It may go as high as 5.5%.

The government does not set the prime rate. Prime rate is a tool for a bank to simplify adjusting the interest on their products, from mortgages to credit lines. Each bank set its own prime rate, and, technically, it can be set to any number, as long as it moves in lockstep with BofC overnight rate. In practice, however, all banks set their prime rates to BofC rate 2%. Do not ask me where these 2% came from, but they allow banks to offer loans at less then prime and still earn money on the difference with BofC overnight rate.

Powered by

I have less than perfect credit and my hubby just had to file bankrupsty on his credit cards about 4 months ago because he had lost his job last year and we did everything we could to not get behind on our house payment. we were successful in that but were unable to pay his credit cards in order to do that. he received zero unemployment for 4 months. we live in michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country! anyway, i read today that citi group is preparing mortgage packages for at risk homeowners. i feel i would qualify for that based on the fact that my mortgage is an arm and will adjust in 5 years. should i just wait to re-finance in 5 years or should i try to jump on board with citi? the article named wells fargo as being another company that is predicted to help out at risk owners. if they make my mortgage fixed, i have no reason to re-finance. my rate was supposed to adjust in 2007 but they extended it 2013. should i just wait and see if wells fargo offers me something?

wait--things will get better

Powered by

We are having to get a mortgage with a lender that charges quite high interest due to my previous bankruptcy. however this will dissappear from my credit file in may 2013, obviously this means that as far as my credit score goes i will be starting from scratch again at this stage. would we be able to the get a new mortgage or re-mortgage with another company with a normal interest rate at this time?

No, you can't always refinance a mortgage. You have to have a minimum of 20% equity and qualify according to the lender's underwriting guidelines. Equity is the property's market value minus all mortgage balances, such as a first mortgage and a home equity line of credit. So if you aren't putting at least 20% down to buy the home, it's not likely that you'll have 20% equity in a couple of years. Here's more information: http://moneygirl.quickanddirtytips.com/how-to-qualify-for-a-mortgage-or-refinance.aspx.

Powered by

Hi guys, here's my question. i have a mortgaged home since the last 2 years (jan, 2008 to be precise). i opted for a fixed rate 5 years term, which will expire in 2013 and the rate is 5.9% (fixed). now, i am thinking to sell my house. my question is if there would be any penalty apart from what i owe to the bank? if i sell my house, say for $350,000 and i owe bank $303,000 does it mean i will have a balance of $47000 in hand, or would i incur any penalty as i believe it's the case. i will also contact bank for all details, but want to ask some experts here first to have some opinions. what's the best way to go about in this situation? will i be in loss here? please suggest. thanks in advance.

You would have to look at your mortgage agreement/talk to your lender to determine if it has any pre-payment penalties. Other than a possible lender pre-payment penalty, there wouldn't be any other "penalty" that I can think of.

Powered by

Liberal-conservative coalition we are being sent back to conservaitive britain 80s britain and the familys on disability living allowance and child benefit and child tax credit s . cuts child tax credit people on any benefits but this is how its going to worke •child tax credit - the child element of child tax credit will increase by £150 above indexation in april 2011 and £60 above indexation in april 2012 the amount of child benefit you'll get depends on how many children you’re entitled to get child benefit for, and the current rates of child benefit. when you start getting child benefit you'll get paid at the rates for the current year. the amount you receive usually goes up in april each year. the rates are as follows: who the allowance is for current weekly amount eldest or only child £20.30 additional children - per child £13.40 guardian's allowance - per child £14.30 what happens if two families join together, or a family splits? only one child in your family, or extended family, qualifies for the higher rate of child benefit. if two families join together, the eldest child is the one who qualifies for the higher rate. if you are entitled to child benefit for any other children in the new family you will get the lower rate for each of them. if a family splits up you can get the higher rate for your eldest child, as long as you still qualify for child benefit for them. •child tax credit - families earning more than £40,000/yr won’t get child tax credit from april 2011 •child benefit - rates will stay the same for three years •welfare reform - housing benefit and disability living allowance will be reformed to focus on those most in need •benefits and tax credits will be worked out using the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index from april 2011.child tax credit - families earning more than £40,000/yr won’t get child tax credit from april 2011 and this unfaire on the people on the and wive the vat going up to 20% familys are ging to feel the pene and rich are going to get rich . the familys on benefits are going to pay .houseing benefits budget 2010 announced a package of reforms to housing benefit, including: •changing the way local housing allowances are worked out from october 2011 •uprating local housing allowances from 2013-14 using the consumer price index (cpi) •setting a maximum local housing allowance amount for each property size •from october 2010 support for mortgage interest payments will use an interest rate equal to the bank of england’s published monthly average mortgage rate •maximum limits on housing benefit (from £250 a week for a one-bedroom property to £400 a week for a four-bedroom or larger) •from april 2013, the size of houses for working age people in the social sector will reflect family size •reversing the freeze since 2001-02 in deductions for non-dependents – these will be uprated in april 2011 based on the consumer price index (cpi) •from april 2013 reducing housing benefit to 90 per cent after 12 months if you’re also getting jobseekers allowance •increasing the budget for hardship cases (discretionary housing payments) by £40 million covering the cost of an extra room for disabled claimants who need a carer•covering the cost of an extra room for disabled claimants who need a carer s and how is this going to worke for people on .benefits . the coalition and david cameron is macking the people pay more so he can not do any thing to help us just macke us pay more .images of haiti. the full impact of the earthquake is still emerging, but it’s clear that hundreds of thousands of people have either been killed or left homeless. it’s essential that this small nation gets the help it needs as quickly as possible. britain is an incredibly compassionate and generous nation. we showed that five years ago when the british public raised £350m in the wake of the boxing day tsunami, and i’ve no doubt we will show it again. the best way for you to help, if you haven’t already, is to donate directly to the disaster emergency committee. whether you can afford to give £5 or £500, it all makes a difference.and this is the income of people on rates disability living allowance is in two parts - the care component and the mobility component. you may be able to get just one component or both. care component weekly rate highest rate £71.40 middle rate £47.80 lowest rate £18.95 mobility component weekly rate higher rate £49.85 lower rate £18.95

Agreed = we can't afford to pay out to support other nations citizens when our own need help. Time to put a stop to all UK Taxpayer funded foreign aid...

Powered by

First mortgage was a 5 year arm at 5.75% readjusted march of 2010 down to 3.25% on a 1 year libor rate as reported on wall street journal as of dec 18th. margin is 2.25% (included in the 3.25%). second mortgage heloc at 5%. at the height of interest rate 2nd mortgage interest rate went upto 9%. assuming interest rate goes up by year end 2010, should i refinance to a 30 year mortgage? regardless of the real estate market declining or improving, we plan on moving out of this place at least by second half of 2013.

Hello Ouseph, You made a few good decisions and a few bad ones. Looking at your situation; the answer is not in black and white, but then again its not too complicated. It sounds a little childish of me, but I want to label out what you have done out in an orderly fashion, so you know where you are and I know the type of financial dilemma. I will name all the benefits you were probably told of an Adjustable-Rate Mortgage. * Your home's value was probably really high at the time of the purchase, which might explain why you chose this path. It gave you versatility on "purchasing" a bigger home. * Versatility is the road you look like you are driving on. I can see that you have the desire to move from this property. * Not to mention, if your paying lower interest on your mortgage your "saving" some money * on payment towards "your" property. Note: You are very lucky because from what I know about Libor rates are very slow to change. If we are on the ball of positivity, then I will show you the "benefits" of HELOC. * The benefit I see in your HELOC is that your are leaving the market fast, so you will not have to play with numbers and three years will go by fast. * Tax cuts may be something you would have been thinking of when you had gotten this HELOC. * Another benefit I see in a getting a HELOC is the Windfall payments you are able to make anytime, often without a penalty. A HELOC can be cleared anytime altogether, so there is no tension in the interest you will be monthly accumulating. Now I want to ask you a question myself. Why do you want to re-finance? refinancing is just another way the bank is making more and more money from you and who knows. Interest rates could rise soon, as the economy comes out of this trough. You may not even get the same amount of money you have put into your home when you leave your property in 3 years. God forbid that happens, you may still be paying your HELOC and ARM without even having the property that it is for. Several people have had experienced foreclosures, so digging yourself deeper in debt doesn't seem like the solution for you because you have two high risk mortgages. If I still have your attention, I have something you need to see. My dad qualified for a service that has me on track to be totally debt free in 15 years. You need to see if you qualify as well, as it can be life changing from the 30 year mortgage you have (My dad was in this situation as well). The best part about this system is that it can eliminate $1000's of dollars in debt. My dad is personally scheduled to save over 100 grand in interest. We currently live the same lifestyle and nothing has changed in terms of financial situation. Instead of explaining all of this on an Yahoo Answers, if you have any interest please contact me on my Yahoo Account and I will get back to you as soon as possible. - If a broken window was costing you 30 dollars a day in utilities, how long would you take to fix it.

Powered by

After all, except as jewelry, what good is gold? if high inflation is on the way (like around 2013) then what is a good use for money to prevent loss of value of money stashed in savings accounts? you just never know with the u.s. stock market. but what about companies that are financially grounded in china or germany? seems like - here at home in the u.s. - maybe something like an inexpensive high-efficiency car or high-efficiency appliances or home energy conservation investments might be a smart hedge against inflation. i think inflatiion is on the way! here is why: #1 the obama administration reminds me of the carter administration (the interest rate for my first mortgage in 1981 was 17%), and #2 i believe that there is going to be a second wave of foreclosures caused by a wave of commercial mortgage defaults starting around 2013, and #3 obama seems to be unable to effectively create jobs in the us; and without jobs, there is no great tax base, so then the federal gov't must inevitable start printing more money in order to pay all those debt obligations that are accruing.

First off you need to understand that gold is not an investment. Gold is and acts more like an insurance policy. You are insuring that something in your portfolio can never go to $0.00. All paper assets have the ability to go to $0.00. This is what you are insuring against. The only other asset to not go to zero is real estate. But real estate is illiquid. Because of the debt time bomb you better own gold. The best way to own gold is to buy and take physical delivery of the gold itself. Silver is also in the gold realm as well, so when talking about gold, silver is included. It is always a good idea to own some gold and silver at all price levels. To truly understand gold and silver, and why you should own it you have to understand the economy and get the movie of life on the largest screen possible. Gold is money and a store of value. It is the "Currency of last resort" as Greenspan has stated many times through the years. Gold doesnt pay interest, dividends, doesnt restate earnings, has no lawyers, accountants, CEOs or CFOs lying to you on television. Gold doesnt ask for bailouts, doesnt go Bankrupt and cannot cook its books. Gold cant be debased or printed at the will of a company or governmetnt and holds its purchasing power. Gold sits there as a store of value, is labor intensive, and a one ounce coin will not split into a bunch of half ounce coins at the direction of the pin stripped bandits on Wall Street. Also Gold is the ONLY asset class in the last ten years to increase in value and retain every dollar of its purchasing power. Do not look at gold in terms of price. Look at prices and money in terms of gold. Paper currency doesnt gain in value, neither does gold. In 1999 when gold was at $280.00 an ounce, a one ounce gold bullion coin bought about 400 gallons of gas. Today with gas prices up and gold at $1250.00 an ounce the same one ounce gold coin still buys about the same amount of gas. This is true for food, energy, and other basic items needed for living. The gold didnt gain value at all. It stayed the same. It only takes more paper to buy the same amount of goods and services. If gold were to fall say down to $400 an ounce again then that would mean all prices would fall as well. Do you see gas going back to $1.00 a gallon anytime soon? Look at gold as a currency and as insurance of buying power and a store of value not as an investment. Therefore dont worry about the price of gold in paper terms. As Alan Greenspan former Chairman of the Federal Reserve said .... "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Powered by

I've been dating someone for over 6 years - we're both 25. when we were first going out, we said that we'd like get married after 7 years together, because 25/26 would be a good age. the 7-year mark is coming up next month. we were admittedly young and maybe naive when we said that we'd marry at 25 no matter what, and now lately he's been saying that he'd like to be able to buy a house (or at least a condo or a townhome) before we get married. i agree - this is a good plan and very responsible. we were watching tv one night last month and the show made a comment about marriage, and i asked him when he figured we'd get married, and his response was, "i don't know, before we're 30 i guess." he had also made a proposal-related joke in relation to a trip we're going on next month, so since i thought there's a chance that he might ask me then, i didn't press the issue out of fear of ruining it. then he remarked a few weeks ago that he'd like to look at houses this summer, and asked if i would chip in money with him to buy it and then live with him. i said that i'd like to be engaged if i'm going to go in on a house with him, and he agreed and said that was a good plan. so that initially made me think that we'd get engaged sometime this year and married in 2010 or early 2011. he's a teacher, and this is his first year at the school where he's currently teaching. in our state (not sure if it's the same everywhere else), in order to get tenure, you need to be working in the same district for 3 years. which means that, assuming that he's in the same school at the start of the 2011-2012 school year, he will have tenure. we went out last night with some friends who are also teachers in the same school and who have been there a while and "know the ropes." they remarked to bf that it's common practice for every non-tenured teacher to be "fired" at the end of the school year, and then re-hired for the start of the following school year ... meaning that he would be "unemployed" for the summer while he waited to hear whether he's re-hired or not. our friends assured him that there's about a 95%-99% chance that he'd be re-hired, and his chances are even greater because he's a science teacher and science teachers are in high demand in this district. on the way home, bf began complaining right away (he tends to get upset at things and is a giant worrywart) that he doesn't want to be fired at the end of the year. he wants to stay in this district because the kids are a lot better than the last district her worked (inner-city, badly behaved, no discipline by the administration, and high failure rate) and he likes the commute. i kept trying to remind him about what our friends said - that chances are slim to none that he won't be welcomed back - but he wouldn't listen. he ended the conversation with, "well, i guess that means i can't look for a house this summer, because i'll have guarantee of a job." now i'm incredibly depressed because it seems like he won't even want to think about getting engaged until fall 2011, when he gets tenure/guarantee of job safety. which means that we probably wouldn't actually get married until late 2012/sometime in 2013, at age 29/30. i think that's too long, especially because we'd like to have kids (i'd ideally like to be married at least a year or two before getting pregnant, so that's at least 30-32 years old) and i don't want to put them in danger by waiting too long to have them. on the one hand, i applaud him for being responsible and wanting job security before we commit to a house and a mortgage. but on the other hand, i think he's really hung up on the "what ifs" in life - that's just his personality. i'm afraid that he's going to keep putting it off and pushing it back because he's afraid of all the things that "might" happen ... i mean, what if he works at this school for 2 more years and then they fire him before he can get tenure? then he'd want to wait another 3 years to get tenure at another school. what if he gets hit by a bus tomorrow and can never work again and won't have a pension to live off of? i'm just very depressed and discouraged because all he's talked about since i met him was owning a home and having a family, and now he's within reaching distance of that goal but he is afraid to take the leap and get it for himself because of what could potentially happen. he tells me that i'm too hopefull and too impractical, whereas i'm telling him that he's never going to get what he wants in life because he's afraid and that there are times when you need to just take a chance. i know he's not just blowing off marriage and being with me in general (as in, he's not just trying to shut me up by saying, "some day, some day" and then keeping the cow because he's getting the milk for free). i know he wants kids and i absolutely refuse to have them if we're not married (and he agrees with this). it's really hard for me to just brush it off and be patient, becau

I think that you should tell him what you just told us. He seems so responsible and will see the reasons behind what you want and might go with it. He seems like a great kind responsible guy so keep hold of him and don't let him go.

Powered by

How would you solve the deficit if you were in charge? based on the nytimes calculator, this is what i came up with. but tell me what you would do differently and why? where i cut spending cut foreign aid in half save 17 billion by 2030 eliminate earmarks save 14 billion eliminate farm subsidies save $14 billion cut pay of civilian federal workers by 5 percent save 17 billion reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent save 15 billion cut 250,000 government contractors save 17 billion reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending ( we dont need to go to space if we can feed ourselves) save 38 billion reduce military to pre-iraq war size and further reduce troops in asia and europe save $49 billion reduce navy and air force fleets save $24 billion cancel or delay some weapons programs save $18 billion reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead save $51 billion reduce the number of troops in iraq and afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013 reducing troops by to 30,000 from 60,000 could save an additional $20 billion by 2030. save $169 billion enact medical malpractice reform save $13 billion increase the medicare eligibility age to 70 this option would save nearly $50 billion more than increasing the age to 68 would. save $104 billion reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance save $157 billion reduce social security benefits for those with high incomes save $54 billion return the estate tax to clinton-era levels save $104 billion return rates to clinton-era levels save $46 billion allow expiration for income below $250,000 a year save $252 billion millionaire's tax on income above $1 million save $95 billion eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher this option is the same as the previous one – except that tax rates would be cut less, raising more revenue to reduce the deficit. save $315 billion reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households . save $54 billion national sales tax ( denmark pays 50 percent and other countries pay upwards of that 5 percent aint gonna kill ya!) nearly every other rich country has a tax on consumption, also known as a value-added tax or national sales tax. this option would impose a 5 percent consumption tax, exempting education, housing and charitable giving. save $281 billion bank tax this option would tax banks based on the size of their holdings and the perceived riskiness of those holdings. larger, riskier banks would pay more tax, both to discourage them from taking big risks and to help cover the costs of future financial crises. save $103 billion you would have 56% savings from the tax increases and 44 percent from spending cuts our shortfall is 1,345 billion this plan leaves us with $1,769 billion we would once again have a surplus. if you wanna see how i did it it, try it yourself here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2010/… sorry the definitions for everything would not fit into yahoo answers so you will need to look at the link if you need clarification on what each measure is. some of these were tough choices, but try it yourself and see if you can come up with a better plan. i highly encourage it, people need to be more involved in government so government does not run the people. source(s): my plan http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/ 2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-gr aphic.html?choices=zmxq452x you can also use the link to make your own i realize it is only a guideline and does not include everything but it does make you consider would u keep the space program over medicare. it states the amount of the deficit so is there anyone that can actually use either that format or another formula to show how they would actually close the gap in more than two sentences. i want numbers not names please.

Wow thats impressive..it looks and sounds like it could work and will work if attemped. Its cool how one person could have the answer (double thumbs up)

Powered by

I purchased a shared ownship property a couple of years back. it is now worth less than i paid for it plus i am in a arrears repayment arrangements for both rent and mortgage after i fell unemployed earlier this year. i decided to downsize as much as i could, sold my car, let out my property and returned to university to upskill after months of trying to find a new job. i have set up a payment plan on all my debts but it is just a token payment. i am surviving mainy on student loans and maintanace while i complete my course however i am in some sense robbing peter to pay paul. i am now looking for part time work. the rent i receive from renting my property covers the outgoings however there is a risk that this could change if interest rates moved up by more than 1.5%. there is also a risk with regards to local housing allowance changes as the tentant is paying through housing benifit; however the price falls under any predicted local housing allowance reduction at the moment. i expect to be studying until june 2013. i would expect to be earning 40k plus once finished with my combined experience. i just wanted to get peoples opinions on wether bankrupcy is the best option. here is a summary of what i owe. i am wondering if it would make sense to try and wipe the slate clean and start afresh or slowly repay the debt which is crippling. it would probably take 10 years to repay. not taking into account any windfalls or house price gain. £42000 in personal loans, credit cards and private debt ( interest frozen ) £1500 mortgage arrears and £4000 rent arrears - repayment plan in place property value 50% worth 80k owing 84k. add student debt onto that over next 3 years

There are quite a few options open to you before you have to resort to bankruptcy. Have a look at these debt solutions http://www.payplan.com/debt-solutions/ and get some free advice before making any decisions. Good luck!