khachsankiengiang

Archive for April, 2011

For obvious reasons the qualification requirements for a mortgage restructuring are quite different than those for a first time home buyer. The homeowner’s attempt to restructure usually indicates some current, or recent, financial duress on the homeowner’s part, who in all likelihood is trying to save the home and stop foreclosure. Understandably a lender will likely be very strict, even unforgiving, depending on the homeowner’s circumstances.

Similar to a first-time home buyer, a homeowner attempting to restructure has to be able to prove they can in fact afford the new monthly payments. Unlike the first time buyer those attempting to restructure typically experience a harder time proving to the lender that even though they have recently suffered a financial set-back, they are in fact “back in the saddle” and have adequate monthly cash flow to enable them to afford what is likely to be a higher monthly mortgage payment.

It is proving to be a bit more troublesome for those with damaged credit when applying for a mortgage restructuring in recent times. Conventional loans are usually not available in this circumstance, leaving only those loans offering much higher interest rates. The caveat here is that along with the higher interest rates comes a higher monthly payment (unless the homeowner has accumulated a substantial amount of cash to buy points), which may possibly “kill the deal” if the borrower cannot prove conclusively they will be able to afford the new, higher mortgage payments.

Income

Income requirements for restructuring are the same as that for a first time conventional mortgage loan. The maximum amount of income allocated to a mortgage payment cannot exceed 28%. As mentioned previously the difficulty comes with proving to the lender that the monthly income will be sufficient to cover the higher monthly mortgage payment.

A word of caution is in order. As tempting as it may be to inflate your income or downplay your debts and other financial commitments in order to improve your position, it is a fraudulent offence to lie about your income on a mortgage application form.

Employment

Lenders all seem to follow the same guidelines regarding employment. Regardless if the borrower has a job or is self-employed, they still have to provide the following documentation:

For all loans:

o Complete last year and the previous years signed federal tax return forms, and last year and the previous years W2 federal forms.

o Two most current pay stubs within 30 days for each borrower.

o Last three bank statements for all savings and checking accounts.

o Evidence of additional income (rental agreements, child support, alimony, military allowance).

For self-employed borrowers:
o Last year and the previous years signed federal corporate tax returns.

o Last year and the previous years signed federal partnership tax returns.

o Last year and the previous years and current (calendar or business year) year to date (YTD) signed Profit and Loss Financial Statements.

o Current year to date (calendar or business year) signed state tax return forms.

Conclusion

In what was an act of “too little, too late” the government stepped in and began examining some of the questionable lending tactics which started the whole sordid mess. As a consequence lenders have been forced to enact stricter loan requirements and funding obligations to negate the need for government legislation. While this strategy has provided a stop-gap measure to reduce future abuses and irresponsible actions, it offers very help to those borrowers who are struggling to stop foreclosure and keep their homes.

Homeowners and buyers today can expect much more stringent requirements from the lenders. Credit score requirements are becoming increasingly strict. If you’re looking to restructure an existing mortgage, make sure you have money for closing costs and a substantial down payment along with solid documentation of your income. And above all, don’t let the clock run out on your efforts.

If you are a student or about to become one and might be thinking of taking out a credit card due to the reason of not working whilst studying, can be a recipe for disaster. If managed correctly and choosing the right package, a credit card could help ease your financial troubles whilst you are busy with your study commitments without getting you into huge credit card debt.

The features and benefits

The most attractive benefit of having a credit card is that you can easily spread your costs and fee’s over a certain period of time thus leaving you with more money to spare at the end of every month. Another huge advantage is they are very easy to obtain. In South Africa today, credit history is vital, so spending wisely on your credit card will help you gain an reputable credit history allowing you better advantage of getting a personal loan or finance easily later on in life. Student cards have very low rates too and they provide vital discounts on items students buy the most. E.g. Books, CD’s and clothes.

Why do banks offer these cards?

Banks look to your future, so they offer cards even though they know you have no regular income the banks are still looking out for your future. South Africans who have a degree earn on average between 2.5 and four times more than those who do not complete schooling. Degree-holders are also three times more likely to get a job – in a country where more than one in four people are unemployed. Financial institutions want to gain your loyalty and trust so that you will continue to use them for financial means remembering they helped you when you really needed them.

Are there disadvantages?

Of course there are disadvantages. If you do not pay your balance or meet your agreed monthly agreement you can quickly create debt for yourself as with any other credit card. If you budget correctly and do not over exceed your means then the disadvantages are virtually non-existent.

What are the alternatives?

If you are unsure about a student credit card there are other alternatives too. If you work part time whilst studying you could also apply for a regular credit card. Having a regular card however means you could forfeit some of the student benefits from having a student credit card, although you might get a lower interest rate and a better credit limit than a student card. Another alternative is the older alternative i.e. watching what you spend. Monthly budgets and not spending more than you have is also another alternative, although as we all know this is a difficult task. Most student then realize that they can only budget so much and need a credit card to help them out with other unforeseen expenses or if they are unable to work because of exams coming up. If you use your card sensibly you can really save yourself a lot of money and stress. Having a card allows you the peace of mind knowing that if you need textbooks or pay fee’s etc you haven’t run out of money. It also allows you to build for your future and increase your chances of securing finance in the future if you really need

In Wall Street’s latest affront to the public trust, the nine mega-banks graced with $125 billion in taxpayer bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were reported on July 30, 2009, to be paying out billions of dollars in bonuses to their executives. At least 4,793 bankers and traders received more than $1 million each in bonus payments, although it was one of Wall Street’s worst years on record. After months of investigating banker compensation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said, “The repeated explanation from bank executives that bonuses are tied to performance in a manner designed to promote (national economic) growth does not appear to be accurate.”

To say that it was an understatement would be an understatement. The bonuses paid to executives not only were not tied to national economic growth but were not even tied to some reasonable percentage of company profits. In fact they were generally greater than the net income of the banks. Morgan Stanley, for example, had $1.7 billion in earnings and paid $4.475 billion in bonuses. Goldman Sachs had $2.3 billion in earnings and paid $4.8 billion in bonuses. JP Morgan Chase had $5.6 billion in earnings and paid $8.69 billion in bonuses. JP Morgan’s largesse involved showering 1,626 of its favorite execs and traders with bonuses of $1 million or more. For most people, a “bonus” is a few hundred dollars at Christmastime. A million dollars is what you work a lifetime to try to save, and few people reach that goal. Even Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, which have been called zombie banks, paid $5.33 billion and $3.6 billion in bonuses, respectively — although they lost more than $27 billion each in earnings. The bar for merit is apparently so low that you’re entitled to a bonus if your zombie bank simply keeps breathing!

These blatantly inflated bonuses are just the last in a litany of abuses by those same profligate banks that nearly destroyed our economic system. If the derivatives on their books were “marked to market” (valued at what they would fetch on the market), the banks would be bankrupt, and their employees would be out of a job. Instead, they have been allowed to inflate the value of their “toxic” assets – and sell them to the U.S. government at the inflated value. Then they have taken the money they got from the government at these inflated prices and paid back the TARP money they received – allowing them to post inflated earnings and reward themselves with inflated bonuses! Many people feel that these bankers are thieves stealing from the public till who should be looking at jail time. But who is there to stop their parade of outrages? No one in Congress, the White House, or the news media is calling them on the carpet for it. As Senator Dick Durbin said recently, Wall Street owns Congress; and that is also true of the major media.

We may not be able to stop them, but we can join them. We the people need to play the bankers’ game ourselves. Even corporate giants such as General Motors and WalMart have now gotten into the banking game and are easing their credit problems by forming their own banks. The U.S. public sector is late to the party. States, counties, public universities could take the lucrative system the private banking industry has created for itself and turn it to productive use in the public interest.

KEEPING THE BANKS HONEST WITH SOME PUBLIC COMPETITION

In President Obama’s July 17 weekly address, he repeated his call for a public option in health care, in order to “increase competition and keep insurance companies honest” and to “put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry.” The same call needs to be made for a public option in banking. In some countries, publicly-owned banks have operated alongside privately-owned banks for decades; and in those countries, the current crisis has served to show that public banks generally do a better job of serving the people and protecting their interests than their private counterparts.

In Canada, the trendsetter in public banking is the province of Alberta. Alberta’s publicly-owned banking system, called Alberta Treasury Branches or ATB, was initiated during the Great Depression to give the private banks a run for the public’s money. According to a government publication titled “These Are the Facts: An Authentic Record of Alberta’s Progress, 1935-1948″:

“The Treasury Branch system enables the people to pool their financial resources and to use these resources for their mutual benefit thereby enabling them to progressively free themselves from the stranglehold of the existing financial monopoly. These Treasury Branches provide effective competition for chartered banks thereby ensuring banking services at reasonable rates.”

From 1929 to 1933, the average annual income in Alberta had fallen from $548 to $212, a staggering 61 percent drop. Interest payments continued to bleed the farmers of cash, and taxes had increased. In 1935, Albertans decided they wanted a change and swept the Alberta Social Credit Party into power. In 1938, the system of Alberta Treasury Branches was set up literally as a branch of the provincial government. The stated goal of the ATB was to “provide the people with alternative facilities for gaining access to their credit resources.” Bankers initially scoffed at Alberta’s attempts to establish a competing economic system, but Albertans had high hopes and rushed to deposit their meager savings in the Treasury Branches. The government invested in the ATB only once, contributing $200,000 in 1938. That was all that was necessary, as the system was self-funding after that. By 1946, the ATB was turning an annual profit of $65,000. According to a booklet titled “Albertans Investing in Alberta 1938-1998,” by 1998 the ATB had remitted $68 million to the provincial government.

In India, public sector banks also operate alongside private sector banks. Privatization has made significant inroads into India’s banking system, but fully 80 percent of the country’s banks are still government-owned. Before the current crisis, neoliberals criticized India’s public banks for being oriented more toward serving the customer than turning a profit; but studies showed that the public sector banks were out-performing the private sector banks in terms of customer satisfaction. Today, when the credit crisis has hit the aggressive private international banks particularly hard, customers are fleeing into the safety of India’s public sector banks, which have emerged largely unscathed from the credit debacle. The public banks have been credited with keeping the country’s financial industry robust at a time when the private international banks are suffering their worst crisis since the 1930s.

In China, private-sector banking has also made some inroads; but state-owned banks still predominate. In a June 2009 article titled “The Chinese Puzzle: Why Is China Growing When Other Export Powerhouses Aren’t?”, Brad Setser noted that nearly all countries relying heavily on exports for growth have experienced major downturns and remain in the doldrums — except for China. When China’s external markets fell off, the government turned its credit machine inward to domestic development. Its state-owned banks engaged in a huge increase in lending, with local governments and state enterprises borrowing on a large scale. The result was to create a real fiscal stimulus that put workers to work and got money circulating again in the economy.

In the United States, the trendsetter in public banking is the state of North Dakota, which has owned its own bank for nearly a century. North Dakota is one of only two states (along with Montana) that are currently not facing budget shortfalls. Ever since 1919, North Dakota’s revenues have been deposited in the state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND). Under the “fractional reserve” lending scheme open to all banks, these deposits are then available for leveraging many times over as loans. Other banks in the state do not see the BND as a threat because it partners with them and backstops them, serving as a sort of central bank for the state. BND’s loans are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) but are guaranteed by the state. North Dakota has plenty of money for student loans, makes low-interest loans to startup farms, has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, and is generally not feeling the pinch of the credit crisis at all.

THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

A bank charter brings with it the privilege of creating “credit” simply as an accounting entry on the bank’s books. The flaw in the private banking scheme is that banks create the principal portion of their loans but not the interest, which is continually drawn off the top as profit. New borrowers must continually be found to take out new loans to create this extra profit, making private banking effectively a pyramid scheme; and like any pyramid scheme, it has mathematical limits. Today, those limits appear to have been reached. Personal and national debts have gotten so large relative to incomes that it is no longer possible to maintain the fiction of solvency. We soon won’t have the money even to pay the interest on our existing debts, let alone to incur new ones. Public banking does not suffer from that flaw, because interest is not drawn out of the system but is returned to the public coffers. Public banking is thus mathematically sound and sustainable.

That is the theory, but there is nothing so persuasive as putting it to the test. Like with the public option in health care, we need to pit the public banking option against the private banking option and see which works best. My money is on the public option.

For citations, see the author’s website below.

The current economic meltdown has changed the face of Wall Street, possibly forever. For decades the energy in the market had been fueled by high-rolling investment bankers, but look what’s happened in the last eight months. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Bear Stearns was snapped up by JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch got bought out by Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had to convert to bank holding companies just to stay in business. Five major investment banks . . .and then there were none.

At the beginning of this year, those five firms had a combined market value of around $250 billion with the top firm, Goldman Sachs, valued at nearly $90 billion. Now the top banks, which are comparatively small boutique firms-Raymond James, Jefferies & Co, Greenhill & Co, Keefe Bruyette & Woods and Piper Jaffray-have a combined market value of $12 billion, a number that has shrunk by a factor of 20.

Essentially, the global economic crisis has ushered in the era of universal banking where massive financial firms offer every conceivable kind of investment product and service. Even smaller brokerage firms face being herded under the umbrellas of big banks, or else risk becoming irrelevant.

Historic Realignment of the Industry

When Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley opted to become bank holding companies it marked an historic realignment of the financial services industry and the end of a securities firm model that had prevailed on Wall Street since the Great Depression. But why did they make the change? Partly because it’s given both firms access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window – the same line of credit that is open to other depository institutions at a lower interest rate.

As bank holding companies, they can also tap into deposits from retail customers. The two firms had already received a temporary financial lifeline from the Fed-the Primary Dealer Credit Facility-the special reserves established to bail out Wall Street broker-dealers like the Bear Stearns deal in March 2008.

Even though Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are now classified as bank holding companies and are part of the universal banking model, they’ll still be able to engage in investment banking activities. But after years of loose oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, they’re now faced with tighter regulations imposed by the Federal Reserve and they are subjected to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation oversight.

The Golden Years of Investment Banking

A quick historical review of investment banks will serve as a backdrop to the events that led to their downfall.

Independent investment banks have been around for a long time, but originally they were small private partnerships that earned most of their money from offering corporate finance and investment advice, as well as some broking and other services. If you had walked into one of their offices and looked around, you might have mistaken it for a large law firm.

The success of their business model depended on the trust built through long-term relationships. There wasn’t much money at risk in the early days because the firms operated primarily with the partners’ own money. That meant there weren’t vast sums available to gamble on risky ventures with excessive leverage. But the lack of working capital and a desire to orchestrate splashier deals, motivated the firms to go public in the late 90s.

The Downfall Begins

With more capital in the coffers and a growing access to low cost, short-term debt, managers started to make larger, riskier capital bets-most recently those troubling and toxic mortgage-backed securities.

The regulations that had once separated investment banks from traditional banks were no longer in place. That opened the way for big global banks like Citigroup and JP Morgan to start competing with Wall Street for what had traditionally been the domain of the investment banking business. This forced Wall Street firms to expand their services, to use more leverage and to take even bigger risks.

When those risks led to profits, the dealmakers were rewarded with outlandish bonuses and the wheels were set in motion for bigger risk-taking. Throw patchy government regulation into the mix and you have, as the saying goes, a recipe for disaster.

Before long, major Wall Street firms were leveraged three or four times more than conventional banks, yet they still operated under far less stringent regulations than the banks.

It wasn’t until the financial crisis reared its ugly head in mid-2008 that the U.S. Fed stepped in and for the first time, allowed investment banks access to their discounted funds. Then when the credit crisis hit, highly leveraged Wall Street firms like Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs found themselves in even deeper trouble. They’d already suffered huge losses with their hedge funds and high-risk ventures, but their excessive leverage compounded their problems as the credit crisis stripped them of the ability to raise the additional capital they needed to survive.

The Outlook for Wall Street

What’s the outlook for those working on Wall Street now? No doubt there will be less excitement and no more of the huge bonuses that dealmakers had grown accustomed to. But there are bigger concerns about whether the U.S. will lose its competitive edge and the ability to maintain its power status in the global financial system.

Some of the best and brightest might pull up stakes and head for better opportunities in the burgeoning Asian Markets, or they could flip over to the unregulated Hedge Fund market-at least for as long as those funds manage to survive. Thousands of Hedge Funds are going out of business, bringing serious grief to investors like the huge public pension funds, foundations and endowments that have poured billions of dollars into these private partnerships.

If there is any good news in this economic fiasco, it’s this: Main Street stands to eventually benefit from a better regulated Wall Street. With a more transparent financial system, a firmer foundation and a stronger business model, there might be a promising outlook for more stable and consistent growth.

One of the hardest things about being a single mom is finding enough money to pay the bills. Debt is a reality for many Americans, but for single moms financial problems can be even worse. Having enough money to pay rent or mortgage, buy groceries, and take care of the kids is a lot for one person to handle. Thankfully, there’s help available. You just need to know where to look.

A good place to start would be talking to non-profits in your area that offer Government financial help for single moms. These wonderful organizations offer housing assistance, employment assistance, and even tuition assistance. Check the phonebook, local non-profit listings, and the internet for opportunities in your community.

Federal and state governments also offer programs to help single mothers in need. Look up the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program in your state and contact them for help with food stamps, job training and placement assistance, and financial aid. For help paying your energy bill, contact your utility company first to see if they can offer any assistance. You can also contact the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, to request assistance with your heating bill.

Another option is to apply for grants set aside for single moms. To find available grant money, simply search the internet for “grants for single mothers” and a long list will appear. You have to apply and be accepted for grants and different programs will have different expectations. Apply for the ones best suited to your particular situation.

There are also many ways you can earn extra money without sacrificing time with your children. You could watch other children during the day or in the evenings while you take care of your kids. You could watch other people’s pets while they are away, clean a house or two a week, or look for freelancing jobs you can do from home. If you have a special talent or hobby, consider turning it into a business. There are many things you can make, bake, write, craft, or create that you could also sell.

Paying the bills as a single mom can be tough, but you don’t have to go it alone. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. There are programs out there that have been specifically designed to help single moms who are having trouble making ends meet.

President Barack Obama is well aware that the current economic situation in the country leaves a lot of homeowners struggling. Housing prices have crashed and the all time high number of foreclosures does not help that at all, lowering surrounding homes values by as much as 9%. Home and property values have dropped so far that many homeowners now owe more on their mortgage than their home is actually worth. Due to these problems, the Obama administration has introduced the housing and homeowner stimulus plan. This plan was announced in February and has started this month. Most people no longer have 20% equity in their homes, which is typically required for traditional mortgage refinancing, due to the dropping home prices. The stimulus plan from President Obama is going to make it easier for homeowners to modify or refinance their current home mortgage and have more manageable monthly payments and avoid a possible foreclosure. The goal of this home mortgage stimulus plan is to help over 5 million homeowners stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure or defaulting on their loan. This is done by giving incentives to mortgage lenders to use their new guidelines for approving a mortgage refinance. So with more incentives and less risk to mortgage lenders are going to be more flexible on who can refinance, how much they can save, and finding financially affordable monthly mortgage payments.

Homeowners looking to refinance or modify their current mortgages will get their loans restructured by mortgage lenders. With this plan, the maximum allowable monthly mortgage payment can not exceed 38% of the homeowners gross monthly income. Mortgage lenders will also get a dollars for dollar incentive from the government to further lower the monthly payments to 31% of the homeowners gross monthly income. This is great news for a lot of homeowners who are out of work or just struggling to make their monthly mortgage payment. A lot of homeowners currently pay 40% or even 50% of their income towards their mortgage. A 20% reduction would add up to a lot of saved money every month.

The Treasury of the United States has an exact series of guidelines for mortgage lenders and banks to complete when refinancing or modifying a home mortgage loan. In the past for example, mortgage loans have been refinanced or modified by adding on missed payments to the loans principal which basically did nothing to reduce the monthly payment. The housing mortgage refinance stimulus plan announced by Obama will mean a great amount of savings for millions of homeowners.