax deductions, interest can be deducted, but the PMI - no (starting of 2012, to the best of my understanding, at least). See details here, consult a tax professional for more current information.
I think Energy and Mike point out the some serious issues but the prospects for the futures also need to be considered. If the banks no longer have those loans then they need to rebuild their income base that is wiped out by the payoff of their loans.  They would be incentivised to make a large number of loans so that they could quickly reestablish their base so they can maintain profitability.  This is likely to lead to more poor lending practices that lead to this location in the first place.  The high earning heavily leveraged would benefit far more from this than the poor.  A function of income is that as it increases the ability to leverage increases in a non lineal fashion.  So single person making 250k a year(the benchmark set by the current administration) with a 2 million dollar mortgage(probably underwater currently) on a home would benefit much more than a family of 4 making 50k a year with a 100k mortgage.   Assuming that government does pay off all mortages now people can sell of their now fully paid homes for less than their value, as its basically free money, leverage that money to move into a better home, so home values actually crash, in some areas as people sell them off cheap, people try to gamble on cheap houses(like we just saw), etc.  It takes a market that is on the verge of recovery and stabilization and shakes it up.  How long before it stabilizes again would be a matter of debate but I would not expect to see it in less than a decade.  Business and the Economy thrives on stability and retreats from instability.  So while this would appear to be an injection to the economy the chaos it creates would likely actually severely retard future economic growth.
Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate.  That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it.  Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%.  Let's assume a 25% tax rate.  Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%?  If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.).  These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house.  I recently bought my house using 100% cash.  It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs.  I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved.  My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible.
It's an issue of how much of a safety net you want, and part of that is going to be how much of a safety net you have in other areas. You should take into account what regular expenses you have, what emergency expenses you might have, what insurance policies you have, what deductibles those policies have, and what sources of money you have. As Alex B says, a HELOC isn't a guaranteed source of money, but it is one contingency. If you have a large amount of equity and your local real estate market is stable, your bank could cancel your HELOC, but they would have no financial incentive to do so. Other possible safety nets to consider would be friends and family, credit cards, and loans backed by retirement funds. Obviously you shouldn't rely on the last two for everyday expenses, but it's reasonable to consider them as contingencies in true emergencies.  Also, if you have a significant net worth, home equity and savings account should not be the only places you're storing your wealth. Look into stocks, bonds, and money market accounts. Your expected returns in the stock market should be higher than the interest you're paying on the HELOC. Stocks are more risky and obviously you shouldn't put all your savings there, but it is one more basket to put your eggs in, and unlike a savings account your money isn't just sitting there.
The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date."