Does FHA goes hand in hand with PMI ?
FHA insured loans must 'go hand in hand' with PMI, because the FHA element is the insurance itself.  The FHA isn't actually giving you a loan, that's coming from a lender; instead, the FHA is insuring the loan, at some cost to you - but allowing a loan to folks who may not be able to afford it normally (lower down payment requirements and a somewhat cheaper PMI). FHA-insured loans may be lower rates in some cases than non-FHA insured loans because of this backing; that's because they make it easier for people of poorer credit histories with smaller down payments to get a house in the first place.  Those people would tend to have a harder time getting a loan, and be charged sometimes usurious rates to get it.  Low down payment and mediocre credit history (think 580-620) mean higher risk, even beyond the risk directly coming from the poor loan to value ratio. Comparing this table of Freddie Mac rates to this table of FHA-backed loan rates, the loan rates seem comparable (though somewhat lagging in changes in some cases).  FHA loans are not nearly the size or complexity of loan population as Freddie Mac, so be wary of making direct comparisons. Looking into this in more detail, pre-collapse (before 12/07), FHA rates were a bit lower - average rate was about .5 points lower - but starting with 12/07, FHA average rates were usually higher than Freddie Mac rates for 30 year fixed loans: in 1/2009 for example they were almost a point higher.  As of the last data I see (5/13) the rates were within 0.1 points most months. This may be in part because Freddie Mac had looser requirements to get a loan pre-collapse, then tightened significantly, then started to loosen some (also around June 2013, rates climbed significantly due to some signals from the Fed, although they're almost back to their lows thanks to the Fed again).  These are averages across all loans, so you get some noise as a result. Loan interest rates are very personal, in general: they depend on your credit, your house and down payment, and your bank (which varies by your location).  The best thing to do is to shop around yourself and just see what you get, and ask your lender any questions you have: if you pick a local lender with a good service history and who is willing to talk to you in person (ie, has a direct phone number), you'll have no trouble getting answers. I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans.  I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans.  I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.
Agreed my friend, and the UK is the country that is the furthest away from the European reality. You have schools charging 1 to 8k for a full years tuition.   I know a case of someone having to sell his home to afford a top MBA in Europe (obviously it paid off), which goes to show how hard for europeans it is to afford US prices for education, meanwhile in the US they just hand it over to you. The problem comes when the Navients of the world come knocking on your door and you can't even save a penny Softwood timber on the other hand, is made from treated pine. This too is quite good and can be selected if your budget does not stretch enough to opt for hardwood timber decking. Note however, softwood decking will over time, lose shape. "An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake.  You could ""invest"" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors.  For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!" "Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money ""changed hands"". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value." You missed the catch, there is always a catch, and in this case it is not well publicized.   First, some background. Congress (both parties) in 98 passed Graham-Leach-Bliley. It allowed commercial banks to invest, securitize, and insure securities. It also had privacy provisions, which prevented a securitizer of a mortgage from providing ANY personal information about the mortgage. That means that as Chase wrote these mortgage backed securities, they were forbidden, BY LAW, from telling the potential purchasers the addresses of the houses or SS#'s of the purchasers.   OF COURSE Chase did not choose to insure these MBS's themselves. Instead, they chose a third party like AIG because AIG could not know personal information about the mortgages, and was thus blinded to risk. AIG chose a middle of the road risk rating (something like 2% risk of default).   Chase FRAUDULENTLY represented the quality of the mortgages to the people writing the credit default swaps to insure them, and to the potential buyers. Chase KNEW the mortgages were crap.   Fraud is fraud and is illegal in security sales even after Graham-Leach-Bliley. However, to be clear, in this case there does not need to be any faking of paperwork. The loans can be passed along BLINDLY with insurance, as they were. If it could be documented that Chase misrepresented the quality of these AAA MBS's, they would be on the hook. But the catch is that Graham-Leach-Bliley offered them a cop-out.  AIG were the real dummies in all this. Who writes insurance without having a good idea of the risk.... "Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that ""pre-approval"" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!" Correct. The developers know that and the Fed will still willingly back all these mortgages and the Government is backing all the private insurers who also know their risk is too great in these areas. Private insurers would never insure these homes without the Government backing them.  It is moral hazard gone wild. "PMI IS Mortgage insurance. It stands for ""Private Mortgage Insurance"". This guy is just trying to get you to buy it from him instead of whoever you have it with now.  Your lender would always be on the policy since it is an insurance policy they hold (and you pay for) that protects them from you defaulting on the loan. Don't think of it as insurance for you in case you can't pay. If that should happen, your credit would still be trashed, the bank just wouldn't be out the money. You don't really get any benefit at all from it. It is just the way a bank can mitigate the risk of giving out large loans. This is why people are keen to drop it as soon as possible.  The whole thing about keeping the house in your estate after you die makes me think he is trying to sell you a different type of insurance called Mortgage Life Insurance. PMI isn't typically about that type of situation. Your estate will go into probate to work out your debts if you die and my understanding is that PMI doesn't usually pay out in that situation.  If this is what he is selling, buying such a policy would be on top of your PMI insurance payment, not instead of it. Be forewarned, personal finance experts usually consider mortgage life insurance to be a ripoff. If you want to protect against the risk of your heirs losing the house because they can't make the payments, you are better off with Term Life Insurance.  However, don't worry that they will inherit your debt on the house unless they are on the loan. If they don't want the house, they won't be obliged to make payments on it (unless they want to keep it). It won't affect their credit if they just walk away and let the bank have the house after you die unless they are on the note. Here is an article (in two parts) with a pretty good treatment of the issue of choosing your own PMI policy: ""Give Buyers Freedom to Choose Mortgage Insurance"" Part 1 Part 2"