Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bornontheblue

Boise area housing Prices

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Is Denmark and Sweden communist?  I thought they were socialist?

They are neither. I just like to irritate by calling them communist. 

Eastern European Countries like Poland, East Germany in the 60's and 70's etc. were actually socialist economies. The government owned the means of production and distribution of goods, which is socialism defined. 

Denmark and Sweden are closer to free market capitalism than socialism.   They just have higher taxes and more government programs than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

The only portfolio loan we use is to simply bridge the gap, say a person doesn’t qualify for a Conv, FHA or VA loan - it’s a short term solution.  Min 20% down, 2/6 ARM, 4 points over prime.  The idea is how bad do you want to get into the home instead of waiting to conform.

We are a big Jumbo shop. But you better be clean as a whistle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, East Coast Aztec said:

Is Denmark and Sweden communist?  I thought they were socialist?

bornontheblue should get a pass for not knowing the difference between socialist systems and communist systems. After all, he took political science at Boise State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 818SUDSFan said:

bornontheblue should get a pass for not knowing the difference between socialist systems and communist systems. After all, he took political science at Boise State.

You fool! I would never wast my college education on a worthless degree like that. Boise State has an outstanding accounting program and my degree has served me well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

bornontheblue should get a pass for not knowing the difference between socialist systems and communist systems. After all, he took political science at Boise State.

Just because a country has high taxes and generous government benefits doesn't make it socialist you fool. Socialism is an economic system defined by community ownership (aka the government) of production and distribution of goods. Socialism sucks because well although the housing is free  you end up living in a dark, dank apartment with 10 of you family members that looks exactly like all 5,000 of your neighbors that live in the same building. After 5 years you get a government issued Lada that may or may not make it through the winter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

The only portfolio loan we use is to simply bridge the gap, say a person doesn’t qualify for a Conv, FHA or VA loan - it’s a short term solution.  Min 20% down, 2/6 ARM, 4 points over prime.  The idea is how bad do you want to get into the home instead of waiting to conform.

This right here is why I say home ownership may be moving in a similar direction as vehicle ownership for Millenials/GenZ. REITS can buy up all the stock and then compete against each other for rents, just like fleet owners have been doing the last 5+ years. If young people stop thinking of home ownership as essential it's possible. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Photos of public housing projects in Scandinavia:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS916US916&sxsrf=ALeKk03vZOoUeO2a8vFcKusxFuvP4WEsnQ:1617911588196&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=photos+of+public+housing+in+nordic+countries&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCzfertu_vAhULFzQIHQJYC00Q7Al6BAgCEBE&biw=1098&bih=507&dpr=3.5

Those joint public-private ventures result in buildings which look exactly like your photos of housing built by former communist governments themselves, don't they?

Prelude to future American housing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AztecSU said:

This right here is why I say home ownership may be moving in a similar direction as vehicle ownership for Millenials/GenZ. REITS can buy up all the stock and then compete against each other for rents, just like fleet owners have been doing the last 5+ years. If young people stop thinking of home ownership as essential it's possible. 

The only problem with that is the rent on my Boise apartment increased $400 a month in 3 years after I left.  The other thing is it’s becoming as complicated to rent an apartment as to purchase a home.  Income verification, credit check, background check, first, last and security.  
 

And, you can’t compete with a 15/30 year fixed rate government backed conforming loan. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

Eastern European Countries like Poland, East Germany in the 60's and 70's etc. were actually socialist economies. The government owned the means of production and distribution of goods, which is socialism defined. 

Wrong. As satellites of the Soviet Union, they were for the most part purely communist countries. Meaning political systems with one political party in which elections are limited to selecting from a slate of candidates all of whom are members of that political party which either owns nearly all the economic resources outright or does so indirectly by funneling it through what modernly are often referred to as oligarchs. For example:

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Communism is a terrible system which should not be replicated anywhere. That is not so of socialism. Indeed, the US has essentially adopted various aspects of socialism. The average far-right Republican is either ignorant of the difference or, in the case of one percenters, chooses to misrepresent known differences so as to continue to pay less than half the income tax similarly rich people paid pre-Reaganomics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Wrong. As satellites of the Soviet Union, they were for the most part purely communist countries. Meaning political systems with one political party in which elections are limited to selecting from a slate of candidates all of whom are members of that political party which either owns nearly all the economic resources outright or does so indirectly by funneling it through what modernly are often referred to as oligarchs. For example:

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-communism-and-socialism-195448

The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Communism is a terrible system which should not be replicated anywhere. That is not so of socialism. Indeed, the US has essentially adopted various aspects of socialism. The average far-right Republican is either ignorant of the difference or, in the case of one percenters, chooses to misrepresent known differences so as to continue to pay less than half the income tax similarly rich people paid pre-Reaganomics.

In Socialism production and distribution of goods is controlled by the state. Just because Denmark and Sweden have generous government benefits does not make them socialist. Just because the USA has government programs like roads and public education doesn't mean we have socialist policies.  Also you are very ignorant of US tax history. Before the the Reagan tax reforms yes we had very high marginal rates except that very few people actually paid those high marginal rates.  This was before the days of passive losses and it wasn't hard to get in on a tax shelter to generate losses to offset taxable income.  Yes, the Reagan tax reforms substantially lowered rates , but they also eliminated many gimmicks the rich used to avoid paying those high rates. Now, you can only deduct passive losses against other passive income, or suspend the losses to deduct in the future.

Educate yourself son  

Socialism is defined by the Miriam Webster dictionary 

image.png.5f6118cfdd5e582b86c7ab88a875f750.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

The only problem with that is the rent on my Boise apartment increased $400 a month in 3 years after I left.  The other thing is it’s becoming as complicated to rent an apartment as to purchase a home.  Income verification, credit check, background check, first, last and security.  
 

And, you can’t compete with a 15/30 year fixed rate government backed conforming loan. 

Those barriers to renting are much lower than buying though and there is a rising trend in the renter by choice demo in places like CA. You can try to make an argument about investing in a property but why not just invest in medium risk ETFs or something else? That is more flexible then putting down roots(and a ton of money) in a home that may or may not help you retire. Right now in SoCal you can rent a 2b/2b for anywhere between $1800 and $2300. Sure you can buy the same thing and pay about the same or a little more a month but unless you put down 20% you are going to be paying a ton of mortgage insurance while also paying for your overpriced home. I just think it's turning off younger generations the way the overpriced cars did. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

The unfortunate, probably painful fact is that younger people (not their fault) are going to have to consider moving to a new State if they ever want to be able to afford owning a home, funding their retirement, and enjoying a higher standard of living.

I've heard that housing is cheaper in places like Kansas, Nebraska, Texas....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AztecSU said:

Those barriers to renting are much lower than buying though and there is a rising trend in the renter by choice demo in places like CA. You can try to make an argument about investing in a property but why not just invest in medium risk ETFs or something else? That is more flexible then putting down roots(and a ton of money) in a home that may or may not help you retire. Right now in SoCal you can rent a 2b/2b for anywhere between $1800 and $2300. Sure you can buy the same thing and pay about the same or a little more a month but unless you put down 20% you are going to be paying a ton of mortgage insurance while also paying for your overpriced home. I just think it's turning off younger generations the way the overpriced cars did. 

I don’t believe homeownership should be looked at as an investment, just that it makes smart financial sense.  Adding PMI or MIP to principle, interest and taxes is still cheaper than renting.  PMI can be dropped as quickly as 7 years (asking for an updated appraisal), MIP is for the life of the loan unless putting more than 10% down. 
 

I think you’re hanging on to the market implosion of 2008, in the Chicagoland area and my own home here in Florida has exceeded previous losses.  There will be a market correction in certain areas, but nothing like 12/13 years ago.  The question I hear all the time is should I sell and then rent while I wait for the market to cool off, no - because it’s not going to go cold to make renting worthwhile.  When you sell your home you should at the very least be able to break even, again - owning a home is not an investment.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

The unfortunate, probably painful fact is that younger people (not their fault) are going to have to consider moving to a new State if they ever want to be able to afford owning a home, funding their retirement, and enjoying a higher standard of living.

I've heard that housing is cheaper in places like Kansas, Nebraska, Texas....

If I could sell my house and and walk away with $400,000 in the bank and buy a bigger, nicer house in South Dakota for 135,000 I would do it yesterday. Convincing my wife to move to South Dakota or Nebraska, etc is the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornontheblue said:

If I could sell my house and and walk away with $400,000 in the bank and buy a bigger, nicer house in South Dakota for 135,000 I would do it yesterday. Convincing my wife to move to South Dakota or Nebraska, etc is the problem. 

Better start pushing Harley’s and Sturgis now!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

I don’t believe homeownership should be looked at as an investment, just that it makes smart financial sense.  Adding PMI or MIP to principle, interest and taxes is still cheaper than renting.  PMI can be dropped as quickly as 7 years (asking for an updated appraisal), MIP is for the life of the loan unless putting more than 10% down. 
 

I think you’re hanging on to the market implosion of 2008, in the Chicagoland area and my own home here in Florida has exceeded previous losses.  There will be a market correction in certain areas, but nothing like 12/13 years ago.  The question I hear all the time is should I sell and then rent while I wait for the market to cool off, no - because it’s not going to go cold to make renting worthwhile.  When you sell your home you should at the very least be able to break even, again - owning a home is not an investment.  

Actually, PMI for FHA is a lifer until you refinance out of it. Pre 2013(I believe) there was a threshold for it dropping but all FHA loans loans now have to have it full term.

MIP can drop when you hit 78% LTV without doing anything or meeting the mid term of the loan but this is based on the original appraised value when you got the loan.. Upon request from the borrower, lenders will consider dropping MIP if you are at 80% and meet all the other criteria with a new appraisal.  I'm pretty sure years isn't a factor.  Considering there are no pre pay penalties and the sweet spot is 78-80% rather than years. MI is just protection for the lender from 100%-80% LTV.

I could be wrong though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

I don’t believe homeownership should be looked at as an investment, just that it makes smart financial sense.  Adding PMI or MIP to principle, interest and taxes is still cheaper than renting.  PMI can be dropped as quickly as 7 years (asking for an updated appraisal), MIP is for the life of the loan unless putting more than 10% down. 
 

I think you’re hanging on to the market implosion of 2008, in the Chicagoland area and my own home here in Florida has exceeded previous losses.  There will be a market correction in certain areas, but nothing like 12/13 years ago.  The question I hear all the time is should I sell and then rent while I wait for the market to cool off, no - because it’s not going to go cold to make renting worthwhile.  When you sell your home you should at the very least be able to break even, again - owning a home is not an investment.  

I agree wrt to investment perspective...but that's how its discussed and viewed in places like CA. Nothing you're saying is wrong, it's just that young people don't really make plans 7 years out. The trends...car ownership>>>happening later in life, babies>>>happening later in life, next up a Home>>>later in life. I think that older gens did look at home ownership as as investment...especially boomers. But if that's getting turned on its head, because of a shift in attitudes assisted by market conditions, the current trend of rising prices in rural areas makes a lot of sense (older and upper middle class)...the next sign would be a move away from ownership in urban areas and an ever rising % of renters(assuming this isn't the result of a downturn of course). Could just be temporary based on the market, but you never know when tastes/attitudes may change for the long term. Millennials nearly ruined traditional car companies but also helped Tesla rise to power, shit is getting weird.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, utenation said:

Actually, PMI for FHA is a lifer until you refinance out of it. Pre 2013(I believe) there was a threshold for it dropping but all FHA loans loans now have to have it full term.

MIP can drop when you hit 78% LTV without doing anything or meeting the mid term of the loan but this is based on the original appraised value when you got the loan.. Upon request from the borrower, lenders will consider dropping MIP if you are at 80% and meet all the other criteria with a new appraisal.  I'm pretty sure years isn't a factor.  Considering there are no pre pay penalties and the sweet spot is 78-80% rather than years. MI is just protection for the lender from 100%-80% LTV.

I could be wrong though.

 

If you put down more than 10% it drops off after 11 years, most people by then will refinanced by then so really it’s a moot point.  
 

We have a quick drop PMI program, we are the lender/servicer and have our own appraisers.  It’s not exclusive to us, but most servicer’s won’t offer it.  Typically 5-7 years after purchase depending on down payment.  
 

MIP = FHA

PMI = Conv

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

The unfortunate, probably painful fact is that younger people (not their fault) are going to have to consider moving to a new State if they ever want to be able to afford owning a home, funding their retirement, and enjoying a higher standard of living.

I've heard that housing is cheaper in places like Kansas, Nebraska, Texas....

Not sure I'd want to live in Kansas but Nebraska would be alright.

There might be plenty of land still available in southern Nevada and Arizona but the entire Southwest has been getting hotter and hotter so I wonder how younger people are going to be able to afford the electric fees associated with cooling their homes in those states. Same for low deserts areas of California and there, water shortages are also going to be a big problem unless the state starts building some more major water projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tailingpermit said:

If you put down more than 10% it drops off after 11 years, most people by then will refinanced by then so really it’s a moot point.  
 

We have a quick drop PMI program, we are the lender/servicer and have our own appraisers.  It’s not exclusive to us, but most servicer’s won’t offer it.  Typically 5-7 years after purchase depending on down payment.  
 

MIP = FHA

PMI = Conv

You are definitely correct on the MIP/PMI. I mixed them up. You are also correct on the years and down payment on MIP.

Honestly, I've maybe done 1 FHA loan in 4 years, so I'm not an expert at all.

But I think my PMI scenario is mostly correct. That's the way we do it for sure. But to your point there are specialty programs. The one you offer looks like nice flexibility. 

 

https://better.com/content/how-to-get-rid-of-mortgage-insurance/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=Search_G_NonBrand_DSA_App&utm_content=agn:DSA_App_All___m:b_d:c_n:g_tid:dsa-390863418899&utm_term=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhqODs8_v7wIV0fLjBx2W9gboEAAYAiAAEgIlj_D_BwE

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...