vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You can't insure for more than the financial cost of the event that you're insuring against, but that can be more than the current market value of the item. If you'd need to buy a new one, then that's your financial loss. New-for-old cover is common for property insurance.
No. You have been purchasing protection from unexpected emergencies. You got the protection you paid for. That money has been spent. Some insurance plans do pay you something at the end. They do this by charging you additional money, and investing it. At the end, you get some of the profit n that investment, after the company has taken payments for managing this account. You can do better by setting up your own investments, separate from the insurance.
Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition.
Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.
When we got our mortgage in the state of Washington, in the United States, we had to get title insurance before our lender would loan the money. This ensures that the person selling us the house actually owns the title, clean and clear. If there are any surprises, the insurance covers us (or the lender, really).
Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.)
Can you afford to replace your home if it suffers major damage in a fire or earthquake?  Is your home at risk of flooding?  In the United States, one can purchase insurance for each of these risks, but the customer has to ask about each of them.  (Most default American homeowners policies cover fire and wind damage, but not earthquake or flooding.  I am not sure about hurricane or tornado damage.) Your most cost-effective insurance against fire, earthquake, or flood damage is to prevent or minimize such damage.  Practical measures cannot completely eliminate these risks, so homeowners' insurance is still a good idea (unless you are so rich you can easily afford to replace your home).  But you can do things like: Your most cost-effective health insurance is to have clean water, wash your hands before handling food, eat healthily (including enough protein, vitamins, and minerals), exercise regularly, and not smoke.  Your medical insurance can cover some of the inevitable large medical expenses, but cannot make you healthy.
"Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for ""first-time home buyer"" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ?
All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost.
Insurance is for events that are both and Unexpected and, for many people, catastrophic events are, for example, sickness, disability, death, car accidents, house fires, and burglaries, for which you may buy health, disability, life, auto, home, and renter's insurance.  It may be catastrophic for a family relying on a very old earner for that earner to die, and you can buy life insurance up to a very old age, but the premiums will reflect the likelihood of someone of that age dying within the covered period.  The more expected an event is, the more anything referred to as insurance is actually forced savings. Health insurance with no copays on regular checkups expects the insured to use them, so the cost of those checkups plus a profit for the insurance company is factored into the premiums ahead of time.  A wooden pencil breaking may be unexpected. Regardless of foreseeability, no one buys insurance on wooden pencils, as the loss of a pencil is not catastrophic. What is catastrophic can be context dependent. Health-care needs are typically unforeseeable, as you don't know when you'll get sick. For a billionaire, needing health-care, while unforeseeable, the situation would not be catastrophic, and the billionaire can easily self-insure his or her health to the same extent as most caps offered by health insurance companies. If you're on a fixed budget buying a laptop, if it unexpectedly failed, that would be catastrophic to you, so budgeting in the cost of insurance or an extended warranty while buying your laptop would probably make sense. Especially if you need that $2000 laptop, spending an extra 17.5% would safeguard against you having to come out of pocket and depleting your savings to replace it, even though that brings you to a grand total of $2350 before taxes. However, if you're in that tight of a situation, I would strongly recommend you to find a less expensive option that would allow you to self-insure. If you found a used laptop for much less (I can even see Apple selling refurbished Macs for less than $1000) you might decide that your budget allows you to self-insure, and you could profit from being careful with your hardware and resolving to cover any issues with it yourself.
Never take the first quote. Consider what it would really cost to replace the house -- to rebuild and pay for living while you do so (including demolition, etc.) and/or pay off the mortgage and return your equity if it is a financed property.  Most insurances will have a limit on how much coverage you can get based on the property value and your goods value estimates.  Shop around for a company that will give you a good price but also good customer service and a smooth claims process.  They should be solvent (able to pay your claim if, say, a tornado hit the whole neighborhood).  And they should cover your reasonable replacement costs. And remember, insurance is about the big losses like fires. Know what you are comfortable self insuring (higher or lower deductibles, optional coverages, etc.) and you will have an easier time getting the coverage you need for the price you want to pay.
"It's a hard decision to make. Especially without knowing the complete contract details. I would in general stay away from financial ""advisors"" like tecis or other pyramid selling companies (""Strukturvertriebe"" in german). They usually only offer a very limited range of products. In most cases they sell only 1 or 2 products and tell everyone that these offers are the best and fit exactly to the client. I would prefer an insurance broker (requires an education) which could in theory offer any product. Coming to your situation: If you already have a Riester product which is maxed out, I see no point in another private insurance without any aid. The insurance construction allows you to save some taxes but it does cost you a premium. I would buy the funds (preferable ETFs) on my own. This comes down to the question: Does the insurance construction payoff for you for the costs it generates?"
"In many states banks are required to pay interest on your escrow according to this article. I know i am getting interest paid. Once your mortgage is setup with an escrow there is no way to get rid of it (only to refinance). Also nowadays many banks require you to escrow taxes and insurance. It's their way to make sure you don't default on your taxes and don't cancel insurance on ""their"" property."
As Andy T says, it is very common for landlords to have a residential mortgage (typically capital + interest) on their own home, and a buy-to-let mortgage (typically interest-only) on each rental property that they own. However, before going down this route, you will need to do some homework. Buying and letting a property is covered by a fair amount of legislation and tax rules; and in the last couple of years, the amount of regulation has increased, as has the amount of tax you're likely to pay. Letting a property can be profitable, but you need to do the maths first, and make sure you do everything by the book. Using a reputable letting agent, at least for your first tenant, should help avoid common pitfalls. There are a number of good websites on this subject. Note that the rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all different, so make sure that you get the right information!
"I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is  something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern.  When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, ""My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?"""
It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.
"First of all, insurance never covers the cost of the item, it is almost always a partial payout at best. For example, a typical house in the Northeast US where I live that costs $300,000 will have the actual house valued at maybe $100,00 and rest of the value will be in the land. Therefore, the insured value will typically be $100,000. The only problem is that to actually rebuild the house might easily cost $250,000. So, your idea that some kinds of insurance allows the beneficiary to recoup their loss is usually never true. As you say, from an actuarial point of view insurance is a sheer waste of money. For example, a typical house has maybe a 0.5% chance of burning down every year. In other words out of 2000 houses, maybe 1 will burn down every year. So, lets say you got $100,000 of insurance on your house. Then the value of that policy would be $100,000 / 2000 = $50 per year. An insurance company will charge around $700 per year for the policy. That means you are basically flushing $650 down the toilet every year to maintain that policy. The reason why they do this is what blankip says above, they are buying ""peace of mind"", a psychological product. In other they imagine they are somehow safe. So, even though they are losing money, paying it makes them feel as though they are not losing money. It's delusional, but then again most people have a lot of delusions of which insurance is just one of many."
There are several insurance products that I buy for legal reasons: Both of these protect me from lawsuits and fines. Many people buy similar products to protect their business operations. (e.g. medical malpractice insurance) There are some insurance products I buy for tax planning and financial planning purposes: I have a large amount of savings available, so I have several tricks to reduce my insurance costs, and I have several products that I avoid. Several of these reasons are mentioned in other answers, but I thought I would collect them into a single answer to demonstrate that there are reasons other than the rational calculation of what the payout will be for the insurance products vs. the premium paid. If I gain access to a tax advantaged Health savings account, that is a bigger benefit to me than avoiding the premium, especially when my employer is paying the majority of the premium. Perhaps it makes no sense to buy insurance given sufficient savings (like the products I listed that make no sense for me given my finances) but not everyone can self-insure; it does require a certain level of wealth.
"Ok sure, your homeowners insurance now includes all those things. Floods, hurricanes, terrorism... its also now twice the price. You're on /r/finance, not /r/politics. You should understand that you pay a premium for every risk that you off-lay. It is well known that basic homeowners insurance does not cover floods. If you want it, you can get it. Most people in a non flood-prone area will say, ""I'm willing to take that risk, I'll save $500/yr and not get it"". Would you rather the government just force you to get it?  You just complained about Auto Insurance ""forcing"" you to get uninsured driving insurance. You can't have it both ways."
Looking to buy a house soon, but I want to do this as well to safeguard my credit. Should I still go through with it even though I need lenders to be able to get to my info? Or rather, say I have it locked, then unlock it for the lenders... do I need to repeat this process and pay $10 x 3 again?
I politely decline. Insurance is there to protect me against catastrophic financial loss (huge medical bills, owing a mortgage on a house that burned down, etc.) not a way to game the system and pay for routine expenses or repairs.
"Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: There may or may not be a medical exam, or a physical, as with a life insurance policy. But your medical history is considered in the underwriting process. Disclosure: I once worked as a financial advisor, and held an insurance license for life, annuity and long-term care. It has been 8 years since I left that line of work. There are some ""knock-out"" questions that the salesperson is encouraged/required to ask just to see if there would be anything obvious that would disqualify you. The only one I can remember from that list is COPD. If you have that as a diagnosis in your personal medical history, the instruction to the salesperson is to not waste anybody's time. There were several other conditions, all with very long technical names.   If you're not disqualified by the no-brainer knock-out questions, your medical history will likely be included in the underwriting process.  Not every serious illness is an automatic disqualifier, including cancer. It may cause your premiums to be a little higher, as the underwriters will take a closer look and increase your risk profile due to the history. There may be some group policies where underwriting is limited or not required at all. As with all group insurance policies, the healthy members in the group are paying more in premiums than they otherwise would, in order to ""subsidize"" the premiums of the less healthy members. It's almost always cheaper to get your own personal policy unless you know you wouldn't qualify for it. Then, the group policy might be your only chance for some coverage. Age 60-62 is statistically the best time to purchase LTCI. On average, if you make it to 62, you have a very high chance of making it to 90. (These were the numbers available to me 8 years ago when I was in the business.) After 62, the prices go up a lot faster with each year of age.  I can't answer with anything helpful about your spouse's specific situation. It would be good to talk to a licensed insurance broker about it (not a salesman from a specific company). The broker is not necessarily bound to disclose personal details you might have shared with them. The company salesman would be obligated to disclose it to their company."