Can mortgage insurance replace PMI?
"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"
yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning. "I've heard that the bank may agree to a ""one time adjustment"" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation.  If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing.  If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster.  Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance).   If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early.  But you know your circumstances better than we do.   If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up.  Fully fund your 401k and IRA.  Fill out your emergency fund.  Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon.  If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so.  That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan).   There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds).  If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage.  And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes.  If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment.  Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now.   The problem is that this might not be the best time for that.  The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash.  That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now.   I'd pay down the mortgage.  You know the return on that.  No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest.  I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly.  Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years." Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.) The issue is should you get one large policy or several smaller policies. Multiple polices have flexibility becasue if the need goes away you can drop the policy. The problem with multiple small policies is that there is overhead that you pay for multiple times. Assume that you want 100K coverage and are age x. That policy will cost you a certain amount based on a base amount plus a percentage of the coverage. The percentage is based on age, sex, smoking, health. If you double the coverage the price doesn't double becasue the base amount is constant. This base amount covers the cost of setting up your policy and maintaining the records and billing.  Keep in mind that the coverage you are asking about is not the mortgage insurance the lender makes you purchase when you have a small down payment. You are asking about a policy to cover your debts and still provide money for survivors. Go with your current agent company and ask them to run the numbers: new additional policy, increasing amount of current policy. Go with what meets your needs. Buying a house is one of those life events where you should review your insurance and retirement needs, and adjust accordingly. "Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here.  Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products.  Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want.  There is also the question of what constitutes best here.  Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout?  That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation.  How much risk do you want to take?  How often do you plan to add to it?  What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts?  Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs?  If you trust them, then buy what they suggest.  If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical ""best"" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective?  Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, ""What the heck are you thinking for asking that?"" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, ""We'll figure it out"" kind of person?  This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative?  This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica?  Do they generally lose people frequently?  Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato?  Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now.  In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you.  There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little." "I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind.  Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI?  Edit - I just re-read the link. The line ""you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down"" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO." "Fundamentals:  Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings.  Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about ""starter homes"", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added:  If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out).  Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble." "I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on.  Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither?  That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service.  What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked ""how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?""" If the child can take over the life insurance when they wish to get a mortgage or have their own children, there may be a case for buying insurance for the child in the event that your child's health is not good enough for them to get cover at that time. However I don’t think this type of insurance is worth having. In such a situation, is there any reason, financial or not, to NOT pay   as many points as mortgage seller allows? I can think of a few reasons not to buy points, in the scenario you described: If interest rates decrease you could be better off refinancing to a lower rate than buying points now. If buying points reduced your down payment below 20% then the PMI would more than offset the benefit of having purchased points. Your situation changes and you aren't able to stay in the home as long as planned.  That said, current interest rates are pretty low, so I'd probably gamble on them not getting too much lower anytime soon. I also assume that if you can afford as many points as they allow, that you wouldn't have to dip below 20% down payment even with points. Edit: Others have mentioned that it's important to note opportunity cost when calculating the benefit of purchasing points, I agree, you wouldn't want to buy points at a rate that saved you less than you could earn elsewhere. Personally, I've not seen a points scenario that didn't yield more benefit than market average returns, but that could be due to my market, or just coincidence, you should definitely calculate the benefit for your scenario and shop for a good lender. Don't forget that points are tax deductible in the year paid when calculating their benefit. Can you take 2 loans -- an 80% and an 8% loan? Same payments as doing PMI, but the 8% can be paid off in pretty short order and drop payments significantly. "As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates ""unwise"" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms.  But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do.  You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets.   To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one.  When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to.  Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash.  DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on.  I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable.  And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime." The key to understanding a mortgage is to look at an amortization schedule.  Put in 100k, 4.5% interest, 30 years, 360 monthly payments and look at the results.  You should get roughly 507 monthly P&I payment.  Amortization is only the loan portion, escrow for taxes and insurance and additional payments for PMI are extra. You'll get a list of all the payments to match the numbers you enter.  These won't exactly match what you really get in a mortgage, but they're close enough to demonstrate the way amortization works, and to plan a budget.  For those terms, with equal monthly payments, you'll start paying 74% interest from the first payment.  Each payment thereafter, that percentage drops. The way this is all calculated is through the time value of money equations.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money.  Read slowly, understand how the equations work, then look at the formula for Repeating Payment and Present Value.  That is used to find the monthly payment.   You can validate that the formula works by using their answer and making a spreadsheet that has these columns:  Previous balance, payment, interest, new balance.  Each line represents a month.  Calculate interest as previous balance * APR/12.  Calculate new balance as previous balance minus payment plus interest. Work through all this for a 1 year loan and you will understand a lot better. Generally, paying down your mortgage is a bad idea. Mortgages have very low interest rates and the interest is tax deductable. If you have a high interest mortgage, or PMI, you might consider it, but otherwise, your money is better off in some sort of index fund. On the other hand, if your choices are paying down a mortgage or blowing your money on hookers and booze, by all means do the mortgage. Typical priorities are: Dave Ramsey has a more detailed plan. For Option 2 - do you really think you can guarantee an average return of 8% here. Historical returns are no guarantee of future returns.  Even if you could get higher returns for option 2 than the interest rate on the mortgage, are you able to cover all the additional fees with the PMI in placing such a low down payment? The wiser choice in my opinion would be to chose option 1.