Did you speak to a mortgage specialist in that bank to see why the mortgage renewal was declined? You should shop around using a mortgage broker to see what you are qualifying for.

Powered by

I found out a couple weeks ago that i may or may not still have a position at my office by the end of september. my mortgage rate expires in february. i can't say for sure or not whether i'll be able to find a new job (my industry is very specific and local jobs are pretty scarce at the moment) quickly. so i'm a little scared that if i don't find something by february, and then it comes time to renew my mortgage, maybe my bank won't approve it? i don't want to ask my banker about this because then he'll know the situation.. i could renew it right now while i still have a job is one option. but if i don't renew it while i have a job, i'm unsure as to what my other options would be. would a bank still approve a mortgage if my credit history has been perfect? would i need a co-signer? any information would be helpful. thanks! update -- looks like steve d's information was the best for my situation. i ended up calling my bank (kept myself anonymous) and they explained to me that when it comes time to change my rate, my employment status did not matter. the mortgage is already mine and they can't end it just because of a change in employment. my guess though that if i decided to go with another lender, it'd mean i'd be getting approved for a brand new mortgage. in that case then i believe i may have a more difficult time. thanks everyone for your input!

As a rule if you currently don't have means to repay a loan, they are reluctant to alter any terms.

Powered by

Hi all, i have a 5 yrs term mortgage that i got 2 years ago for a 4-plex i purchased. last month i contacted an appraiser who appraised the property. based on the appraisal the property is worth around 100k more than purchased. this means i can apply for refinancing and potentially take out some equity from the house. here is my dilemma: the mortgage is with excellent conditions - good interest. i got it through a mortgage broker with a big bank in canada. i have 2 options for the purpose of refinancing: either contact the bank who provided the mortgage directly or apply through a mortgage broker who can decide to work with different banks. the problem with going with a mortgage broker is that he already told me the new conditions will be worse than current conditions i have. if the current bank approved my refinancing application it would be with the same or better conditions! on the other hand, if i go with the current bank am i not taking a risk that if they do not agree to refinance the property because i do not meet their criterias (i am self employed now), then they will also not automatically renew my mortgage in 3 years when term is over!? note: if i do not contact them now, then my understanding is that the bank will automatically renew my mortgage since that is the law in canada: as long as you pay all your mortgage payments on time, the mortgage is renewed automatically without the need to re-apply/go through the application process again! i'm just not sure if i contact them now for refinancing and fail, that they will not keep record of my new 'bad' information (i.e. self employed, less stable, etc. whatever caused them not to approve me) and not automatically renew my mortgage when the term is over! bottom line i do not want to lose twice - once not being approved by the good/big bank now, and second damage my chance to be automatically renewed in 3 years. thanks & regards.

Unless things are really, really different in Canada as the USA then your mortgage will not automatically be renewed when it comes up in 5 years. Rather you will have to re-apply for a loan and if they don't like that you are no self-employed they won't renew. So, assuming this is the case there is nothing lost by going with your current bank. However, if you are worried just go with a different bank (or the mortgage broker, though I've never had any luck with them). I doubt the new loan your current bank would give you would be much better than a new loan from a new bank, so it doesn't matter so much which bank you use.

Powered by

According to the national realtor association home sales are up 17.4% in the last two months. --quote-- november home sales leap - new york (cnnmoney.com) -- after surging 10% in october, sales of existing homes jumped again in november, growing 7.4% compared with october to an annualized rate of 6.54 million units, according to the national association of realtors. "this clearly is a rush of first-time buyers not wanting to miss out on the tax credit," said nar's chief economist, lawrence yun. november was originally going to be the last month in which sales to first-time homebuyers would qualify for a federal tax credit of up to $8,000. however, that deadline was extended through june. in addition, the tax credit was expanded to cover people who already own a home. they can qualify for a $6,500 tax credit if purchase a new house before the end of june. that should encourage "trade-up" buyers. the strength of sales in november surprised the industry. a panel of experts compiled by briefing.com had forecast month-over-month sales growth of just 2.5% to 6.25 million from 6.1 million a month earlier. the sales total was also a huge improvement over a year ago. sales rose 45.7% over the paltry annualized rate of 4.49 million units during november 2008. the contribution made by first-time buyers is evident in a separate survey nar conducted of its members. they estimate that 51% of sales in november were by newcomers to the market, up a point from 50% in october. normally, first timers account for about 40% of sales. also propelling sales higher were rock-bottom interest rates. the average for a 30-year, fixed-rate loan during the month was just 4.88%, down from 4.95% in october and 6.09% a year ago. with rates that much lower, homebuyers can save more than $150 a month on a $200,000 mortgage. the industry expects home sales to slacken december, partially because of the tax credit's originally scheduled demise. that caused some buyers to push up their closing, stealing sales from december. however, sales will not fall off a cliff, though, according to walter molony, a nar spokesman. "the psychology seems to be turning around," he said. "potential buyers, who had been staying on the fence, now believe we're at or near the market bottom." one x-factor, however, is the vast numbers of homes that may come to market over the next few months. there is a large "shadow inventory" -- homes owned by banks and mortgage companies -- that have not yet been put up for sale. it could be as many as 1.7 million units, according to first american corelogic. in addition, another spate of foreclosures could be hitting the market as a number of option-arm mortgages are set to default. all that may drive prices down, according to shari olefson, author of "foreclosure nation: mortgaging the american dream." and the impact of these renewed price declines could again alter the market psychology. "people think that prices have bottomed," she said. "i don't think they have. people will see price declines and that will discourage them from buying." mike larson, a real estate analyst with weiss research has preached all through the bust that price declines are what will "fix" the housing crisis. "we needed to see prices fall to make ownership competitive with renting again, and to restore the normal relationship of house prices to income," he said. "that has now happened and you're seeing buyers come out of the woodwork as a result." still, they will have to come out in large numbers to offset the inventory overhang in some of the worst markets, according to olefson. in the florida condo market, for example, there is a 35-to-40 month supply of units at the current rates of sale, she said. prices still almost certainly have further to fall --quote-- source: http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/22/rea l_estate/november_existing_home_sal es/index.htm

home sales were down again in November - and there are millions more homes that will probably be foreclosed in the next yr or two, which will keep house prices down - the real estate market has years to go before most homeowners (including me) have positive equity again

Powered by

I am a mortgage broker, looking only for wholesale. i have a purchase for a home in tacoma, washington that is owned by the city, and is only being offered by a leasehold estate for 99 years with an option to renew. problem is, i don't know any banks that will go for this. purchase price is $200,000. i know indian reservation land is also leased property, so if there are any banks that handle indian land, i'm sure that would work for me too, i'm just not sure who those banks are.

Wow...that is a hard one...post your scenario on http://www.scotsmanguide.com/default.asp?ID=1242 you might find someone

Powered by

I'm only 16, and i don't know much about law yet, but i thought i would try to understand a little better. this is kind of long, so please only read if you intend on helping. my parents bought a house back in 2001 for $33,000 outright and clear. it was a piece of crap, but had 17 acres, so they thought it would be a good investment. my dad is a contractor, and for several years he would do jobs for other people, fixing our house little by little as he could. in 2006 a man that my dad had had dealings with before offered him a deal. if we put his name on a 3rd of the title, he would pay for the materials for our house, pay us labor money when it sold, and would get half the profit when it sold. so we moved out and rented a small place while work was going on. but as it turns out, the guy borrowed $230,000 against our property. the bank (washington mutual) authorized a construction loan of what the estimated future value of what the house would be. i know it is illegal to do that when the house isn't your main address and the one you live at. the loan wasn't under my parents name, and had nothing to do with us. overall, the guy paid us $75,000 for materials on the house, and spent $155,000 on vacations, cars, and other jobs. -_- all the money was supposed to go towards this one property. so basically he took the equity out of our house, and turned around and paid us with our own money. after two years of working hard on this place, we get a call from the guy saying he is out of money, we're not going to be able to finish, he's months late on the mortgage payment, and he's declaring bankruptcy. all of this, and we still haven't been paid for labor ( i did quite a bit too). immediately my mom slapped on a contractor's lien against the house for $257,000. we didn't have the $1,500 to foreclose on the house, so the bank decided to wait us out until it expired, then try to foreclose on it. so now our only option is to file a lawsuit against the guy, and now (chase) bank for fraud and damages. chase refuses to speak with us because we our not on the loan, yet they're trying to take our house. don't get me wrong, we are not sue happy people. we are people who have been screwed out of two years of work, and now cannot even afford to renew our bonding and insurance, so my dad can't work. my mom has had many medical disasters because of the stress of this. including numerous surgeries for collapsed arteries and strokes. i am the main money maker as of right now, with my part time job at mcdonalds. we have also spent the past year guarding this house and maintaining it from vandalism. we can't afford to hire a lawyer, and none are confident enough to step up to the bank. so my mom has taken legal action of her own. she is filing a lawsuit and complaint, and is going to be representing herself in court. what we want is just the title to the house free and clear. so what do you think is going to happen in the end of this?

Honestly, this question is above the realm of expertise for people on Yahoo to answer. You guys need to contact a lawyer ASAP. The whole situation is horrible and I am very sorry this has happened to you. Please contact an attorney or your states legal board to get a recommendation because the sooner someone can act on this for you the better. Good luck.

Powered by

Before i got married, i was frugal and had great credit. i knew my husband was not very good with money, mostly because he couldn't remember to break out the check book and pay his bills. my husband has poor credit when we got married but with me being the "bill payer" in the family, we were able to pull his credit score up. at the beginning of our marriage, i noticed he liked to spend but after a gentle reminder we needed the money to pay this or that bill, he would calm down. however, in the last three years, i've noticed that his spending has become worse and his attitude toward it has become very negative. first, we had a joint checking account, but he would never tell me when he was taking money out (although he never put in). so, i began bouncing checks. after a year of this, i shut it down. he understood the reason for my decision and that was the end of it. about two years later, i got us a joint credit card. foolish, i know, but i honestly thought with his making more money and growing up a bit, he would be able to handle it. i was wrong. over the past year, he has rung it up to it's max. it's not that he goes on shopping sprees and buys junk. most of it is irresponsibility (like renting something and never returning it so it rings ups thousands of dollars) or buying me flowers (it's nice and all but on our joint card?) and insisting we eat out all the time (though he swears it has nothing to do with my cooking). today, he called me from the gas station to come rescue him because our credit card was declined because it was maxed out (i'm hoping the embarassment would teach him a lesson but something tells me he didn't learn anything). i've tried numerous times to have a civil discussion about the problem but i get empty promises "i'm having a good month, i'll give you a little extra at the end of the month to help pay the card" only i don't see it or he gives me an extra $300 then he rings up $500. or he gets defensive and screams at me. i've tried a couple of things that have done more harm than good. when i went in to get my car loan a couple months ago (i had to get another car because my old car finally died), i was talking to my bank. i happened to mention in passing that my husband likes to ring up the credit card and i just couldn't reel him in. she suggested that i transfer the balance from my card that has a high apr to their card for a lower apr and then letting my old card expire and not renew it so the new card is in my name only and i can pay it off. i had no intentions of telling him the plan. only to have my bank call me and leave a message on our answering machine. he asked about the message and i told him that it was about transfering our balance to a different card. i think he realized what i was doing and he acted a little disgusted about it. but i didn't care. today after the situation at the gas station, he asked about the new card (which i decided not to transfer the balance until the card expired to prevent the card from getting rung up again before it expired at the end of next month. i explained i hadn't activated the new card yet and that i thought we ought to not use the new card and go on a cash only basis. he threw a fit about not having a card for emergencies. i suggested he open up his own credit card and see if he can get something with a low balance. i'm done with us having joint expenses. he's 40 years old and still can't handle being responsible with money. i feel that i have no choice but to separate our expenses with the exception of the mortgage, utilities and car insurance. this issue isn't going to go away just because i split our expenses. eventually, he's going to start relying on me to bail him out everytime he can't charge his gas or charge his lunch at mcdonalds (i could kill mcdonalds for having a credit card paying option). and it's going to be a source of many arguments from now on (we don't really fight about much... just this). i also want to add that a lot of his spending (outside of eating out, flowers and not returning items he rents) but also commits us to things that we don't have money to do. for instance, he will make plans with our friends and buy the tickets for concerts or rent hotels for weekend trips away without out my knowledge or consent or he'll tell his parents that yes, we'll join them on their vacation (where we are paying our own way) without consulting me. he does this often, even when money isn't involved (sure, my wife and i would love to come to your party!). this gets under my skin! it's these behaviors that are slowly eating away at our marriage. when i said i would love him for richer or for poorer... i thought it meant for richer or for poorer when it's beyond his control not through lack of responsibility. i could really use some advice. liz - people change. my husband was trustworthy when i married him. just because you marry someone doesn't mean everything in your marriage is going to be wonderful. no marriage is perfect and trust can be broken.

It's hard to look this problem straight in the face I'm sure... You can't control him but you can control yourself. It's good that you are beginning to stop enabling his behaviors. Next time this happens do not let him cross your boundary, allow him the experience of solving the problem on his own and holding him accountable. Get separate accounts, you have a marriage...you did not sign up to be his benefactor or parent. You can love someone with the entirety of the world and still not give them the ability to put you out or cross your boundaries. Next time he commits to something you don't want to do, make it clear. Don't get mad but simply say you are not interested or you cannot afford it. If he insists then it is his decision and he can do it alone and pay for it alone. With his own money. On his own card!

Powered by

Interest rates have nowhere to go but up buzz up! 191 print on sunday april 11, 2010, 1:00 pm edt even as prospects for the american economy brighten, consumers are about to face a new financial burden: a sustained period of rising interest rates. that, economists say, is the inevitable outcome of the nation’s ballooning debt and the renewed prospect of inflation as the economy recovers from the depths of the recent recession. the shift is sure to come as a shock to consumers whose spending habits were shaped by a historic 30-year decline in the cost of borrowing. “americans have assumed the roller coaster goes one way,” said bill gross, whose investment firm, pimco, has taken part in a broad sell-off of government debt, which has pushed up interest rates. “it’s been a great thrill as rates descended, but now we face an extended climb.” the impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. the rate for a 30-year fixed rate mortgage has risen half a point since december, hitting 5.31 last week, the highest level since last summer. along with the sell-off in bonds, the federal reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates. “mortgage rates are unlikely to go lower than they are now, and if they go higher, we’re likely to see a reversal of the gains in the housing market,” said christopher j. mayer, a professor of finance and economics at columbia business school. “it’s a really big risk.” each increase of 1 percentage point in rates adds as much as 19 percent to the total cost of a home, according to mr. mayer. the mortgage bankers association expects the rise to continue, with the 30-year mortgage rate going to 5.5 percent by late summer and as high as 6 percent by the end of the year. another area in which higher rates are likely to affect consumers is credit card use. and last week, the federal reserve reported that the average interest rate on credit cards reached 14.26 percent in february, the highest since 2001. that is up from 12.03 percent when rates bottomed in the fourth quarter of 2008 — a jump that amounts to about $200 a year in additional interest payments for the typical american household. with losses from credit card defaults rising and with capital to back credit cards harder to come by, issuers are likely to increase rates to 16 or 17 percent by the fall, according to dennis moroney, a research director at the towergroup, a financial research company. “the banks don’t have a lot of pricing options,” mr. moroney said. “they’re targeting people who carry a balance from month to month.” similarly, many car loans have already become significantly more expensive, with rates at auto finance companies rising to 4.72 percent in february from 3.26 percent in december, according to the federal reserve. washington, too, is expecting to have to pay more to borrow the money it needs for programs. the office of management and budget expects the rate on the benchmark 10-year united states treasury note to remain close to 3.9 percent for the rest of the year, but then rise to 4.5 percent in 2011 and 5 percent in 2012. the run-up in rates is quickening as investors steer more of their money away from bonds and as washington unplugs the economic life support programs that kept rates low through the financial crisis. mortgage rates and car loans are linked to the yield on long-term bonds. besides the inflation fears set off by the strengthening economy, mr. gross said he was also wary of treasury bonds because he feared the burgeoning supply of new debt issued to finance the government’s huge budget deficits would overwhelm demand, driving interest rates higher. nine months ago, united states government debt accounted for half of the assets in mr. gross’s flagship fund, pimco total return. that has shrunk to 30 percent now — the lowest ever in the fund’s 23-year history — as mr. gross has sold american bonds in favor of debt from europe, particularly germany, as well as from developing countries like brazil. last week, the yield on the benchmark 10-year treasury note briefly crossed the psychologically important threshold of 4 percent, as the treasury auctioned off $82 billion in new debt. that is nearly twice as much as the government paid in the fall of 2008, when investors sought out ultrasafe assets like treasury securities after the collapse of lehman brothers and the beginning of the credit crisis. though still very low by historical standards, the rise of bond yields since then is reversing a decline that began in 1981, when 10-year note yields reached nearly 16 percent. from that peak, steadily dropping interest rates have fed a three-decade lending boom, during which american consumers borrowed more and more but managed to hold down the portion of their income devoted to payin

We're seeing an exact carbon-copy repeat of the Carter years thanks to people who were either not alive yet then or are denying that it ever happened so that they can feel GOOD about electing Obama.

Powered by

I read the following nyt article in regard the housing slump. one part of the article, i did not understand. the author writes that millions of homeowners remain at risk of defaulting on their mortgages if they experience a payment shock because they owe more than their house is worth. can you explain how lower home value leads to a payment shock which leads to a default on a mortgage. assuming you have a fixed rate mortgage, whether the value of your home goes up or down, you still have the same monthly mortgage payment, right? so where is the payment shock coming from? thank you for your help. u.s. tackles housing slump the obama administration is ramping up talks on how to revive the housing market, which is weighing on the economic recovery—and possibly the president's re-election in 2012. last year, advisers considered several housing-policy prescriptions but rejected them in favor of letting the market sort things out. since then, weak demand and a stream of foreclosed properties have put renewed pressure on home prices, prompting concern within the white house. housing "hasn't bottomed out as quickly as we expected," president barack obama said at a white house town hall last week. mr. obama said housing remained the "most stubborn" problem facing the country and conceded that a raft of federal mortgage-aid programs were "not enough, and so we're going back to the drawing board." policy ideas include having taxpayer-owned mortgage giants fannie mae and freddie mac relax their rules for loans to investors, allowing those buyers to vacuum up excess housing inventory. in certain markets, fannie and freddie could hold some foreclosed homes off the market and rent them out to ease the property glut. officials also could sweeten incentives for banks to reduce loan balances for borrowers who are underwater, or owe more than their homes are worth. the white house is weighing ideas to strengthen the feeble housing market. pictured, emptying a foreclosed home in lawrenceville, ga., this year. discussions are in early stages, and there isn't consensus around particular ideas. a spokeswoman said the president and his advisers "are always looking at new ways" to strengthen the housing market but wouldn't disclose details. "while we continue to consider the options available to us, it would be inaccurate to say we are proposing any of these particular ideas at this time," white house spokeswoman amy brundage said. home-buyer tax credits worth up to $8,000 in 2009 and 2010 gave a short-term boost to home sales, but demand plunged after they expired. foreclosures have put pressure on prices and damped residential construction, traditionally an engine of job growth during economic expansions. "as conditions change, some options that were below the line the way the market was 18 months ago might be above the line today," said peter p. swire, who teaches law at ohio state university and until last year was a top housing adviser to the white house. most of the administration's housing efforts have focused on helping borrowers refinance or modify their loans to avoid foreclosure. but some economists say too many borrowers won't be saved through loan workouts and that the administration must do more to soak up the flood of foreclosures by boosting housing demand. view full image president obama's signature loan-modification program, announced during his first month in office, has lowered payments for around 600,000 borrowers. meanwhile, around four million borrowers are in foreclosure or have missed three or more consecutive mortgage payments. while mortgage-delinquency rates have fallen, millions more remain at risk of defaulting if they experience a payment shock because they owe more than their homes are worth. more recent housing relief has targeted unemployed borrowers. last week, officials said unemployed borrowers with loans backed by the federal housing administration could miss up to 12 months of payments while they look for new jobs. a separate $1 billion program is set to begin providing interest-free loans of up to $50,000 for temporarily jobless borrowers this month. unlikely to get congress to provide additional funds, the administration is left to examine options that it can implement without congressional consent. fannie and freddie, the so-called government-sponsored enterprises or gses, could be one policy lever. "there are a number of things that we can look at on the gse side," said austan goolsbee, departing chairman of the council of economic advisers. last year, officials considered a range of policies that included allowing borrowers with loans backed by fannie and freddie to refinance more easily by relaxing fees that lenders are charged for riskier borrowers. others outside the administration have pushed for fede

A couple of things: a) There are still millions of ARMs out there coming to maturity over the next couple of years. So a barely affordable payment on an 'upside down' piece of real-estate may no longer be affordable or practical when compared to walking away. b) Equity is the means by which people often measure their wealth and calculate the value of ownership vs. renting. If paying a mortgage for a property where there is no (or negative) equity exceeds the cost of renting, the decision to walk away becomes a valid option (from a purely selfish point of view). c) Often individuals will make sacrifices to keep their house (ownership) if they experience a bump in the road - layoff or reduced hours or medical emergency or similar. If they perceive that there is no residual or future value in such a sacrifice due to negative equity, they will again walk away rather than tough it out. Those are the three obvious reasons, anyway.