Selling A House With A Shop - Leave It For Showing Or Empty It?

[krw]

"Seeing" a piece of furniture is not the same as *communicating" that vision.

[krw]

The *fact* is that the check is being cut by the seller. Both agents ARE working for the seller. Never tell your agent something you wouldn't want the buyer to know.

Indeed. That's a very dangerous thing to do but sometimes unavoidable. I had this happen once, though I was on the selling side so it didn't matter.

I hear you loud and clear. Our mortgage is paid off in a couple of months. I'm not sure when I'm going to retire (might just as well work if they're going to pay me for having fun) but when I do, I won't have a mortgage (or any other debt).

[krw]

...and a sure-fire method of bankruptcy.

Also of really poor people.

Oh, hell, I could have done that some time back but why bother?

[Leon]

She has a hard time seeing it as it is being built. Some times it takes putting it in place.

[DerbyDad03]

Not "sure-fire", but a possibility. ("sure-fire" to me means guaranteed. That just isn't the case.)

Yep, that's why I said "Possibly risky and something that has to be managed carefully" It's not a tactic to be employed casually.

Why pay interest if you don't have to, unless of course, you are using your money to make more than the loan is costing you or the inflation rate is higher than your interest rate?

Even billionaires take out mortgages.

[Leon]

To keep from having to make a money transfer or write another check. Even automatic transfers can screw up. And if you are paying interest at all it is costing you money to keep the mortgage.

Our builder knocked an additional $5K off the price of our house for paying cash plus no extra expense for mortgage insurance, or mandatory flood insurance.

[DerbyDad03]

OK...I misunderstood your response. When I said that some people could pay off their mortgage any time they wanted, you said "Oh, hell, I could have done that some time back". I thought you were saying that you could have paid off your mortgage early but didn't want to bother.

Now I understand that you never had a mortgage in the first place. Different situation.

[Leon]

Nope, that was Keith. ;~)

I was responding why not to keep a mortgage if the reason is "Oh, hell, I could have done that some time back but why bother?"

That was me. ;~)

BUT I had a 12% 30year mortgage in 1981, I refinanced at 9% for 15 years

6 years later. I added to those payments and paid the mortgage off 10 years later. So in essence I was earning 9% interest on every extra dollar that I sent in above the required minimum and was debt free 16 years after building that first home. We paid cash for the next home.

[krw]

If you're over-leveraged, it's just a matter of time until the cards fall. We all saw that a few years back.

Because the cost of the money was so low the value of the "safety net" was larger. Cash in the bank gives off soft fuzzies.

[clare]

Grand dad bought 100 acre farm in '29 for something like $1200 with a

1 1/4% open mortgage and he never paid a cent of the principal 'till he sold the farm in the mid sixties.

[krw]

Sure, my payment to the power company can screw up, too. So what? The cost of money is so low, it doesn't matter.

Why did your builder care? Whether you have a mortgage or not, it's all cash to him. There is no mortgage insurance unless you have more house than you can afford. If you're in a flood plane, you're stupid if you don't have flood insurance. Don't you have fire insurance?

[krw]

I said that. You're up Leon and me up. By "some time", I don't mean

30 years back, I mean a year or two. At that point it doesn't matter. The payment is almost all principal by that time.

We've bought the house five years ago and had a small mortgage then.

[Leon]

The builder does not have to pay extra points for loan qualification.

Whether you have a mortgage or not, it's

More or less, builders pay a lot for certain additions of difficulty to get loans added in the mix.

There is no mortgage insurance unless you have more

Unless you finance 80% or more IIRC.

If you're in a flood plane, you're stupid

I do not have fire insurance specifically, I have home owners insurance which covers most anything except flood.

Every one is in a flood plane, some 500 year, 100 year, etc. I am in the 500 IIRC and buy the insurance anyway, relatively cheap. My precious home was in a cheap zone until it was rezoned, that can happen any time and if it happens and you still have a mortgage you may have to get flood insurance. If you don't the flood insurance the mortgage company will get it for you.

My precious home went from about $260 per year to $3600 for flood insurance. That was just after Katrina. Had I still had a mortgage my payments would have gone up $300 per month.

If you have a mortgage you may incur more liabilities than just the loan.

[clare]

I'm over 100 feet higher than the Grand River and Laurel Creek at just about the highest point in the whole neighborhood. It would be a more than 1 in 500 year event to flood overland,

>

[OFWW]

You would be surprised how they figure ground water damage. I'm going through that right now. House is 3.5 to 4 feet above everything, with no water barriers like concrete to stop the water from draining off. They still wanted to call it ground water damage instead of Heavy rain storms twice in the same month with heavy winds driving it into a hole and some cracks between the flashing and stucco. All 6" above the ground.

[krw]

Why would the builder pay points on your loan?

[krw]

I can't parse the above sentence.

What I said. ;-)

I'll bet it doesn't cover earthquakes (earth movement) either.

Not true.

So?

So you're saying that you would go without flood insurance? So you're self-insuring.

[clare]

If I lived in West Montrose or Bridgeport I'd have flood insurance (many houses less than 15 feet above the river) Up here in North Waterloo paying extra for flood insurance wouldn't make a lot of sense, sitting on the top of the hill over 100 ft above the river with several thousand acres significantly lower. Now if lightning required extra coverage, THAT might make sense. Even wind damage. We do get the odd twister., being just off the edge of Ontario's Tornado Alley, and some pretty vicious ice and wind storms every 5 years or so.

It makes sense to pay a bit more for "broad form" coverage instead of "named perils". "Comprehensive" covers more on contents etc, and sewer backup isn't covered on either broad form or comprehensive from most companies, but so far is not a terribly expensive add-on. This may change as the losses climb.

I'm about 400 miles (over 300 anyway) from the Charlevois fault that runs from montreal through ottawa to temiskaming., which is the only known active fault in the east., so earthquake insurance isn't common, or terribly expensive.

[clare]

There are lots of places where flood insurance is basically not available.

[krw]

Where would that be? BTW, I'm not saying that everyone should have flood insurance, just that a mortgage shouldn't be the determining factor. A home is still something few can afford to lose (hence self-insure).