vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This isn't exactly an answer, but I can not comment at the moment.  I have bought a house in NZ in the last year, being my first. There are a couple of things that you might need to watch out for with the First Home Subsidy (the $5000), especially the one that says that you have to live in the house that you buy for a certain amount of time otherwise you have to pay it back.  I also assume that you have been in Kiwisaver (the superannuation) for at least 5 years? You can only take $1000 for each year you have been in there up to $5000. You can take all of the Kiwisaver funds except what the Government has put in, so if you have $4000 from your employer, then you would probably have more in your contributions that you could use as well.  You don't have to have the 20% deposit to be able to buy a house, I went through a broker, and was able to get in with less. Not sure on the exact percentage. The 20% does help to get the bank to put some extra funds in for legal fees etc. My house wasn't an investment property, but I hope this helps.
"Insurance is a financial product to control risk. The fact that a loss would not be catastrophic simply makes the decision to carry insurance less critical. It is perfectly reasonable to be ""self-insured"" in this case. This is assuming we are discussing replacement of your property vs liability (which you have made clear). Like many other products one buys, a fine reason to purchase insurance is simply because one wants to. Just because you can absorb the loss, does not mean that you want to take on the full risk. I would be careful of your analysis here: Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which means you lose money on average by dealing with them Insurance companies make money based on the cumulative probability that they will have to pay on multiple policies. To make money, they analyze the risk that in a given period they will only pay on a portion of their hundreds of thousands or millions of policies. This is a different analysis than the probability that you will have a loss on your specific asset.  Your risk of a loss is not equivalent to their risk of loss here. The argument that they only 'win' if you individually 'lose' is not a good one."
Though you hope it wouldn't happen, if someone came and took $200,000+ of yours tomorrow, would you be able to adjust to it relatively easily? If the answer is yes, you've satisfied this requirement. In many states it's easier to understand whether you can meet this requirement: it instead becomes can you take out the liability bond required. If you've met that requirement, then it comes down to the time you'd lose versus the savings you'd gain. To get a fair idea, you'll need: The premium you would pay to purchase the insurance: Since you are likely losing 10-50% of your premiums, it should be fair to make a rough estimate of value lost by using 25% for most purposes (especially given that this still ignores the future value/opportunity cost of your money, which could often be 5-10% if invested well) The value of your time: You must properly identify either: A rough estimate of how much time it will take you to research the legal requirements and meet them, and then to research/handle the subsequent needs that come up which the insurance would take care of in an average year. So try to balance those typical years where you wouldn't have a lot of work to do with a year where you'd need to call repair mechanics or find health practitioners. Perhaps aim high, research/calling usually takes more time than we think. Is this calculation positive? Your estimated net annual benefit (or cost) from self insuring is: 0.25 * (Insurance Premium Per Year) - (Estimated Value of Your Time)*(Estimated Hours Of Work\Research to Self-Insure Per Year) This is a rough estimate. But if the result is quite positive (and you can afford to cover the hit the insurance would otherwise cover), you're likely better off self-insuring. If the result is quite negative (or you can't cover the possible costs insurance would cover), you're probably better off buying insurance. Finally, indeed there are still a few other factors on each side to consider... Most often those additional pluses and minuses probably are smaller than the primary cost/benefits spelt out earlier.
"I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount. As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari!
The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose? Now, you might say ""pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens"". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of ""average returns"", it is a question of ""risk reduction""."
An article linked from cnn.com has some great advice, which I think are good rules of thumb. Also, at least my insurance gives a premium price for those who haven't filed a claim in 5 or more years for homeowners or rental insurance. See if you have a similar discount, will loose it, and guess how much that will cost you over 5 years. My rule of thumb: Your premium might go up quite a bit, possibly as much as triple, especially for a large claim. But, it is certainly worth it if you are going to get more than triple your premium through your claim. The worst case: Mortgage mandated insurance, which will be about triple your current cost.
Another source of insurance can be through the working spouses employment. Some companies do provide free or low cost coverage for spouses without a need for a physical exam. The risk is that it might not be available at the amount you want, and that if the main spouse switches companies it might not be available with the new employer. A plus is that if there is a cost it is only a one year commitment. Term insurance is the way to go. It is simple to purchase, and not complex to understand. Sizing is key. You may need to provide some level of coverage until the youngest child is in high school or college. Of course the youngest child might not have been born yet. The longer the term, the higher the cost to account for the inflation during the period of the insurance. If the term expires, but the need still exists, it is possible to get another policy but the cost of the new term policy will be higher because the insured is older. If there are special needs children involved the amount and length may need to be increased due to the increased costs and duration of need.   Don't forget to periodically review the insurance situation to make sure your need haven't changed so much a new level of insurance would be needed.
The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future. Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled ""Essential Health Benefits Requirements"" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015. One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or ""specific disease"" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies.
You have 3 companies now that you work with. I would start there. Ask one of them to show you what would happen if you bought the other two policies from them.  This may not be something that they will show via the quotes generated on the web page. So you would be better off talking to a person who can generate a quote with that additional information. Make sure that you are comparing exact matches for the limits and options for the policies. Once you have done that with the first then do the same for the other two. I would have to dig into my policy bills for life insurance, but I do know that the bills for the home and auto insurance do show exactly how much I am saving by having multiple polices.
Generally the fees are anywhere between 0.5 and 2%. Different banks have different fees. Generally these days competition ensures that the fees are nil. It is disappointing that you were misled. File a written/email complaint. Generally the response to such things is good. Home loan insurance is not mandatory by RBI. Quite a few banks ask for it as it's their policy. In the case of SBI it's more about cross selling their products.
Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent."
If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.
Never buy a house unless you really want to buy that house. If you want to buy a rental, look around and find the right rental to buy; saving a few hundred on moving costs isn't a good reason to buy the wrong property at the wrong price.
So for us, we have home owners insurance to prevent a catastrophic event from wiping out the lion's share of our net worth. If you're an ultra-wealthy individual who can afford an 8 figure home, that's not really the case (at least with the ones I've dealt with, who made their fortunes in business and are good managing their wealth and diversifying their assets - could be different for sports stars or the entertainment industry), and these people generally own multiple homes anyway, so it's not as big a deal if they lose one. However, no one actually buys a multi-million dollar home by writing a multi-million dollar check. They get a mortgage, just like the rest of us. And to get a mortgage, insurance on the property is a requirement. So yes, even the ultra wealthy generally have insurance on their home(s). There is an element of not wanting to shell out another 20 million if the place burns down, or someone breaks in and steals your valuables, but the bigger part of the reason is that it's required to get a mortgage in the first place, which is generally done for financial reasons - interest on your mortgage is a tax deduction, and you don't want to sink millions of dollars all at once into buying a property that's not going to appreciate in value, when you can get a mortgage and invest those millions of dollars to make more money instead."
If you're refinancing a conforming (Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac) mortgage, don't go with an FHA. Try a HARP refinance, which won't increase your mortgage insurance even if your home has lost value. HARP also limits the risk-based pricing adjustments that can be charged, so your rate should be very competitive. With an FHA mortgage, even once you get the loan-to-value ratio down to 80 percent, you still have mortgage insurance for several years, plus the upfront costs. In your case, I think it's a bad deal.
At what point can you not afford the repair, and how will that repair affect your home? In your scenario, you would be claiming $1, which I could agree is universally bad. A good tip is to raise the deductible to the point you feel you can cover on your own so you aren't tempted.  (It would lower your premium too) This is what an emergency fund is for.  In your examples, if you have $10K in an emergency fund, don't file a claim.  If you have no emergency fund, and your roof is missing, I would suggest filing a claim. If you have no money, but the claim is to fix something that you could ignore (missing a back porch?  Lock the back door and don't go out of it) then save the $10K and pay for it out of pocket. When it doubt, pay for it out of pocket if possible.
What do you have to pay the realtor, and what other closing costs would you have to pay? Where I live, realtors typically charge 6 to 7%. You may also have to pay for an appraisal, title search, and bunch of other little fees. Mortgage interest is deductible on your federal income taxes. Rent is not. If you own and something needs to be repaired, you have to pay for it. If you rent, the landlord has to pay for it. If you own, you can do pretty much what you like with the property -- subject to zoning ordinances and building codes and maybe homeowners association rules, but you should have a pretty good amount of leeway. If you want to install ceiling fans or remodel the kitchen or add a deck, it's up to you. If you're renting, it's up to the landlord to decide what you can do to the property. And if he agrees to let you do some upgrade, when you're done, it belongs to him. With a condo, you are not usually responsible for exterior maintenance, like mowing the lawn and trimming the bushes and washing the outer walls. With a house, you are. You might pay someone to do this, which adds to the cost, or you might do it yourself, which takes time. Insurance on a condo or aparment is much less than insurance on a house. In my area, anyway. You should investigate those costs. If you buy, eventually you own the place and don't have to pay a mortgage any more. If you rent, you continue to pay forever. (Even if you don't live in the same house forever, as long as you don't take a terrible loss when you sell you should then have some money left over to apply to the next house, so you are still building equity.) Some of these pros and cons are easily quantifiable. Others are probabilities, like how likely is it that your water heater will fail?, and how long is it likely to take to find a buyer if you want to sell? And others are pretty subjective.
"The PMI premium you pay is dependent on a very large number of variables in the finance market. Mortgage insurance, at the higher inter-bank levels, is handled with credit default swaps (the ones you've been hearing about on the news for the past 4 years), where the lender bundles a block of mortgages, takes them to a guarantor like AIG or Freddie Mac, and says ""We bet you that these mortgages will default this month, because the homeowners have little or no equity to deter them; if we win, you agree to swap these debts for their current face value"". The lender examines the mortgages, calculates the odds of a default severe enough that the bank would come to collect, using complex environmental heuristics, multiplies by the value of the potential payout, adds a little for their trouble, and says ""well, we'll take that bet if you pay us $X"". The bank takes the deal, then divvies up that cost among the mortgages and bills the homeowner for their share. The amount you pay for PMI can therefore depend on pretty much anything in this entire process; the exact outstanding amount and equity status of your loan, the similar status of other mortgages your loan will be bundled with for assessment, who the guarantor is, what exact heuristic they use to come up with an amount, the weighting the bank uses to divvy it up, and how much they actually pass on to you. Most of these same variables are at play when you shop for actual insurance for your car or home, which is why your premiums will go up or down with the same insurer and why someone else always seems to have a better deal (pretty much every insurer can say that ""drivers who switched saved an average of $X""; of course they did, otherwise they wouldn't have switched). Thinking of it in those terms, it's easy to see how this number can vary widely based on numbers you can't see. You're free to say no, and it will cost you nothing right up until you sign something that says you agree to be penalized for saying no.