7 ms·
> If it's not cheap, why bother? The mortgage lender can require it. They don't want to have a burnt down house on the books for any amount of time.
by badlucklottery 3y ago
> If it's not cheap, why bother?
The mortgage lender can require it. They don't want to have a burnt down house on the books for any amount of time.
- digitalsushi 3y agoMortgage lenders can just start to require yet another insurance, like PMI, but for natural disasters. I have faith in them that they will find a way to bill us.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIn the US, the lender for a home mortgage is usually the federal government (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conformingloan.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conformingloan.asp
- evilduck 3y agoIf you can afford 50% of your housing replacement cost in premiums every year you probably don’t need a mortgage.
- photochemsyn 3y agoI can see mortgage lenders moving towards a high-resistance model, e.g. only financing homes with tile-only roofs and defensive sprinkler systems in wildfire-risk zones, elevated foundations (or how about tethered houseboats?) in flood-risk zones, etc. The issue is that if adaptation and resistance strategies end up being required due to climate-related risks, climate denialism ends and there'll be a lot more pressure to replace fossil fuels with renewables.