There's no doubt that owning a house changes people's lives, largely for the better.

For one thing, real estate is the basis for most people's wealth. Studies show that owners accumulate more dollars than renters.

Then there's the happiness factor. In a Bank of America report a couple of years back, more than half of the nearly 2,000 current or soon-to-be owners said the emotional factor of their homes held more weight than the investment aspect.

Homes give their owners pride, bring their families and friends together and provide a place to unwind, decorate, dine, work on hobbies and generally do as they please. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents told BoA they were more emotionally attached to their places than they expected, with more than 80% saying they'd never go back to renting.

But this isn't a love letter to homeownership. Rather, it's a warning: Some homebuyers, even those who absolutely adore their places, have "buyer's remorse" -- second thoughts about their purchase.

Money was the top regret among the 1,000 buyers surveyed last year by Flyhomes.com, an online real estate brokerage. About 40% said they spent more than they were comfortable with, and 20% said they flat-out spent too much.

In another study, 43% of homebuyers polled by LendEDU believe they made the right decision. But 47% said they made the wrong one. Thirty percent said they should have waited because of their finances; 20%, for social/life reasons; and 7% because they were unprepared to be owners.

Similarly, a survey of 2,250 people by personal finance site Nerdwallet found that about half would have done something differently if they could go through the process again. And 20% wished they'd saved more money before taking the leap. Among the other regrets: "should have gone with a larger house," "should have waited" and "house was too expensive."

These findings are interesting because a survey by Midwest builder Lombardo Homes found that 82% of buyers said they'd be willing to go over budget -- to the tune of $31,000, on average. At the same time, 63% said the pandemic has caused them to lower their sights by an average of $28,400.

Another poll, this one by LendingTree, shows roughly the same: that buyers are willing to go beyond their budgets to acquire what they consider "the perfect house." And a Realtor.com poll found that 1 in 5 buyers had to bump up their budgets to get what they wanted.

Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect house. Listen to what some Flyhomes survey respondents had to say: "property taxes higher than expected," "should have purchased a larger house," "kitchen too small," "not enough bathrooms" and "upkeep and maintenance cost more than thought."

Yes, reality sometimes bites. But you can take some steps to protect yourself from making these kinds of mistakes.

To get an exact handle on what you can afford, get preapproved by a lender. Once the lender goes over all your documentation, you will know exactly how large a mortgage they are willing to commit. Add that amount to the cash you have for a down payment and closing costs, and you'll know exactly how high you can go without breaking the bank.

Next, set your sights a little lower than your maximum amount, the folks at Flyhomes suggest.

These days, with bidding skirmishes breaking out all over, it's so tempting to raise your offer to beat out the other buyers. If you aim a little lower initially, and find yourself going toe-to-toe with others, you will have the wiggle room to do so.

In other words, search below your max so that you can comfortably bid up. LendingTree Chief Economist Tendayi Kapfidze agrees.

"I urge buyers to be very cautious about going over budget," he says.

If you are lucky enough to come in under budget, you might even have money left over to start taking care of some of the things the survey respondents griped about: Pay those higher-than-expected taxes. Add on to the house -- perhaps expanding the kitchen or adding the extra bathroom you didn't realize you needed. Take care of the maintenance and upkeep you failed to consider when you were going gaga over the place. And remember, you're also going to need cash to turn the house you bought into your home: purchasing furniture, window treatments, tools, stuff like that.

By the way, lots of people underestimate maintenance costs. But "if you are stretched financially and under-invest in maintenance, it can diminish the value of your home," warns Kapfidze.

Another way to stretch your budget is to look farther afield. Identify your favorite neighborhood and then widen your circle. By doing so, you're likely to grab more square footage and better amenities for less money. "We too often see people overlook beautiful neighborhoods with great schools just because they aren't 'buzzy,'" said the Flyhomes brokerage.

Realize, though, that another lament -- this one voiced by 10% of participants in a BankRate.com poll -- was not about what they bought, but where. These folks purchased in less-than-ideal neighborhoods and were sorry they did.

Seniors trying to figure out how to cash in on their home equity without having to leave their houses now have another choice. So do low-income borrowers who've yet to refinance their government-owned loans.

First, the new option for seniors. Typically, they tap into their equity either by refinancing or by opting for a reverse mortgage, which pays them an amount based on the value of their house and their projected remaining longevity.

If they refi, they still have to make house payments and pay their taxes and insurance. When they finally leave the nest, willingly or otherwise, the remaining mortgage amount has to be paid in full.

With a reverse mortgage, there is no payment, but you still have to cover your taxes and insurance. When you leave, the house reverts to the lender to satisfy your debt, and any profit left over after the place is sold belongs to you or your estate. But you never owe more than the home is worth at the time it is sold.

Now, Oklahoma-based company Finance of America Reverse is creating what it calls a "new category" of retirement financing, combining aspects of forward and reverse loans to give borrowers at or near the end of their working lives greater flexibility.

FAR President Kristen Sieffert calls the hybrid product, EquityAvail, a "retirement mortgage" -- something that makes sense for those preparing to transition to life on a fixed income.

EquityAvail was just rolled out last month, and is currently only available in six states: California, Florida, New Jersey, Virginia, Connecticut and South Carolina. But the plan is to offer it in at least 15 states within 12 months, Sieffert told me in a phone interview.

Here are a few more details: EquityAvail is a proprietary fixed-rate product with a minimum loan amount of $100,000 and a maximum of $4 million. Because government-insured reverse mortgages, more properly known as Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM), currently come with an upper limit of $822,375, you may be able to get more money out of your house this way.

Also, whereas the typical reverse mortgage might have a maximum 55% loan-to-value ratio, EquityAvail is a tad higher at 60% to 65%, depending on the borrower's age.

"We can go higher because the borrower makes payments," Sieffert said.

The proceeds are distributed at closing. Borrowers are required to make payments for 10 years, but the monthly cost is about half of what it would be for a typical refi, according to Sieffert. That's because EquityAvail is a negatively amortizing loan in which the principal rises rather than falls. In this respect, it resembles a reverse mortgage.

After the loan is on the books for a decade, it becomes even more like a reverse mortgage, because you need no longer make any payments to principal and interest. Again, though, you still have to pay your taxes and insurance.

Borrowers must be at least 60 years of age to qualify, versus 62 for a HECM. So that means you'll be on the hook for house payments until you are at least 70. But that's better than a regular refi, which can obligate you for 15, 20 or even 30 years. FAR is considering lowering the age requirement so that early retirees could apply, along with people forced into retirement and other interested parties.

The outstanding balance must be paid when you pass away, or when the house no longer serves as your principal residence, but you never owe more than the house is worth. And unlike pure reverse mortgages, there are no origination fees, nor monthly servicing charges.

FAR says it created the new loan when it identified a need that wasn't being met by traditional loans or reverse mortgages.

Meanwhile, low-income borrowers whose mortgages are either owned or controlled by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are now able to refinance into less costly loans. The two government-sponsored enterprises will even throw in $500 to pay for an appraisal if one is necessary. And if you are low on cash for closing costs, you'll be able to roll up to $5,000 into the loan amount.

Fannie and Freddie's regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, estimates that by using the new option, the more than 2 million low-income families who have yet not taken advantage of today's near-record-low mortgage rates will save upwards of $250 a month -- $3,000 a year.

The loan will be available through Fannie this month; Freddie is shooting for August. To be eligible, borrowers must occupy the house, have incomes at or below 80% of the area median and have not missed a payment in the past six months (or no more than one payment in the past 12). Also, debt-to-income ratios cannot exceed 65% and credit scores must be 620 or higher.

In an infamous 1993 "Seinfeld" episode, George Costanza found himself in hot water when he was caught double-dipping a chip -- taking a bite and then dipping the uneaten portion of the chip a second time.

It was hilarious. But not so funny is when someone double-dips in real life. A freelancer, for example, who bills two different clients for the same expenses. Or perhaps a financial professional who places commissioned products into a fee-based account, thereby drawing income from both sources.

Double-dipping also occurs in real estate when an agent lists a house for sale and also lands the eventual buyer. When that happens, the agent retains the entire commission, but often fails to represent the best interests of one side of the transaction or the other. And it's usually the buyer who draws the short end of the stick, according to a new report from the Consumer Federation of America.

The practice is known in the trade as "dual agency." It's banned in eight states, and should be prohibited everywhere, says the report's author, CFA senior fellow Stephen Brobeck. Absent that, he says state regulators should ban listing agents from attempting to persuade sellers to accept a change in the agent's status from fiduciary to facilitator when he or she also finds the buyer.

Dual agency is an oxymoron that "can only be justified when agents greatly reduce their commissions and function as a facilitator with the full knowledge and approval of both buyer and seller," Brobeck said.

According to his report, double-dipping is more prevalent than most people realize. He estimates that roughly 1 in 5 transactions -- about 1 million per year -- occur with a single agent, resulting in consumers being charged "excessive commissions" to the tune of several billion dollars a year.

The rules vary widely from state to state. But generally, a seller lists a house with an agent, who is supposed to represent the seller's interests above all others. The eventual buyer usually deals with another agent, who speaks for the buyer alone. And together, the agents split the commission -- typically 5% or 6% -- down the middle.

Sellers pay the listing agent's commission based on the eventual selling price. So on a $400,000 transaction, the agent's cut is anywhere from $20,000 to $24,000. But the money comes from the buyer, which leads to the age-old real estate chicken-and-egg question: Who really pays the bill?

In the typical deal, half the commission goes to the seller's agent. But when the listing agent also finds the buyer, he or she pockets it all. Some agents will even delay putting the house on the local multiple listing service in hopes of first finding an agent-less buyer.

If the listing agent is successful in finding a buyer, he or she often tries to convince the seller to change the agent's status to that of a facilitator, at which point the agent can no longer advance the seller's best interests. That includes negotiating a higher price or simply offering advice that will materially impact the sale.

But "buyers suffer the greatest harm," Brobeck's report maintains. Because the agent does not represent their interests, either, he or she won't try to negotiate a lower price. Indeed, if the agent fails to change to "facilitator" status, he or she is obligated to advance the seller's interests: bargaining for a higher price and refraining from offering advice to the buyer.

The CFA doesn't necessarily recommend banning double-dipping altogether, though it does want all states to forbid dual agency, which is just one form of the practice. "One agent cannot represent the material interests of both seller and buyer," the report says. "Dual agency aggravates the conflicts of interest inherent in double-dipping."

The organization also wants regulators to block agents from changing their status midstream to dual agent, transaction broker or facilitator. These are the terms used in different states to describe an agent who works in the interest of neither buyer nor seller, instead walking a fine line between the two.

Double-dipping is one of the most controversial practices in residential real estate. While some agents love the idea of working both sides of the fence on the same property, others consider it unethical.

According to a survey by Inman, an agent- and broker-centric news service, about 1 in 4 view it "unacceptable" and 1 in 3 say it is "not desirable." (Full disclosure: I once contributed articles for Inman.) And in a recent Inman article, one agent said dual agency was "akin to sharing an attorney with your soon-to-be ex-spouse."

If you are buying or selling a house in Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas or Vermont, you don't have to worry about dual agency. That's where the practice is prohibited.

But no state outlaws double-dipping. The CFA warns buyers and sellers to try to determine how often an agent double-dips by reviewing his or her profiles on websites like Zillow and Realtor.com. "Aggressive double-dipping by agents is associated with the highest risks and costs from agent conflicts of interest," the group warns.

Sellers also should make it clear to any agent that they want their full and total allegiance throughout the sales process, and refuse to later accept any change in the agent's role. Buyers, on the other hand, should recognize the risks of being a customer of the listing agent -- rather than a client of their own agent.