In Ontario, if you discharge your mortgage before it matures, you pay a penalty. However, if you reapply for a new mortgage within 90 days from discharging, you receive a portion of that back. I believe it is called "porting" your mortgage.

Powered by

We bought a townhouse in 2006 for $220,000 in middletown, ct and financed $180,000 at 5.875% for 30 years. last month i decided to explore refinancing options and locked in a rate of 5% (which includes 1 point) with the current mortgage holder. closing costs, including the point, would have been around $3,700, which we planned on rolling into the principal balance. the new mortgage payment would have offset the mortgage costs in about 2.5 years. however, the appraisal came in at $168,000…$2,700 less than what our current principal balance on the loan is ($170,700). that means we'd not only not be able to roll the closing costs in ($3,700), but we’d also have to come up with the difference between the appraisal and principal balance ($2,700), meaning it would cost us, in cash, around $6,400 at closing. while this refinancing would save us $133/mo on our mortgage payment, the closing costs wouldn’t be recouped for 4 years - as opposed to the original 2.5. in august, we will be 3 years into a 6-year arm that is currently at 5.875%. we are planning/hoping to be out of the house before it expires, but i don't want to risk a big rate hike if we don't move before then.

I don't think you need to only come up with $6400 at closing - that would be a 100% loan-to-value (LTV) situation. Most banks don't lend at that LTV any longer, but rather at 90% or lower. You might need to come up with another $16800 to make it happen. If you are planning on being out of the house by the time the fixed rate expires, then don't refinance. You are going to have to save money though. There is a good chance the value won't have recovered by the time you sell it and you would have to bring cash to closing to leave. Not only that, but a realtor's commission usually eats up another 6-7% of the value. I don't think you have any choice, either bring a large amount of money to closing today or wait and hope that things get better. good luck!

Powered by

I'm looking to buy a home in the next 30 days, but my credit isn't that great (fico scores 647,669,695).the reason being is that i have 5 credit cards that were charged-off in 2004 because i made the mistake of signing up with a debt mgmt. company to "help me get out of debt faster" after i grad. from college.they never told me that my accounts were going to be charged-off; they just told me that they would lower my interest rates if i made payments directly to them.anyways, i paid all the charge-offs at the end of '06.in addition, i have a paid off car lease with no history of any late payments, same for 2 credit cards that i pay in full every month if i have a balance and have a current auto loan with no lates ($364 monthly-my only debt).i've been employed with the same firm for 4 years, make a little over $5600 gross income monthly, have $6,000 down payment, looking for a home no more than 170k,and looking to roll my closing costs in mortgage with low fixed rate.what are my chances?

You should qualify FHA with 3% down. Seller can pay up to 6% of your closing costs if you put it in the contract. They look at last 2 years credit only. Your income is fine, credit scores are fine. The conventional loans are tighter & you need more down but FHA you would fly right through & get a low fixed rate mortgage. You can go to www.fha.com & there is a place to "find a lender" key in your zip code & it will give you a HUD approved (fha) lender near you. Good luck! Sounds like you have done everything right.

Powered by

How much in closing cost should i expect to pay when refinancing to a streamline mortgage. we are staying with the same loan company so my escrow count will be rolling over. the current balance on my house is 155k and we will be going down a full percent on the new loan.

using the term streamline u r either refi ing with countrywide or north american or a streamline fha these are the 3 lenders i have heard use the term "streamline" u should be able to do this with as little as 1% of the loan amount in closing costs if u r working with the lender directly, if u r working through a mortgage broker, u r throwing money out the window, so which is it. lol gl

Powered by

I don’t know a lot about mortgages, and i was hoping someone who did could help. i have currently a 30 year fixed at 6.25% that i got 2 years ago. it was an fha as it was a starter home and we only had a little over 10% to put down. now we are thinking of refinancing. a friend referred me to his mortgage broker who said we could do a fha streamline and get a 30 year fixed at 5.00% with no closing costs. he said basically we are taking .25% higher rate than we could get with closing costs, but nothing would be rolled into the mortgage. all we would need is the money for the escrow while waiting for the refund from our current escrow. there are 2 things that are bothering me and i don’t know if i am being paranoid. first question we got a letter from the bank with our payoff balance, saying it would be 191k, which made sense it was a our principal plus basically one months interest. i emailed the brokers assistant to confirm this would be our new balance. the broker himself wrote back yes this would be our base loan. but i saw he was replying off a question from his assistant who said “i didn’t know how to respond to the question about $191k loan amount-we have it at roughly $195k with the 1003 showing roughly $4k to close.” but the broker said our loan amount isn’t increasing. we are suppose to close on monday and i am worried i am missing something and upping my loan by about by 4k. my second question is our interest rate on 191k is dropping 1.25%. if you take 191,000.00 times .0125 and divide by 12 i get we should be saving about $200.00 a month, i realize this is a rough calculation. the broker has our mortgage payment decreasing only by about $150.00 a month. it doesn’t seem like it should be $50.00 off.

With an FHA loan there is a 2.25% up front mortgage insurance charge on every loan. On a 191k loan amount, that charge would be $4297. This amount is required on every loan, and is almost always financed on top of the loan amount. This is likely the difference you're seeing, but I would ask the loan officer to clarify for you. As for the payment difference, you'll have to ask that to your loan officer. It could be many things. If your taxes have increased since purchase that could cause the change in payment. Ask them to show you a breakdown of the payment compared to your previous payment.

Powered by

When i bought my condo, it came with a home equity line of credit exclusively for home repairs and upgrades. come next march, the remaining balance is rolled into my mortgage and the line of credit goes away. my plan is to live here for another 3-5 years and i'm wondering which upgrade is the better investment. i know neither will recoup it's full cost and the reason i ask is that i have only enough available to do one or the other: 1. the living room and dining room have carpet and the kitchen has linoleum flooring. our thoughts are to replace all of this with hardwood. it doesn't have to be top of the line and we're open to the nail down kind or the snap together kind. 2. the bathroom is separated into two parts: the first has the toilet and tub/shower with linoleum flooring and the other part has the counter, sink, and mirror with carpet. we'd like to move the carpet back to the hall and replace all the flooring with ceramic or porcelain tile. in addition, replace the cheap shower kit with actual tile on the shower walls. we'd also like to replace the current sink/counter with a nicer material and install a second sink.

That's a tough call. Asking a realtor in your neighbourhood would be a good start, as they know what people are generally looking for. And they usually give free advice like this. You have to ask yourself what will make a bigger impact when a buyer walks in. Hardwood throughout the main floor, or a completely redone bathroom. Both are great selling points.

Powered by

On the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good. i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could ti really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so whatbdo you think?

Yes it looks that easy to me but then the Politicians couldn't get up and beat their chests and claim they made all their buddies lots of money.

Powered by

Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following three steps: common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.

No one was victimized by bad sub prime loans. People always need someone to blame. Start with yourself. you should know what you can and cannot afford. I think this idea is a fine one. As for those whining about "my rate is high, why should someone else get a better deal" grow up. This isn't about you on an individual level, this is about what is best for America, not the individual person. If everyone would pay their bills on time, they wouldn't need sub-prime loans. The "people" wanted more equality, for the banks to be more fair. Personally, if the government continues to bail people out, then people will never learn to live within their means!

Powered by

On the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good? i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could it really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so what do you think? here is the link to the site: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_b ailout/index.html

I like it it seems well thought out instead of what is going on now it seems like someone just pulled a figure of 700 bil out of their a** and decided that is what we will need

Powered by

I am asking the same question yet again because i an honestly looking for more feedback. i have received some that i like, but so much is based on emotions and not facts. how about some facts! i do not like the idea of giving a hand out to anyone. but lets face facts-there is going to be some type of program passed-congress just can't pass it up. they love doing this stuff! if i have to have a bill forced on me, this is the idea i like best so far. on the dave ramsey website i found this plan. in a way it sounds very good. maybe too good? i actually like it so far, can you take a look at it and tell me what you see that is wrong? could it really be this simple? or this cheap? here it the text of the plan. i will list the link below. the common sense fix years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. as a tax-paying american citizen, i will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. instead, i submit the following threestep common sense plan. i. insurance a. insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying fha-type insurance. government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity. b. in order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things: 1. rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage. a. roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. this brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes. b. cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. in the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. fha does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives. 2. cancel all golden parachutes of existing and future ceos and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. this keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs. c. this backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal. ii. mark to market a. remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime tier iii bonds/mortgages. this keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate. b. this move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing. iii. capital gains tax a. remove the capital gains tax completely. investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. again, this costs the taxpayer nothing. b. this move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. the truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. this will enable all americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. this is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. it’s time for all of us, as americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess. so what do you think? oops-i forgot the link! look under common sense fix: http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_b ailout/index.html

I love Dave Ramsey. Anyone that hasn't heard him speak or taken a look at his plans for financial success should do so immediately. I had not heard this plan of his but I love it. I keep saying something needs to be done but this bailout isn't it. His plan sounds effective and much more economical. I wish congress would look at this instead of adding even more things to bankrupt the country. Just sent the plan to my Senators and Representative. Doubt they will look at it but one can only hope.

Powered by

I just recieved my report from creditexpert.co.uk and it says the following: thank you for purchasing your experian credit score! a score between 960 and 999 puts you into the excellent category. this is the score that the rest of the population would like to reach. it indicates that you have always made payments on time and probably have no arrears. this type of credit history is an asset that can help you to the deals you want and means you should pay lower interest rates than people with a poorer credit status. to maintain your excellent rating, you should check your credit report regularly to make sure that it remains accurate and up to date – you can see it at the credit report centre. your experian credit score changes as your circumstances change. generally a score more than three months old no longer represents your current position, so it is a good idea to order it regularly if you want to monitor your credit status. what your score means to lenders your risk profile your score of 999 puts you into the excellent category your score is above average – 71% of people have a score lower than excellent view the factors affecting my score your experian credit score was 999 on january 27, 2009 the risk you present to a lender credit scores are designed to help lenders to assess the risk that you will not repay what you owe them, reliably and promptly, by comparing your situation and credit history with databases showing how other people have managed their repayments in the past. this score suggests you are a very low risk borrower – most lenders would expect very few people in this category to experience serious problems with repaying credit. factors that are having a negative effect on your score * there are no negative factors currently affecting your score. factors that are having a positive effect on your score * you make all your repayments on time and in full - no accounts have been paid late in the past six months * you are on the electoral roll (registered to vote) at your current address * the outstanding balance on your credit accounts (excluding your mortgage) is low * you don't have any county court judgments and you have not been declared bankrupt in the last six years can you tell me, is this any good?

odd, even suze orman said that a credit score NEVER goes above 950....and you would have to be a millionaire with a completely not normal debt ratio...to get to 950. so, how in the world did you get 999!!!! i would think its a mistake or your reading something wrong. i've never heard of anyone with that number and like i said even suze orman said its impossible (essentially).