patrick.net

Grok:

I assume you're asking for the median home insurance cost in Florida. Based on the most recent data available as of March 05, 2025, the average annual homeowners insurance premium in Florida varies depending on the source and coverage specifics, but I’ll clarify that "median" data isn’t explicitly provided in most studies—averages are more commonly reported. However, I can give you a solid estimate based on the averages, which are often close to medians in large datasets unless heavily skewed.

From the information I have:
One reliable source indicates the average annual home insurance cost in Florida for 2024 is around $2,288 for a policy with $300,000 in dwelling coverage (Policygenius, 2024). This translates to about $191 per month.

Another source suggests a much higher average of $4,419 per year (or roughly $368 per month) for a policy with a 2% hurricane deductible, while it’s $2,401 per year (about $200 per month) without it (Insurance.com, 2025).

A more extreme figure comes from Insurify, estimating Florida’s average at $10,996 per year in 2023 (approximately $916 per month), projected to rise to $11,759 in 2024 (around $980 per month), though this likely reflects higher coverage levels or coastal areas prone to greater risk.

These discrepancies arise because Florida’s insurance costs fluctuate wildly based on location (coastal vs. inland), coverage amount, deductibles, and risk factors like hurricanes. The national average for comparison is around $2,377 per year (or $198 per month), meaning Florida’s costs are consistently higher—often 2 to 4 times the U.S. average.

Since you asked for the "median," and exact median figures aren’t directly cited, the middle ground of these averages—considering typical policies with $250,000 to $350,000 in dwelling coverage—suggests a likely median range of $2,288 to $4,419 annually (or $191 to $368 monthly) for a standard Florida homeowner in 2024/2025. The lower end ($2,288) might better reflect inland areas with less hurricane exposure, while the higher end ($4,419) aligns with broader statewide averages including coastal risks.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/XGlFB79TVe5ukCUPdiGDHzrnj

From what I hear from Florida Real Estate Youtubers, for non-Palatial ordinary homes a few miles inland, it's between 1-2% of home price - $4 and $8k/year - for a $400k house.

Another reason for sellers to greatly discount selling prices.

AmericanKulak says

With Florida property owners already paying more than four times the national average for home insurance, there is good reason to be nervous.

While home insurance rates increased 19.8% between 2021 and 2023, America's average rate of $2,377 was still far below the average rate of $10,996 paid by Florida homeowners.

U.S. average insurance: $2,377
Florida average insurance: $10,996
https://www.news-press.com/story/news/2024/04/01/florida-homeowners-insurance-rates-highest-rising-how-much-cost/73104723007/

We pay about $1900 annually for HO-3 insurance on our townhome (replacement value of $280,000 and 2% deductible) about 2 miles from the white sands beaches of the Florida panhandle. We are not required to have flood insurance, but it would cost us about $40 a month for flood insurance.

We were paying about $700 back in 2016 when we bought our brand new townhome (3 bedroom, 2.5 bath, and 2 car garage)

.

Some other things I'm discounting:

Old fashioned, out of date by 3 generations non-walk in closet with accordion or slide doors in the Master: -7% of home price
Grossly obsolete no access to bathroom from Master: -7% of home price

Even pre-PET Computer era homes have a bathroom accessible directly from Master.

Sellers need to update the home to minimal standard set 50 years past to expect anything like average prices. Al Bundy's Master almost certainly has direct bathroom access and probably a walk-in (perhaps not by much) closet.

Be tough, Buyers! It's up to the seller to update the house to ancient standards long since established back when Fly Robin Fly and Nutbush City Limits were hit songs, or discount heavily. Unless it's a genuinely finely made Victorian-era house with gables. IE Not found in a suburban subdivision and made postwar.

Keeping in mind USB wall ports in the Kitchen and Master are already standard in most "Middle Class" homes (and RVs!) built the past 5-7 years

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

GNL says

Location?

Montgomery County, MD, North Bethesda-Rockville-Gaithersburg general area.

Yep, not surprised at all. Who was your Realtor, he/she might be a client of ours?

AmericanKulak says

Keeping in mind USB wall ports in the Kitchen and Master are already standard in most "Middle Class" homes (and RVs!) built the past 5-7 years

Even so, that is a quick easy handy man install.

AmericanKulak says

It's up to the seller to update the house to ancient standards long since established back when Fly Robin Fly and Nutbush City Limits were hit songs, or discount heavily.

-- How did you manage to preserve your mid-century modern house in such original condition?
-- Mostly by laziness and having no money.

Eric Holder says

-- How did you manage to preserve your mid-century modern house in such original condition?
-- Mostly by laziness and having no money.

Pretty much. Maybe I'll play with zillow tonight and find some hilarious delusions compared to new or recent builds.

EDIT: Holy Shit! I haven't looked since around Christmas but it looks like homeloaners finally got the message. Tons of houses now just over $200k that were ~$300k just a couple of months ago. The gaps are starting to open, at least with the 80s-90s houses and the new ones which were priced only $30-40k apart. Though some are still smoking Copium like this 1960s-era place that even Jeannie would find too small: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1405-Stewart-Ave-Melbourne-FL-32935/43466916_zpid/



Eyeballing it here but the non-new inventory under $300k has to have at least doubled, maybe tripled. Palm Bay area.

Waiting to see if townhouses in Sat Beach start coming down, nothing yet. Just before COVID there were plenty on the market.

Glock-n-Load says

Yep, not surprised at all. Who was your Realtor, he/she might be a client of ours?

Don’t want to dox myself, sorry.

Moved to my bitching about slovenly old overpriced houses thread
https://patrick.net/post/1383847/2025-03-05-muh-updated-house

Well, well, well...





https://youtu.be/iKdtyDnGM-o?si=Qu_8_BUXwWICz62H

Yeah, heard about this in the car.

Apparently it's some quite substantial # of first time FHA loan holders the past couple of years.

So the housing market is even worse without those buyers.

By the way, I saw more than one or two foreclosures in Zillow last week.

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

Just sold our house. Five offers. Escalation clauses kicked in getting us 6% over list. Great realtor. Advised correctly on setting price below what we expected to accept to encourage a bidding war which it did. Her service included an interior decorator who advised us on getting the home model ready, and a professional photographer. We accepted the second highest offer as it was an all cash offer with a quick close date and no charge rent back for 1.5 months. Boomer couple. The highest was a realtor which saved us 2.5% commission, but she hadn’t secured financing and put very little earnest money down. Too risky, but it did boost the escalation prices in the other offers. The third best offer was a 30’s something couple who seemed to be at the limit of their financing capability and just missed out. We did set a new comp for the hood, 5% higher than a similar model sold for a few months ago.

what state and city are you in? curiosity only. as i live in the country, it’s different here.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

what state and city are you in? curiosity only. as i live in the country, it’s different here

Maryland, Montgomery County, the greater Gaithersburg/Rockville/North Bethesda area.

Maryland that’s close to DC, all government contracting companies are there. that place will have buyers forever and ever

.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sellers-4-9-million-house-195454362.html

The sellers of a $4.9 million house bragged their kids went to Harvard and Stanford. It might've found them a buyer.

A Palo Alto house listed for sale Friday had a line about where its owners' kids went to college.

Commenters said the brag was a sign of how much the area values academic and professional success.

The sentence about colleges was quickly removed. The $4.9 million home is already listed as pending.

When the sellers of a $4.9 million house in Palo Alto listed it on March 7, they chose a distinct sales pitch.

Play up where their kids went to college.

.

AD says

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/sellers-4-9-million-house-195454362.html

Lol, the image on the Yahoo link is unrelated to the actual house. Yahoo shows this:



Actual house, from https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-home-value-price-retirement-tiny-home-palo-alto-2025-1



So they invested $63K in 1975 and the house now sold for $4.9M. Let's compare that to the stock market:

Me: How much would 63,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 be worth in 2025?

ChatGPT: If $63,000 was invested in the stock market in 1975 and grew at an average annual rate of 10%, it would be worth approximately $7.4 million in 2025. This is an estimate based on average returns. The actual amount could vary depending on the specific investments, market conditions, and timing of the investment.

Patrick says

Me: How much would 63,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 be worth in 2025?

Rent vs Buy calculator on NY Times
1) lowest purchase price setting is $75,000
2) assume a monthly rent of $390.63 and round up to the lowest rent price setting of $400 (based on a price to (annual) rent ratio of 16)
3) other assumptions are 100% down payment (cash buy), 30 years of owning the home, 0% down payment, 7% home annual appreciation rate, 5% rent annual inflation, 10% annual return for stock market, 3.5% annual inflation rate, etc
.



.

Patrick says

So they invested $63K in 1975 and the house now sold for $4.9M. Let's compare that to the stock market:

Me: How much would 63,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 be worth in 2025?

ChatGPT: If $63,000 was invested in the stock market in 1975 and grew at an average annual rate of 10%, it would be worth approximately $7.4 million in 2025. This is an estimate based on average returns. The actual amount could vary depending on the specific investments, market conditions, and timing of the investment.

If they made above average money and didn't refi they probably had the house paid off by 1990. They then have a minimal tax and insurance bill and they can invest money into funds for the next 35 years.

Buying the house in this case is 100% better than renting if you own that long. 401k started right after that purchase date, so if they contributed to that after '78 they could be growing money tax free for decades. (Yes eventually they pay taxes, but could do Roth conversions along the way).

If my family bought that house I'd have well over $10M in assets and probably likely $25M, house included. Key in all this is just living in the same house for that long which for whatever reason is hard for a lot of people. And yes I'm building, so yes hypocritical.

Getting rid of most housing costs (loan) is the biggie. Once that's done you make bank. I'd say less then 5% of renters invest if it's lower than owning. Very few have that discipline. And the roof over your head ALWAYS needs to be paid for as a renter and you can be booted with notice out of nowhere or at the end of a lease.

Renting is fine, not judging. But paying for the roof over my head every month and not having the ability to stop it would give me massive anxiety. I can pay off a house. Renters are paying the taxes and insurance and probably their own insurance, so that's a moot point.

Patrick says

How much would 63,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 be worth in 2025?

First of all, unlikely they had $63k lump sum to buy those stocks, as they likely got a mortgage for the home. Secondly, they would be paying rent if they did not buy a home. In this case, the buyer would be paying just over $500/mo P&I for 30 years, even less if they refinanced (mortgage rates were 9% in 1975). By 2005, the loan would be paid off and that house payment money could be applied to that 10% stock market investment, which would total about $380,000 by 2025. Now add to that the difference during the loan period 1975-2005 where rents would greatly exceed the house payment and put that into the 10% stock market. And to be fair, during the post payoff years of 2005 to 2025, one must add in not just that $500 former mortgage payment but investing the difference of that $500 and what the rent would have been.

The initial price of the house put in the stock market is irrelevant in a rent versus buy comparison. The comparison needs to be made between mortgage payouts and rent payouts. If over that period rents were lower than mortgage, rent would be better if the savings could be invested to bring a return higher in value than a paid off house. Very unlikely. In the case of that $63k house, the renter would have a box full of receipts for his increasing cost of rent payments over 50 years while the buyer would have a paid for house plus about $1 million in stocks.

HeadSet says

The initial price of the house put in the stock market is irrelevant in a rent versus buy comparison.

It is a matter of conducting an analysis of alternatives (AoA) as far as rent versus purchase a home for different scenarios such as 100% down payment , or X% down payment with remaining (100-X)% mortgage

The NY Times rent vs buy calculator is very comprehensive such as accounting for rent inflation, home maintenance costs, equity, etc. which addresses your comments.

Patrick's Housing Trap argument bears a lot of merit as far as the opportunity cost of purchasing a home when the S&P 500 reliably returns +10% annually versus annual inflation of ~3.5%.

.

AD says

Patrick's Housing Trap argument bears a lot of merit as far as the opportunity cost of purchasing a home when the S&P 500 reliably returns +10% annually versus annual inflation of ~3.5%.

Actually, that would be a comparison between putting money in a bank versus buying stocks. Rent versus buy may favor rent if one plans to move after a few short years but almost always favors buying if one stays in the house 10 years or more. Remember, the only money that should be included for stock investment comparison is the savings from rent versus mortgage payment.

HeadSet says

AD says
Patrick's Housing Trap argument bears a lot of merit as far as the opportunity cost of purchasing a home when the S&P 500 reliably returns +10% annually versus annual inflation of ~3.5%.

Actually, that would be a comparison between putting money in a bank versus buying stocks. Rent versus buy may favor rent if one plans to move after a few short years but almost always favors buying if one stays in the house 10 years or more. Remember, the only money that should be included for stock investment comparison is the savings from rent versus mortgage payment.

Yes Patrick wrote:

"So they invested $63K in 1975 and the house now sold for $4.9M. Let's compare that to the stock market:
Me: How much would 63,000 invested in the stock market in 1975 be worth in 2025?"

So his comparison was

(1) $63K to buy a home in 1975 with "100% down payment"

VERSUS

(2) invest $63K as a lump sum in 1975 in a S&P 500 index fund (Vanguard S&P 500 fund started Aug 1976).

One way to examine the above is based on whether to (1) invest as a landlord or (2) invest in S&P 500

the cap(italization) rate would apply for option or alternative (1) in addition to the average annual appreciation in the real property's value , for a townhome in the Florida panhandle the cap rate now is around 4.5% and the annual appreciation rate is around 4%

or another way is to examine based on whether to rent a home or to buy a home and run multiple scenarios with the very comprehensive NY Times Rent Vs Buy calculator such as different down payment amounts, different durations of living in the purchased home, etc

my original post #6029 was based on living in the home for 30 years

.

HeadSet says

Remember, the only money that should be included for stock investment comparison is the savings from rent versus mortgage payment.

Which no one does for the most part. If you're looking for rentals it's going to be cheap because you can't afford to own. So the likelihood of "investing" the savings is low. You're generally broke.

We own and max out Roths and 401k's every year since we've owned. I wish we did with HSA's as we get older, but my wife's company doesn't offer it. It's the reverse with most homeowners that they still invest.

Data is skewed because a large amount of inner city folks being bums on food stamps and SSR. Urban areas make the situation look worse than it is in large numbers. Cut them out and 80-90% of Americans own their home. Where as 80-90% of renters won't put $1 into savings.

I'm a rural white guy. I don't know a single person that rents. I wouldn't hang with that crowd if being honest. Renting in cities at a young age makes sense. I did it. Also bought a building in Chicago. But if you can only afford a rental in the cornfields you sure as shit are broke and probably divorced with deadbeat kids. So my opinion comes from a different part of the country. Not much around here like that and easily avoidable.

WookieMan says

HeadSet says
Remember, the only money that should be included for stock investment comparison is the savings from rent versus mortgage payment.

Which no one does for the most part. If you're looking for rentals it's going to be cheap because you can't afford to own. So the likelihood of "investing" the savings is low. You're generally broke.

I agree as the bottom 40% are forced to rent and do not have any savings leftover to invest in the S&P 500.

But Patrick is alluding to the top 10 or 20% who have a lot of savings after paying living expenses, and they chose to rent and heavily invest the savings in the stock market.

Recall one recent post that showed the top 10% spending 50% of personal expenses (living expenses and discretional expenses) in the USA.

.

.

US is short 4 millon homes

(NewsNation) — The housing supply gap continues to persist, with the nation short nearly 4 million homes.

While new home construction picked up last year for the first time since 2016, the housing gap — the shortage of available and affordable housing — totaling 3.8 million remains, according to a new analysis from Realtor.com.

The analysis found that more than 1.6 million homes were completed in 2024, the highest level in nearly 20 years.

https://www.mypanhandle.com/news/the-us-is-short-nearly-4-million-homes

.

AD says

US is short 4 millon homes

I'm adding one. Doing my part.

Xiden kept Housing Inflated by paying mortgages for defaulting FHA "Subprime" 43% Debt:Income ratio Hoebags and Gimmegrants, keeping them in houses.
https://patrick.net/post/1383964/2025-03-13-fha-shennanigans-how-xiden-regime-kept

165,000 Florida Homes for sale.
Florida housing supply rises to 7+ months not seen since Financial Crisis.

"But it's just Florida!" Nope. Nashville is seeing all-time record concessions (free months of rent) and 20-30% rent drops in the past year. Reason being that builders are now having their 3-5 year construction loans come up for renewal at double the rate. They're desperate to improve vacancy rates.

Meanwhile in Texas, home builders are now charging $30-40k LESS for homes in the SAME development that were in phases completed in 2023-2024. Same exact models, brand new, going for LESS than the same model built a year or so ago.

I suggest homeloaners and landlords panic and continue to lower their prices to market, before other homeloaners and landlords take your buyers and renters. Cut prices right now! ;)

WOW. The vaunted Jan-Apr boom never happened and boy is Palm Bay crashing, Central FL tanking too. Seeing massive cuts.

Not only are the 1960 Space Race specials collapsing 10-20% in the past few months, but the 80s-90s ones too. Builders have cut another $20k from the same models when I last looked a few months ago.

Keep poundin' em down, they're still wayyy over priced.

The Great Demographic shift has begun. It's inevitable, or as a Hegelian would say, capital H History.

"Did you sell your home yet, Mr. Wallace?"
"Yes, when my neuropathy and my bad knee got worse after my 67th birthday, I couldn't climb the stairs. I simply had to sell my 2 story house for something more manageable. I had hoped to retire in it, but I just couldn't get upstairs."


Knock house prices down
Oh yeah
Knock them down
Knock 'em to the grooooound!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1FhmJmgh0

Also, we need a Constitutional Amendment banning Any Fed Revenue, direct or indirect, from being used to shore up State Pensions.

Illinois and California have to tax it's own citizens to pay their promises.

Illinois' unfunded pension liability is $140B, and 100% of it must come from Illinois. Raise those sales and income taxes, Pritzker, they're wayyy too low.

AmericanKulak says

Illinois' unfunded pension liability is $140B, and 100% of it must come from Illinois. Raise those sales and income taxes, Pritzker, they're wayyy too low.

That's Chicago's debt. IMRF which most government employees pay into is at 97% funded. TRS is lower at about 47% funded, but a lot of teachers pay into IMRF. A lot of teachers have retired dragging it down as well. It will balance back out as they die. Which they will in the next decade or two.

Chicago/Cook County needs to take care of itself. No state rep regardless of party will vote for statewide increases outside of those districts in that area. No help coming from the rest of the state. Chicago and Cook County has to raise taxes. All bigger cities are in this situation. No different than Detroit. The state didn't and shouldn't come in and save bad pensions because they were irresponsible.

As usual get out of urban areas now while it's relatively cheap. I wouldn't live in a town over 20k population ever again. Hard in certain states and with jobs, but it's a miserable existence. 2-5k population max is all I'll live in if it's not tropical and retired.

AmericanKulak says

Keep poundin' em down, they're still wayyy over priced.

The Great Demographic shift has begun. It's inevitable, or as a Hegelian would say, capital H History.

"Did you sell your home yet, Mr. Wallace?"
"Yes, when my neuropathy and my bad knee got worse after my 67th birthday, I couldn't climb the stairs. I simply had to sell my 2 story house for something more manageable. I had hoped to retire in it, but I just couldn't get upstairs."

I would have looked into a stair lift so I could live in the 2 story home. Take out a reverse mortgage if needed to finance the stair lift purchase.

As far as the great demographic change, there will have to be ways to cater to a large population of senior citizens. This will allow them to remain in their homes as long as they reasonably can, which impacts the real estate sales market.

Companies like Visiting Angels will have to innovate and come up with new ideas to support their clients who live independently in their homes, and do not have children to help them with their daily needs like going to the doctor's office or shopping at a local grocery.

I noticed rentals are cooling down such as in Austin and Miami:

https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/austin-tx/

https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/miami-fl/

https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/orlando-fl/

AD says

As far as the great demographic change, there will have to be ways to cater to a large population of senior citizens. This will allow them to remain in their homes as long as they reasonably can, which impacts the real estate sales market.

No one should be building 2 story homes anymore. Make the lots bigger and build ranches. I hate regulations, but 2 story homes are hideous and should be banned. Fire/EMT scanner at work and it's all old people falling during the day. It's literally every 5 minutes. "Older male fell down the stairs, he's breathing but needs an ambulance."

Thinking of this I might pipe in an outlet on the stairs to the basement for a lift that is 40 years out. Laundry is upstairs, but at 80 I probably don't want to fall down the stairs to watch a movie/show if there's anything not totally gay by then.

WookieMan says

AD says
As far as the great demographic change, there will have to be ways to cater to a large population of senior citizens. This will allow them to remain in their homes as long as they reasonably can, which impacts the real estate sales market.

No one should be building 2 story homes anymore. Make the lots bigger and build ranches. I hate regulations, but 2 story homes are hideous and should be banned. Fire/EMT scanner at work and it's all old people falling during the day. It's literally every 5 minutes. "Older male fell down the stairs, he's breathing but needs an ambulance."

Thinking of this I might pipe in an outlet on the stairs to the basement for a lift that is 40 years out. Laundry is upstairs, but at 80 I probably don't want to fall down the stairs to watch a movie/show if there's anything not totally gay by then.

For those "stuck with 2 floor homes like townhomes" , there should be solutions like stair lifts.

This ensures senior citizens are not forced out of their homes and forced to sell during a bad real estate market. This also will not cause an oversupply of homes being sold by senior citizens.

Also the reverse mortgage is another option for them to help them remain in it.

In addition to this, senior citizens living independently at home can get a monitoring device:

https://www.seniorsafetyreviews.com/life-alert-cost-comparison-review/

I like this LifeFone option since it has the call center contact you each day to ensure you are okay.



.

I strongly believe that much of the shenanigans we've seen in the past couple of decades are about trying to flood the zone with refugees to avoid a housing crash due to Demographics.

Not just in the US, but in Europe as well. It's the reason for not only the number of Refugees, but for the speed and unwillingness to halt or discuss it.

For the obscene bailouts, and now, the FHA paying of mortgages to avoid foreclosures

There have only been 2 times in the Nation's history where there has been a pronounced decline in housing prices on a nationwide basis.

The first was the Great Depression and the second was the GFC.

In one case we let about 3000 banks fold up and people lost everything. The other we poured trillions into the banking system at the expense of everything else.

If housing prices were to decrease on a nationwide basis again, I would suspect that the government (Fed included) would send out "free money" to inflate the situation away.

AmericanKulak says

I strongly believe that much of the shenanigans we've seen in the past couple of decades are about trying to flood the zone with refugees to avoid a housing crash due to Demographics.

Not just in the US, but in Europe as well. It's the reason for not only the number of Refugees, but for the speed and unwillingness to halt or discuss it.

For the obscene bailouts, and now, the FHA paying of mortgages to avoid foreclosures

And Canada. Especially Canada.

But the other reason is the need for more workers to support retirees. And in Canada & Europe, their Healthcare systems.

This is why we need to move off of funding FICA programs from workers to a broad-based consumption source, like a VAT.

Misc says

There have only been 2 times in the Nation's history where there has been a pronounced decline in housing prices on a nationwide basis.

19th century. Ppl were leaving for the West and that suppressed much of East property values.