NJ Mortgage

Archive for August, 2010

I came accross a list of the best rated 100 mortgage companies. The page has got the merit of surveying a question and issue of of interest to the global community by fostering individual self-expression and community interaction. But yet panelists haven’t decided which mortgage companies were the best . The poll remains open till December 31 2007. You may want to have a look and tell me what you think about this survey at http://mortgage.yeyeyup.com/best_rated_mortgage_companies.html

i have a mortgage with HSBC. personally all is bad. after your money…
here is a list bancks offering mortgages.

I’m looking to refinance my home. I want to deal with a very reputable agency/bank/mortgage company in Massachussetts. Any recommendations?

Yes start with your local bank where you have your checking account.
With the tightened restrictions on lending, finding any company willing to underwrite a mortgage is very difficult.

(in reference to my question) Short term interest rates only apply to installment loans such as credit cards, but they do not have any impact on mortgage rates because those are determined by Treasure Bond rates or long-term rates.

Please do your own research and homework.

If the actual rate of foreclosure is .2%, with half of those being from sub-prime mortgages, how is it that mortgage-backed securities are also failing, given that most of the people 98.8 percent are paying their mortgages, thus most of the mortgages backing the securities are flush. I am confused, sorry.

It’s both. Not sure where you got your foreclosure rate number, but the current number is much higher. I will look for a link and post it in a moment.

Still we would have been OK, but for the bogus derivative investments created through mortgage backed securities that increase the effect of the defaults. In effect, subprime loans were packaged and transformed into AAA bonds.

Excerpts:

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here’s why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy’s allocation of its financial resources.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Why is this not considered as being an option? Why must the taxpayers foot the bill for bad decision making?

Hmmm . . . I feel a long, rambling post coming on. Here is my answer to your question:

I wholeheartedly agree that government policies caused this crisis. The videos of hearings where Republicans are trying to get to the bottom of the problems and the Democrats are insinuating racism are immediately apparent. Why McCain has not been making more of this I’ll never know. I thought he wanted to win!

So we are where we are. And I think the Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for losing the vote on Monday. After years, if not decades, of decrying "corporate welfare," "trickle down economics" and "tax cuts for the rich," how can they say that this is a great bill and then blame the Republicans for being ignorant to vote it down? Many Democrats voted "no" also.

Here’s what I would do, when and if I am installed as dictator (LOL!): I would approve of legislation that allows the government to PURCHASE these loan assets, and the properties on which they are based, to hold for eventual resale at a profit. I would also make re-regulation of credit part of the deal. I would re-introduce the novel idea that ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD LOANS ARE GIVEN LOANS. And I would review some other applicable SEC, accounting and banking rules as well, to eliminate the perverse incentives that created this crisis and lessen the impact of any "moral hazard." I would NOT fund ACORN or pet "green" projects in such a bill.

Here’s what the Democrats will do, if given the chance: continue to demagogue populist and race-baiting themes to get votes ("the Republicans don’t want people of color to own houses"), continue taking huge contributions and lucrative jobs from many of these corporate entities, and blame the Republicans for everything. They will also take advantage of any economic turmoil, and perhaps even enhance it, to get Obama elected. They will then "fix" the things that were right about the financial system, and leave broken the things that were wrong. The economy will then tank further, and unless the Republicans finally grow a spine (you know, like those two weeks after Palin was nominated), the Democrats (with the help of the media) will use the bigger mess they have created to say they need even more control of the government and the economy, and the voters will give it to them. Hey, it worked for FDR!

No one is considering letting the banks go bankrupt because there is a serious risk of credit tightening up, putting the economy into a real tailspin. But there’s a toxic political context in which this is all taking place that prevents worthwhile debate, much less a rational legislative response to the situation, from occurring.

Sorry to be a downer. But I’ve been here before. I actually was a volunteer for the Carter campaign in 1976 and the parallels between him and Obama are frightening. (Then again, Carter wasn’t fond of crushing the First Amendment as Obama appears to be. So much for "dissent being patriotic.") I learned my lesson, eventually; I fear this new generation has not. And with our enemies working furiously to obtain nukes, maybe a lot of this won’t matter much anyway.

I’m glad I’m not a younger man. <sigh>

PS Take this screed with a grain of salt. I work in the financial industry and will probably be out of work. But I’ve been there before. And when I get very discouraged I do take comfort in the fact that our side is eager to call upon God for His blessing and guidance while the other side prefers to mock and deny Him. Not that we have God on our side, or that He always tells us what we want to hear. But we do ask, and listen.

Take care.

PPS The more I hear about this, the more I see that many people I respect are against the bailout plan. So in the end I don’t know just what to do. I am not too sure that anyone does. We may disagree on details – this plan, or any plan, among them – but I think we share the same general principle: that the government caused this mess in large part, and that free-market economics, not more government, is the long-term solution.

Under President Jimmy Carter, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed. It required federal financial institutions to encourage banks to give home loans to persons with little credit and low income. Economist Russell Roberts said that the CRA played a major role in creating the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the U.S.

Under Bill Clinton, the CRA was expanded and Clinton set targets for low-income home ownership at the Department of Housing and Urban Development and at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Banks were forced by the federal government to provide bad loans to unqualified people.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is Chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the House of Representatives. In 2003, he said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” In the late 1980s and early 90s, Frank was engaged in a sexual relationship with Herb Moses, who was Fannie Mae’s assistant director of product initiatives! Bill O’Reilly exposed Frank’s involvement in the mortgage crisis: YouTube – O ‘Reilly – Barney Frank Had Affair with Fannie Mae Exec. Frank looked the other way, while our economy was being destroyed by federal policies created in Clinton and Carter Administrations. (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae help fund the homosexual agenda.

In 2008, Freddie gave $20,000 to a Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) event; Fannie Mae gave nearly $19,000 to the same event. Freddie has donated $125,000 and Fannie donated $80,000 to homosexual groups since 2005.)

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) is head of the powerful banking committee in the Senate. He and Barney Frank consistently resisted attempts by the Bush Administration to closely regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd also got preferential treatment from Countrywide on two mortgages. Countrywide was one of the biggest subprime providers.

Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd received thousands of dollars in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years. Dodd has received $133,900 since 1989; Frank received $40,100. (While in the Senate, Barack Obama received $105,849).

As long ago as 2003, President Bush was trying to get the House and Senate to carefully monitor the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. His efforts were rejected by Democrats.

Obama associates headed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the years that the crisis was getting out of control. Obama friend Franklin Raines ran Fannie Mae and collected $50 million from it. Obama friend Jamie Gorelick worked for Fannie Mae and earned $26 million; Jim Johnson, formerly Obama’s vice president search committee chairman, hauled in millions from his work with Fannie Mae as CEO.

ACORN, the socialist group that routinely engages in voter fraud, was involved in pushing for risky loans to people with bad credit histories or little money for down payments. ACORN intimidated banks in Chicago and elsewhere to give risky loans! Obama actually trained ACORN workers when he was a community organizer in Chicago! ACORN used provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act to delay or halt efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had lowered their credit standards!

Well, they didn’t. Someone seems to forget that just like in the Great Depression, this current mess was created by a decade of Republican legislation. And now they are crying like cry babies that it’s Obama fault. Oh my! aren’t they delusional.

My husband and I are first time home buyers. We are looking to get a mortgage from our Bank (Bank of Oklahoma) we have positive standing with them. We have decent credit, we’ve always rented and had outstanding rental history. I’m currently carrying a note in my name for a car which has 13 months of payments left.

What do I need to do to get a mortgage from our bank? Any advice, i’m completely clueless on where to begin. What would increase our chances for getting approved?

seek a pre-qual letter from them. That is all at this stage.

i havent received my 1098 from my mortgage lender, but i got a 1099…do i still get a 1098 or is the 1099 all i’m getting?

Your supposed to get both of them, I would call the mortgage lender just to make sure and I would also contact my CPA or tax preparer for 100% confirmation.

Let’s say someone wants to get out of having to buy a new property they had put down a deposit for a couple years ago.

The only way I see to get that money back as stated in the contract is to disqualify for the loan per the developer’s selected lender. How can I do that?

So I’m wondering how low do I have to get my credit score to ensure I won’t qualify?!

Acceptable credit scores vary bank by bank. In many cases they are only one piece of the puzzle anyway.

Purposely screwing up your credit would be a very dumb thing to do. You would have to be losing a ton of money to make this worthwhile.

Buying a 4 bay lift service station, NJ DMV Inspection Center & gasoline station.

25%