Hello Hendrick - Ontario Canada, you can refinance and get an equivalent 20% from your equity and use it for downpayment. I would guess this will be a rental property. There are ways to do it. Send me a quick email at victor_catalan@centum.ca and we can take a look at your case and see if you have enough equity to pull.

Powered by

I moved to the us a few years ago from the uk where i still have a property. i have a uk mortgage on that property. trouble is uk banks dont offer fixed mortgages over 5 years. does anyone know if its possible to secure a us mortgage on a overseas property? id like to get a fixed long term rate and maybe even benefit from the current cheap gbp and stronger $ which i think will not be the case for long.. any advice or feedback appreciated...

A strictly US based bank is not going to issue a mortgage on a property overseas. If you default on the loan, they have no way at all of recovering their loan since the collateral is in another country. You will have to do business with a bank like American Express that has offices in both the US and the UK.

Powered by

Loan term says: heloc amount $84000; heloc interest rate rate 9.375%; heloc term 10 yr draw/20 yr amort; heloc index 8.25%; heloc margin 1.125%; max closing draw - $83916; frao amt $84; frao rate 8.625%; frao term 36 years; broker rebate 0.00%; discount 0.0%; cltv 100%; est monthly payment $656.25 . my lender said that i would be paying the fixed monthly payment of $656.25 throughout the life of the loan should i not take money from my equity in the future. is this true? if not, how high can my new interest rate gonna be and how often would it adjust? can somebody explain the loan terms? is it a good deal? many thanks. actually, this is for the 2nd mortgage.

Ask an accountant mate,I don't think we are too qualified to answer your question on here.

Powered by

The housing crisis is unprecedented; the same way that the first $700 billion bail-out ratified in about a week time was. i know that the mortgage rates are at record 40- year low, but it is not enough! we should have the interest rates at lowest ever as an emergency, the same way as bail-out for big corporations was. when you bundle 5 million foreclosures, it should become "too big to fail", but it did not because no one as powerful as the treasury secretary (who listens to the wall street) could tell the president to stop the failures (for whatever reasons) now. to stop the foreclosures (over 1 million in 2010), the government must figure out a way to reduce the 30-year fixed long term mortgage rates to about 3%. there should be certain percentage of loans with even lower rates for a 5, 10, and 15 year terms.the percentage should be figured out based on a formula that the economy could absorb when the loans would become due and have to be refinanced. the longer the term of the loan, the less of a future problem since over time the inflation as well as the reduced principal of the mortgage loan would take away the risk. then, the mortgage payments would become affordable and it would become cheaper to own than rent. investors would snap the rest of the properties to rent them. the foreclosures would stop. the banks would be in better shape since the potentially bad loans would become good performing loans. more people would qualify for a new loan or refinancing since the payments are lower with the lower interest rates. now the government is trying to reduce and subsidize the principal amount of a loan to reduce monthly payments. this is not working since the home prices are falling further. if the interest rates go down, the property values will go up and payments become affordable at the same time. the wealth creation due to increased home values would stimulate the economy further. the guidelines for lending should be also modified to be more realistic without increasing risk. banks must participate in loan risks. fannie and freddie should have a very limited role. the banks are now paying record low interest for saving accounts and should use the money with some kind of an insurance added to mortgage fees and then banks could participate in loan risks based on more realistic criteria.for example, if a person has not been late during the past few years, he would not be posing a new risk if his mortgage loan interest rate go down resulting in lower payments. he should be automatically eligible for refinancing with the lower payments since he has been paying the higher payments throughout the most difficult period during the housing crisis. many big financial institutions got the government bailout money and manipulated the stock market to make record profit. other companies on wall street recovered fast due to interest rates being near zero. for example, ibm had record profit because like many other companies they could borrow at 1%. as it was reported. why can't the homeowners on the main street be treated the same way and given cheap money to turn around the housing foreclosures. if it was good for the wall street, it must be good for the main street. the reality is the lobbyist from big companies have more influence over the government decisions than the middle and working classes. there were over 1 million foreclosures last year and the suffering is unimaginable among the children of these group of people. there will be even more foreclosures in 2011, unless the interest rates go down further. if interest rates go down it will stimulate the housing industry. the jobs created by the housing industry with lower mortgage rates would benefit the main street and would bring down the unemployment rates. without housing recovery, the economy will not recover fast and the unemployment would remain high.the obama administration was perceived to be sensitive to the plight of people living on main street, but it made the wall street its first priority for recovery, may be rightfully so. now what? there is no excuse not tobe sensitive to foreclosure rates by letting it go through its normal attrition. the crisis was caused by the greed of wall street and "creative" and fraudulent packaging of the loans into securities. now the common people, with good or bad credit alike, have to pay the price by seeing the equity in their homes vanish. some of the inflated prices were unrealistic. on the other hand when is "enough" is enough. the suffering as a result of foreclosures have reached unacceptable levels in terms of human including innocent children. at least, the government should try as hard as it did to resolve the bankruptcy of aig, goldman sachs, citibank, gm, b of a, and others. in aggregate, the human suffering is the same as if one of the "too big to fail" companies. in other words, when you add a couple of millions of foreclosures together in a bundle, it

prime rate is an extremely short term loan and a completely different kind of loan than a home mortgage that may last 30 years. I have been in real estate since 1978 and have seen prime rate go up and at the same time the mortgage rate go down. They are not closely related at all.

Powered by

Hello everyone. i need some advice & hope you all can help. facts: my house is worth appx. $800,000. my existing loan balance is $400,000. i have 24-years remaining on my 30-year mortgage (5.75%, fixed). i've got no liabilities, other than my mortgage. i make $75,000 per year and put the max into my 401k each year ($16,000). i've got $300,000 in cash savings and $150,000 in 401k funds. i'm 40 years old with a wife and two kids - both under 5. i'm in the hole each month by about $2,000-$3,000, but i'm not too worried it because of the equity that i have. i'm not too worried about having enough funds in retirement, but it is always a question as i want to start my own business - see below. problem: i'm not happy with my job and am thinking of investing $200,000 +/- of my savings into a franchise or starting my own business. i'm looking at refinancing my house, but because i don't make enough money annually, i would have to pay the existing balance down by about $100,000. by paying down the loan and getting a new loan of $325,000 at 3.75% for 15-years, i'd save almost $350,000 in interest over the long term (versus my current mortgage). question: keep the existing mortgage and invest the "extra" $100,000 into stocks and use it when i need to as a rainy day fund? or pay down the mortgage by $100,000 and take out a home equity line if i need it down the road? thanks!!!!!! *** regarding being in the hole $2,000-$3,000 each month: this is in reference to my bills at the end of the month after my net take home pay. in other words, if i bring home $3,000 per month after income taxes, my expenses (including my mortgage) generally are in the $5,000-$6,000 neighborhood. hope this helps

It depends if you can itemize, your tax bracket your interest rate. And you dont want your mortgage to last into your retirement.

Powered by

My partner and i each have mortgages on our homes. i am selling mine and my partner wants to keep hers and rent it out. we want to use the money from the sale of my house and our savings to buy a house together. my partner is 1 year into a 3 year fixed rate mortgage. if we bought a house this year and she was to rent out the apartment, would there be any implications on that mortgage? do we need to turn it to a buy-to-let mortgage or would she not be able to do this because of the fixed term rate she got? any help greatly appreciated! ******* please note uk market *******

The mortgage conditions would often specify that you cannot rent the property without written consent. You need to get such consent before renting it out and you will normally be asked to provide this consent as motgage providers don't lend when you already have a residential mortgage. They will typically charge £70 for such a letter, sometimes it is free depensing on the lender. The consent effectively turns that mortgage into a buy-to-let for however long they give it to you. Play it safe now, because banks would rather have the cash that a mortgage these days. I used to live in a buy-to-let and the sent me a letter refusing further consent for me to live there, so I had to either move out or pay up as I was in breach of the conditions. I moved out. Bradford & Bingley. Great if you can actually get a mortgage these days!

Powered by

X and y were brothers. x paid a fixed mortgage (term= 30 years) on his house and y rented. both had equal amounts to pay... $465.35 in mortgage and in rent. however, y's rent increased at a rate of 5% per annum and x continued making payments of $465.35 as it was a fixed mortgage. x invested the difference between his fixed mortgage and y's escalating rent. each year he would accumulate the monthly savings in a 8% money market fund (compounded monthly) and at the end of the year would invest in a bond mutual fund @ 10% per annum compounded monthly. this continued till the end of the mortgage (30 years). what had this invested accumulated to at the mortgage burning date ? plz show calculations

$567,357.94 In year, y X's mortgage = 465.35 Y's rent = 465.35 * [1.05^(y-1)] So monthly difference = M = 465.35 * [1.05^(y-1) - 1] So X puts this in his money market fund every month during year y. Yearly interest of mm fund = 8%. To get the monthly interest on this account (1+m)^12 = 1.08 m = 0.00643 The value of the money market account at the beginning of year y is M/(1+m) * [1 - 1/(1+m)^12 ] / [1 - 1/(1+m)] = 11.513 * M The value of the account at the end of year y is 11.513*M * 1.08 = 12.434 * M Then he takes this amount at the end of year y and puts it into the mutual fund. Let this value be A(y) A(y) = 12.434 * M = 12.434 * 465.35 * [1.05^(y-1) - 1] = 5786.11 * [1.05^(y-1) - 1] At the end of every year from y = 1 to y = 30 he puts A(y) into the mutual fund. Initial value of mutual fund (y = 0) = ∑ A(y) / 1.1^y = 5786.11 * [ 1/1.05 ∑ (1.05/1.1)^y - ∑ (1/1.1)^y ] These are 2 geometric series going from y = 1 to 30. Total initial value = 5786.11 / 1.05 * 1.05/1.1 *[1 - (1.05/1.1)^30] / [1 - (1.05/1.1)] - 5786.11 / 1.1 *[1 - (1/1.1)^30] / [1 - (1/1.1)] = 32514.46 This value at the END of 30 years is 32514.46 * 1.1^30 = $567,357.94

Powered by

I bought my primary residence 2 1/2 years ago for $60,000 and put $20,000 into it (it was a "fixer upper"). it now appraises at $145,000. i plan on refinancing my $60,000 mortgage to pay for the debt of $20,000 (mixture of credit cards with 0% intros that are running out!) and to make a 20% down payment on an investment property (so i can avoid pmi). i plan on getting another slight "fixer upper" and only want to put in 10-15k into it. i will rent it out for a year or so until i think ive reached a good profit and sell it. plus i only want to have to pay 15% tax rate instead of like 33% (long term investment). i am not familiar with refinancing. should i first get a contract on a property so i can refinance just enough to pay the debt, 20% to put down on the house and alittle money to fix it up? or should i just estimate and refinance now and keep that money in the bank. i would hate to pay interest on money just sitting in the bank. or do you know another way of doing it?

There is always a home equity line of credit you only pay interest on the portion you take out. ie 100k line of credit you pull out 50k you would only pay interest on the 50k you can usually draw on a line of credit for about 10years you can also convert it at any time to a fully amortized loan. If you would like to compare loans feel free to contact me directly I would be more then happy to help my website is http://homefrontmortgage.us

Powered by

This question concerns money borrowed from the nationwide building society. my parents, who are now 73, took out what they thought was £20 000 in equity release from the value of their house (worth now about £200 000 ) 7 years ago. the amount of money "released" was £20 000 which my parents just pay the interest on each month (interest-only). they also have £15000 in outstanding mortgage which is also interest-only. the mortgage term on this £15000 is in 2011/2012. however they have also discovered that the £20 000 has also got to be paid back by 2012 ! they knew that 2011/2012 was when the £15 000 had to be paid back but were under the impression that the £20 000 did not have to be paid back until their death. looking on nationwide's website it says that they do not currently offer lifetime mortgages http://www.nationwide.co.uk/interme diaries/lending-criteria/howmuch.ht m so this leads me to believe that the £20 000 borrowed was just an "ordinary" interest-only mortgage with a fixed end date. do you think this is correct ?

Sounds like it. What does the mortgage agreement say?

Powered by

Please help, i moved in with my boyfriend 7 months ago, and pay my way. he split up with his ex back in january, but she didn't move out til april, she stopped paying anything towards the house as soon as she moved out. we do both want to get her off the mortgage, but she wants 3 grand as a payout, ( she didnt actually put down any money at the start of her mortgage, my boyfriend paid the deposit). we can't actually afford this amount of money in one lump sum, but she isn't willing to have monthly payments which we have offered. my boyfriend has been told that if he transfers her off the interest rate will go up from 5% to 7% (or something like that) which means his payments will go up by around £200 a month. or they have said if he keeps on the mortgage with his ex then he can renew it with a new fixed term for 2 years at the lower rate. obviously this seems like the obvious answer but i don't think i am prepared to live there for another 2 years knowing that she still owns half the house. (she has agreed to this) but bearing in mind this girl is crazy, stalks me finds out my mobile number and texts me accusing my fella of cheating on me with her ( even though i know for certain this is not true) please help and advise as i'm at my wits end!!

well all i can say is unless you can come up with a better financial plan quick you will have two years of living hell -- just for kick what would happens to the payment if he replace her with you on the mortgage!!! i am assuming you have excellent credit and a great job!!! should it be a wash i can see see why the two of you could not come up with 3000 pounds!!!

Powered by

Might be a silly question, but its kind of importnant that i get this right... im just about to start my £225,000 mortgage on my new house. as i understand it, i'm allowed to make overpayments of up to 10% of the loan balance every year without being charged a penalty. i'm assuming this being the case, they'd let me pay up to £22,500 on top of my regular monthly payments in the 1st year??? the 2nd year will be very slightly less??? i just dont know if there's something hidden that i might be missing...and dont want to get stung. hopefully, its just me being over cautious. does it make finacial sense to make these overpayments monthly, yearly or to save the money in a high interest account and hand it over when i re-mortgage at the end of my 2 year fixed term??? thanks.

It sounds as if your assumption is correct, however, I share your distrust of banks, and suggest you speak to someone from the lender and ask for confirmation in writing that your understanding is correct. Failing this, write them a letter, recorded delivery, setting out your understanding of the terms of the loan, and ask them to correct you if you are wrong. If you do not hear from them, you can reasonably assume you've got it right. The high interest option is also a good idea, cash is always more flexible Edit: Martin Lewis' website is www.moneysavingexpert.co.uk