5 ms·
> The article states having 20% of home value in liquid cash; my 6 month E fund is about there. it says >=10%. which taken as some absolute rule, is absurd. if
by sigstoat 8y ago
> The article states having 20% of home value in liquid cash; my 6 month E fund is about there.
it says >=10%. which taken as some absolute rule, is absurd. if you're not moving in the next 10 years, the current value of your house is meaningless.
- pcarolan 8y agoFor some it actually reduces their financial burden because you can appeal to have your property taxes repegged to market value. As long as the economy doesn’t tank with the housing market, it can be a welcome adjustment.
- derekp7 8y agoWhere I'm at, property taxes are based on the previous couple years "qualified" sales. So what happened last time, property values tanked, so no one was willing to sell. No sales means no comps. The only sales happening were foreclosures and/or short sales, which weren't considered qualified sales.
- sovietmudkipz 8y ago> If you’re dying to buy a primary residence today, make sure you can withstand a 20%+ correction over a five year time frame, if history is any guide. If you don’t have a financial buffer equal to at least 10% of the value of your property after putting down 20%+, then you are not financially prepared for a downturn. Better yet, pay cash. You're right, the article does say 10%, not 20%. Thanks for the correction!