vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
But remember that she needs food and clothes as well and you assume she'll need a car of her own) Let me rephrase the savings goal of 150 k€: you'd try to save 3 times the median German household equity within 8 to 15 years. This should tell you that it is a very steep proposition. On the other hand, e.g. Slowakians manage to have a median household equity of ca 60 k€ out of a median income that is roughly half the median income in Germany. So again it is somehow possible, but it will be really tough to live a life style like a Slowakian or Harz 4ler between peers that spend roughly everything (good approximation as we're talking about savings rates above 50 % of net income) they earn. I think the ""easiest"" way to get your savings going is to postpone lifestyle upgrades. On the other hand, around Waldeck, 150 k€ would buy you a complete new house of the same size that costs 300 - 500 k€ around Darmstadt. So if you really want to go for the house, I'd recommend not only to save as hard as you can*, but also to look out for possibilities to relocate to a cheaper area. 8 - 15 years should be enough time to decide what area you'd like and then to look for an opportunity without too much pressure. And actually this should be enough time so that also your girlfriend/wife could get herself transferred to another Bundesland. * In reality saving as hard as possible will probably get you nowhere near 150 k€ (there are very few people who manage to do this - though they exist), but if you get to 75 k€ that would mean a reasonably good position for both starting negotiations with the bank about buying a 150 k€ house plus the corresponding payment of the mortgage. If you get there within less than 15 years that would also leave some air in case you change opinion with regard to kids and then leaves a reasonable amount of time to put together your pension. Consider your psychology about saving towards the house. Even if both of you know that you want it really hard, it may be good to enter a building savings contract (15 years should be reasonable for that way) which will enforce you to keep up the savings rate and also does not allow you to divert money for other purposes.
If you're absolutely certain that you won't buy a house within a year or so, I'd still be tempted to put some of the money into short-term CDs (ie, a max of 12 months). I think that at the moment CDs are a bit of a mug's game though because you'd hardly find one that offers better interest rates than some of the few savings accounts that still offer 1%+ interest. A savings account is probably where I'd put the money unless I could find a really good deal on a CD, but I think you might have to check if they've got withdrawal limits. There are a couple of savings accounts out there that pay at least 1% (yes, I know it's pitiful) so I'd seek out one or two of those. From memory, both Sallie Mae and Amex offer those and I'm sure there are a couple more. It's not great that your money is growing at less than inflation but if you're saving for something like a downpayment on a house I would think that (nominal) capital preservation is probably more important than the potential for a higher return with the associated higher risk.
Sooner or later though, don't you think Janet Yellen will decide to raise the rates? I think its becoming a bit too ridiculous at this stage.   If we keep the rates as low as they currently are, don't you think we're putting ourselves at risk for another recession, assuming that a large proportion of home buyers today are buying with mortgages (not paying full amounts), and using borrowed money? After all, folks who use borrowed money to put down a mortgage are very likely to default.
I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis.  I make 15 % plus per year from the puts.  Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do.  Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example:  I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago.  I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20.  Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls.  Price is now at 6.25.  Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls.  So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800.  I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.
Buying a used car can be risky. It can be easy to make a mistake that would lead you to buying a lemon. Suddenly, your cost-saving tactic to buy a car is costing you more than you thought. This is why before you put down the money to buy your chosen car, there are a few things you should do.
If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.
"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. ""There's no free lunch"" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk.  Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium.   With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help."
There is some advantage to putting your house downpayment in the Roth to get tax-free growth. However this advantage is offset by the risk of the investment losing value in the short period before you take advantage of it. You might go this route if the timeline is greater than 5 years and you use a conservative investment vehicle.
Down payment: Emphatically avoid PMI if at all possible; it's pouring money down the drain. Do 20% down if you can, or pay off enough to bring you above 20% and ask for PMI to be removed as soon as you can. Beyond that it's a matter of how much risk you want to accept and how long you'll own the place, and you'll have to run the numbers for the various alternatives -- allowing for uncertainty in your investments -- to guide your decision. Do not assume you will be able to make a profit when you sell the house; that's the mistake which left many people under water and/or foreclosed on. Do not assume that you will be able to sell it quickly; it can take a year of more. Do not assume immediate or 100% occupancy it you rent it out; see many other answers here for more realistic numbers.... and remember that running a rental is a business and has ongoing costs and hassles. (You can contract those out, but then you lose a good percentage of the rent income.) Double mortgage is another great way to dig yourself into a financial hole; it can be a bigger cost than the PMI it tries to dodge and is definitely a bigger risk. Don't.
"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are.  By ""better"" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put.  If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more.  Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices.  But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor.  A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage.  The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required.  Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above.  The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward.  You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky.  On par with the inverse ETFs."
I know this can be confusing because you tend to think of money being worth the face value. So let's eliminate that for the sake of an example that will be easier to understand. Let's say your friend loaned you rock worth $10 today. He expects you to pay him back an identical rock whenever you can. Now let's also assume that historically the price of rocks tends to go down every year. At some point you will need to buy a rock to pay your friend back. Because they keep getting cheaper, it costs less to buy the payback rock the longer you wait. Replace a dollar with a rock in the example and you have your answer. This is known as the time value of money. In reality, this is priced into the loan (via the interest rate) because the lender very much understands the math going on here. Also, it is more complicated because the longer you delay payment the more interest you pay (pebbles if you will) so it doesn't usually work to your advantage unless they underpriced the loan's interest rate.
and the ""have lived together"" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns."
"You are asking if getting a mortgage nearly 4X your income has the potential to make you ""house poor"". $2500 Of your $9000 gross is not too much according to the bank, but the bank only looks at a few ratios, not your entire budget. Is this house appropriate for your needs? At 3X the median home price, are you reaching too high? Note - this board has had multiple ""budget"" discussions recently. For many people, the mortgage is just where the trouble starts. The other house related budget items just multiply up to make things worse."
Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of.  These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly.  Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market.  While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers.   There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash.  Namely, how was that cash invested?  If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit.  If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then?  Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in?
If money is more expensive (costs more to borrow) then fewer people will be able to qualify to make the payments for a particular size of mortgage.  This reduces the number of potential buyers for property at that price.  As sellers still want to sell, they will move their prices down to where more people can afford to buy. So rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices. But Toronto is the biggest city in Canada.  I'd expect part of the high prices there is the location: lots of people want to be close to lots of activities, action, and opportunity.  Unless something catastrophic happens, I don't see Toronto losing that advantage.  If anything, it's going to get a tad warmer up there in the coming decades.
Should you are contributing the pension program and the savings account as well as one may also handle to set a number of funds in to some other ventures, all the far better. 7. Improve Ones Career Rewards Work benefits such as the 401(k) program, flexible expenditure consideration, healthcare as well as dental care coverage, and so on. are usually valued at huge money. Try to make certain you will be making the most of your own and also getting benefit of these kinds which can easily help save cash through lowering taxation or perhaps out-of-pocket expenditures. 8. Evaluate Ones Coverage Protections Overly numerous individuals tend to be though in to spending a lot regarding life and impairment coverage, no matter if it is through incorporating all these protections to automobile mortgages, purchasing whole-life insurance if term-life creates a lot more feeling, or perhaps purchasing life insurance any time one possess absolutely no dependents. In the different side, it really is essential to an individual get sufficient insurance coverage to be able to safeguard the loved ones and also the earnings in the event of fatality or possibly impairment. 9. Revise Your Current Will 70% of American citizens do not possess a will. In case a person have dependents, irrespective of just how small or what amount a person own, an individual need a will. When the predicament is not very difficult a person may actually carry out the personal plan just like WillMaker through Nolo Press. Safeguard your own cherished family members. Create your will. 10. Maintain Suitable Data When a person do not maintain useful data, you are most likely in no way proclaiming all the allowable revenue taxes deductions as well as credits. Established a method today and utilize this each of the year. It is a lot simpler compared to rushing in order to discover all the things from taxes period, just to skip things which may have rescued a person capital.
If you are worried that it will hamper your business in any away, then you can choose mortgage marketing tools to deal with the situation. If you decide to implement all these things for your business improvement, you need a tool for quick and better mortgage management. Use Unify’s CRM for mortgage software and let it make your task easy.
The government is by the boomers for the boomers.  They're in senior management.  Gen X is middle management.  And Gen Y is just starting out.  The boomer generation is going to do what it thinks benefits the boomer generation.  If it means re-inflating housing market so boomers can unload or reverse-mortgage their house for retirement, so be it.
According to my wife who used to work in the industry, since an investment mortgage is more likely to fail (they are just riskier) there are higher loan to value requirements and higher interest rates. They are just different products for different situations.
I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government.
"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is ""gentrification,"" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four ""guys"" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four ""girls"" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be ""guys.""  I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump ""cut his teeth"" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what ""feels right,"" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty."
Really? The guy should be tied to the giant ball on Broadway and publicly flogged with all the other bankers that still benefit from our government without doing shit to improve the economy by offering loans or dealing compassionately with underwater mortgages while reaping profits borrowing free money from the government and loaning it back to the government *with fucking interest!*
Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....
FHA is 95 or 96.5 but its another program.  I'm closing one in 3 weeks so it's still around.  Google 97% LTV, you have to take a financial class and make under the median income I think, but that's 85.5k where I live.
Peer to peer lending isn't FDIC insured.  You can lose all your investment with peer to peer lending, whereas you will not lose your deposited money in a savings account, even if it doesn't grow very fast.
The federal reserve loans the US government dollars. The Federal reserve is NOT owned by the government, it is a private banking institution. So the US has to get capital from investor to borrow those dollars. Printing more dollars makes the dollars less valuable, and at the same time the investments less attractive unless there is a higher rate of interest attached to it.
By your logic, if a loan of £100 is new money dilutes your purchasing power, then the repayment of £110 is a reduction of the money supply that increases your purchasing power.  Indeed, ultimately the increase in purchasing power upon repayment is greater than the initial reduction, so you are 'better off' every time a loan is made and successfully repaid. The effect on you is tiny, but the collective benefit you get from all the loans being repaid with interest is more or less equivalent to the purchasing power reduction of the loans that are never repaid.  Therefore you do not lose out and are indeed compensated (in a tiny way) for the tiny risk you incurred. The bank incurs a substantial risk and is thus compensated in a substantial way.
At the top result of the Google search, on the Google results page it's sumarized as applicable to every lender participating in FDIC: The terms equal housing lender and equal opportunity lender are synonymous and refer to all banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in the United States. Such banks are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, or familial status.