You can leave the bank or get another fixed rate mortgage. When the term is up you are free to do what ever you want and I until you make the decision the bank will have your mortgage at variable open rate.

When you mortgage term end you don`t have any commitment from the bank about the mortgage rate and your rate is variable open. You can shop around for the best mortgage deal for you and if its not in the same bank you can move the mortgage.

If you have an open mortgage there are no penalties involved with breaking it or paying it down quicker. If you have a closed mortgage you will have to pay a penalty to break it and you can only pay it down as quickly as the mortgage agreement allows. Rob.

Powered by

Section a answer both questions in this section (they are worth 30 marks each) 1.bob was employed by adverb plc, a computer company, as a buyer who bought for the company certain components which were used in the manufacture of the computers. he has corruptly been taking commissions from soon ltd, one of the companies with whom he dealt on adverb’s behalf. he was also treasurer of his local cricket club. over the last few months bob has had the following transactions with the bank account into which the corrupt commissions were paid. at a time when the account held £4,132 of bob’s own money, he paid into the account a cheque of £5,000 from soon. shortly thereafter he wrongly paid into the account £474 of cricket club funds. he then withdrew £4,125 from the account and used this to buy shares in x company. he then withdrew further sums amounting to £5,228 and used these on a holiday. he then paid in a further cheque of £5,000 from soon. he applied for a loan under a scheme run by adverb, his employer, for loans towards car purchase, which were made on the strict basis that the money be used only for this purpose and should be immediately returnable if it was not so used.. he was given a loan of £15,000 at 6% pa interest. he paid this into the account. he also paid in a further £1,450 of cricket club funds. bob did not buy a car but instead withdrew £16,150 from the account and purchased shares in y y company. he then withdrew £2,000 and gave this to his brother as a contribution to the cost of his niece’s wedding. he also paid £1,223 from the account for furniture that he gave to his niece and her husband as a wedding gift. he next paid in a further £5,000 cheque from soon and then withdrew £4,780 to fund a further holiday, the shares in x co. have proved a profitable investment and they are now worth £5,570. however, the shares in y co have fallen to £12,100.. the furniture bought for bob’s niece is now worth £1,000. adverb plc have now discovered that bob has been taking commissions from soon ltd and that he has not used the loan to purchase a car. the discrepancies in the cricket club accounts have also come to light. advise adverb plc and the cricket club on proprietary claims that they may make. 2.odun owned the freehold of a house subject to a legal mortgage in favour of ends finance ltd. the mortgage deed provided that odun should not grant any leases or part with possession of the house without the consent of ends finance ltd. in breach of this provision, odun granted a two-year lease of the house to tricia, who was unaware of mortgage or its terms. ends finance ltd learnt of this breach and served notice on odun, addressed to him at the house, exercising its right under the mortgage deed to call in and make immediately payable the whole capital sum of the mortgage loan. in the event of any breach of the terms of the mortgage. the next week, whilst tricia was on holiday, representatives of ends finance ltd entered the house and changed the locks. ends finance ltd then put the premises in the hands of an estate agent for sale at the price suggested by the agent, which reflected its bad state of repair and decoration. . john, an employee of ends ltd then made an offer via the agent to buy, which ends finance accepted. odun claims that a higher price would have been obtained if ends finance had taken time to put the house into a better state of repair advise odun and tricia on possible claims against eden finance ltd and against john.

I think you can find some help in: www.gadwood.comindex1.html i hope you find geart help there

Powered by

Wall street bailout could crimp ceo pay democrats want to rein in rich exit packages and reclaim millions paid to bosses who piled up toxic mortgage assets. but it won't be easy. as congress and the bush administration negotiate over the terms of a financial rescue bill, democrats on capitol hill are drafting language designed to rein in executive compensation, in particular controversial severance packages at foundering companies. and for politicians concerned about the growing backlash on main street over what many see as a bailout of wall street fat cats, executive pay is a ripe target. after all, average total pay for a ceo at one of the 500 biggest companies last year was $12.8 million, double what it was a decade ago. but compensation attorneys and experts say many of the restrictions could prove tough to enforce. executive pay was shaping up as one of a few remaining sticking points as congress and the republican administration hurried to put a deal together amid further stock market declines on sept. 22. in several areas the players were nearing accord, with administration officials reportedly accepting some congressional oversight and relief for homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages -- key provisions for democrats. legislative language circulating on capitol hill on monday afternoon also included mechanisms that would give the government ownership stakes in companies benefiting from the bailout, to make up for losses the government might incur. senate democrats revived a provision that would allow judges to modify the terms of mortgages in bankruptcy proceedings, much as other debts can be adjusted. but the financial-services industry is strongly opposed to the provision and some predicted it would not garner sufficient support in the house. vaguely worded provisions treasury secretary henry paulson was scheduled to appear before the senate banking committee on tuesday, sept. 23, with federal reserve chairman ben bernanke and christopher cox, chairman of the securities & exchange commission. lawmakers have said they hope to craft a deal by the end of the week, when congress is slated to adjourn. severance pay ban language in a draft house bill was similar, applying the restrictions for two years following treasury assistance. but it also imposed additional restrictions on at least some companies, banning severance pay for top executives and requiring the companies to make it easier for substantial shareholders to nominate and elect board members and for shareholders generally to hold advisory votes on executive compensation. legal remedies may be required for one thing, executive compensation is typically governed by multiyear contracts. forcing companies to change provisions in those contracts could require them to reopen negotiations with the executives who stand to lose benefits. getting those execs to agree without sweetening the deal in some other way could prove difficult, especially if the executives are on their way out the door or face being ousted. "if i'm being invited to modify the agreement and then being shown the door at the same time, i'm probably not going to be too agreeable," says lewis wiener, head of the financial-services litigation practice at sutherland asbill & brennan. constitutional challenge possible "claw-back" provisions requiring executives to give up pay or severance benefits if corporate results prove to be misstated, for example, might be even trickier. large companies have increasingly written claw-backs into executive-pay contracts, with triggers ranging from financial restatements to fraud. but where such clauses aren't already in place, the government's insistence on adding one could leave it open to a constitutional challenge under the fifth amendment, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bu dgeting/article/105818/wall-street- bailout-could-crimp-ceo-pay

Most of those azzholes are not deserving of any form of severance pay. They have mismanaged their companies, f*cked over the consumers and employees, and have screwed our nations economy all to hell. I have no sympathy for these bastards and wish they couldn't get a dime of severance pay. Unfortunately the contracts they have will be honored, which just sucks.

Powered by

I am one of those home owners being hit with an arm! my arm term changed this summer and my payment increased about $350 more monthly. i was thinking of a refi to lock my interest (probably will end up paying about the same monthly amount as i am now) but would get cash out to pay off my credit card and my husband's car (taking care of those two monthly payments) and leaving enough for a rainy day or month! on the other hand my friend told me that because of the mortgage crisis, many banks are letting borrowers get into another program. she told me to call my bank and tell them i can't make those high payments and they would probably rather give me the original payment (or close to it), change my loan terms without any refi closing cost associated with this and prevent foreclosure, but won't have any cash out options to eliminate the two debts i need to take care of. status quo is not an option because i can see myself losing the house in a year or so if i don't eliminate some debt.

that other program is FHASecure..and not many lenders offer it. It hasnt been out yet...but not many lenders are FHA approved lenders. I would recommend consolidating all your debt..and using the extra money to build for reserves. it's better to pay tax deductible interest on a house...then to throw it away on car payments. car payments are high...and it's better to be applying that payment towards a mortgage to build equity. a lot of folks will tell you to leave it alone...but that doesnt make sense. IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING then you need to pay it off or you will LOSE EVERYTHING. everyone's car payments are around 300-400..and it's better to be paying ALL YOUR DEBTS down..and start building a savings account.

Powered by

Http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09 /13/one-year-after-crisis-banks-bac k-to-risk-taking/ ew york (sept. 13) - a year after the financial system nearly collapsed, the nation's biggest banks are bigger and regaining their appetite for risk. goldman sachs, jpmorgan chase and others - which have received tens of billions of dollars in federal aid - are once more betting big on bonds, commodities and exotic financial products, trading that nearly stopped during the financial crisis. that wall street is making money again in essentially the same ways that thrust the banking system into chaos last fall is reason for concern on several levels, financial analysts and government officials say. - there have been no significant changes to the federal rules governing their behavior. proposals that have been made to better monitor the financial system and to police the products banks sell to consumers have been held up by lobbyists, lawmakers and turf-protecting regulators. - through mergers and the failure of lehman brothers, the mammoth banks whose near-collapse prompted government rescues have gotten even bigger, increasing the risk they pose to the financial system. and they still make bets that, in the aggregate, are worth far more than the capital they have on hand to cover against potential losses. - the government's response to last year's meltdown was to spend whatever it takes to protect the financial system from collapse - a precedent that could encourage even greater risk-taking from the private sector. lawrence summers, director of the white house national economic council, says an overhaul of financial regulations is needed as soon as possible to keep the financial system safe over the long haul. "you cannot rely on the scars of past crises to ensure against practices that will lead to future crises," summers says. no one is predicting another meltdown from risky trading in the near term. rather, the concern is what happens over time as banks' confidence grows and the memory of the financial crisis of 2008 fades. will they pile on bets to the point that a new asset bubble forms and - as happened with mortgage-backed securities - its undoing endangers banks and the broader economy? "we're seeing the same kind of behavior from the banks, and that could lead to some huge and scary parallels," says simon johnson, former chief economist with the international monetary fund. some risk-taking is good. when banks are willing to invest in companies or lend to home-buyers, that nurtures economic growth by generating employment and consumer spending, feeding a cycle of expansion. the problem is when banks' quest for profits leads them to take on too much risk. in the case of the housing bubble, which burst last year, banks lent too freely to consumers with weak credit and wagered too much on complex financial instruments tied to mortgages. as real-estate prices turned south, so did the financial industry's health. because the largest banks' trading divisions make their bets with each other, their fortunes are intertwined. the collapse of one can threaten another - and another - if it is unable to pay off its debts. this so-called counterparty risk is a major reason the obama administration's regulatory overhaul plan calls for the creation of a "systemic risk regulator." the administration is also seeking tougher capital requirements for banks, arguing that banks' buying of exotic financial products without keeping enough cash on reserve was a key cause of the crisis. treasury secretary timothy geithner has urged the group of 20 nations - which meets this month in pittsburgh - to agree on new capital levels by the end of 2010 and put them in place two years later. geithner hasn't said how much extra capital banks should be required to keep on hand. data from the april-june quarter show that the banks are leaning heavily again on their trading desks for revenue. - during the fourth quarter of 2008, when the financial crisis made even the shrewdest bankers risk-averse, goldman's trading of risky assets nearly stopped. but in the second quarter of 2009, trading revenue had climbed to nearly 50 percent of total revenue, closer to where it was two years ago before the recession began. jp morgan's reliance on trading revenue has exhibited a similar pattern. - also in the second quarter, the five biggest banks' average potential losses from a single day of trading topped $1 billion, up 76 percent from two years ago, according to regulatory filings. the government hasn't just watched banks resume their freewheeling ways and prosper. it has been an enabler in the process. the federal reserve, the treasury department and the federal deposit insurance corp. - during both the bush and obama administrations - have made trillions of dollars available to the biggest banks through bailouts, low-cost loans and loss guarantees designed to stabilize the financial system. the fai the failure of lehman brothers - the biggest bankruptcy in u.s. history - and the panicky sales of bear stearns to jpmorgan and merrill lynch to bank of america, also have transformed wall street. the surviving investment banks have fewer competitors and more market share. five of the biggest banks - goldman, jpmorgan, wells fargo, citigroup and bank of america - posted second-quarter profits totaling $13 billion. that's more than double what they made in the second quarter of 2008 and nearly two-thirds as much as the $20.7 billion they earned in the second quarter of 2007 - when the economy was strong. meanwhile, bank of america and wells fargo today originate 41 percent of all home loans that are backed by fannie mae and freddie mac, according to inside mortgage finance. the banks made $284 billion in such loans in the first half of this year, up from $124 billion during the same period last year. "the big banks now are more powerful than before," said johnson, now a professor at "the big banks now are more powerful than before," said johnson, now a professor at the massachusetts institute of technology's sloan school of management. "their market share has grown and they have a lot of clout in washington." wall street's recovery is also being aided by a stock-market rally that has driven the s&p 500 index up nearly 54 percent since march 9, when it hit a 12-year low. despite the return to profitability, these aren't the high-octane days from before the crisis. to qualify for government backing, the biggest wall street firms are no longer allowed to supercharge their returns by borrowing up to 30 times the value of their assets to place bets on stocks, bonds and other investments. businesses supported by wall street bankers and traders say they've also noticed changes. namely, their customers aren't spending as much on food, drinks and entertainment as they did during the boom years. at fraunces tavern, a high-end bar just around the corner from the new york stock exchange, the wall street workers who used to drink $25 glasses of port are scarce these days. "now we're doing happy hours," says damon testaverde, one of the owners of fraunces tavern. "we never did that. there's just less bodies around." but one thing fundamental to wall street hasn't changed: big banks and their traders are still finding creative - some say speculative - ways to profit. they're still packaging risky mortgages into securities and selling them to investors, who can earn higher returns by purchasing the securities tied to the riskiest mortgages. that was the practice that helped inflate the real estate bubble and eventually spread financial pain around the globe. in a way, the government has emboldened banks to keep selling risky securities: since the crisis erupted, federal emergency programs have helped keep the banks from failing.

You're 100% correct.There was brief talk from Ron Paul about auditing the fed Owned by (Jewish Private Bankers) H.R. 1207: 111th Congress 2009-2010Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009.It was updated 9/11/09,but I have my doubts it will make it (be allowed) out of the house!The only thing that has changed is Obama seeks more and more power for them.Another thing is how many more Czars do we have?Over 30.Right now,the people behind the fall of America are picking it's bones buying up land,Properties etc,for Bargain prices.Obama's as big a crook as there ever was.

Powered by

I bought a house 5 years ago and my first term was a fixed 5 year rate (ending soon). what happens then? i don't want to refinance... i just want to continue paying like before. is the interest rate the only that may change? does the bank send me something to renegotiate the mortgage? not sure how this is done

This is how this all works. Your loan will adjust at the end of the 5th year. The adjustment will be every month, every 6 months or whatever was agreed upon when you got the loan. Each adjustment will have a cap meaning the interest rate will not go higher then a certain % everytime it adjust. THe loan will also have a life cap meaning, no matter how high interest rates go your interest rate will not be higher than whatever % was agreed upon. YOU DO NOT need to refinance if you dont want to BUT it would be in your best financial interest to do it because interest rates are expected to keep on rising. Also at the end of your 5 yr term, the same bank that owns your mortage will call you to "negotiate" the mortgage which is nothing but a refiance. If you refinance through the same bank, you might save money on the closing costs and appraisal, etc, etc because they want your business and they rather you stay with them than leave. BUT they might not have the best interest rates or the best loan options available for you. You can also go directly to another bank and get the refinance done there as well BUT you might not have the best interest rates or the best loan options availabe for you. You can go to a mortgage broker and you might not save money on closing cost, etc, etc but you will get more competitive rates than anybody else. The reason for this is that mortgage brokers do deals everyday with many lenders so the lenders want their business and to get that business they have to stay competitve therefore giving better rates to the mortgage brokers. THIS goes without saying that not ALL mortgage brokers are angels. Some will offer you the stars and will end up taking you for a ride that you will not like. Dont be fooled when someone offers you "No closing cost" or "No points" that is just a marketing gimmic. Read my blog and you will find what I am talkig about. There is an article in the archives of November 2005 that talks about this issue. Well hope you enjoy the reading and I hope it helps you in some way. Good luck

Powered by

Does it seem that all the media hype about the bailouts might be distracting us from the larger picture. that larger picture is ... $11.6 trillion pledged on behalf of the taxpayers over the past 19 months, $7.5 trillion by the federal reserve without debate and vote in congress. see the update calculations from bloomberg as at late february. u.s. bailout, stimulus pledges total $11.6 trillion (table) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news? pid=newsarchive&sid=azchk__xuf8 4 to quote the text: "feb. 24 (bloomberg) -- the following table details how the u.s. government has pledged more than $11.6 trillion on behalf of american taxpayers over the past 19 months, according to data compiled by bloomberg. changes from the previous table, published feb. 9, include a $787 billion economic stimulus package. the federal reserve has new lending commitments totaling $1.8 trillion. it expanded the term asset-backed lending facility, or talf, by $800 billion to $1 trillion and announced a $1 trillion public-private investment fund to buy troubled assets from banks. the u.s. treasury also added $200 billion to its support commitment for fannie mae and freddie mac, the country’s two largest mortgage-finance companies. " (end quote) the amounts are broken down in that article in a table following the text. very interesting. what will happen if the financial crisis deepens and as a result, the amounts the federal reserve has pledged become "current" amounts? do you think the media has done a good job at explaining the big picture? breakdowns from the article --- amounts (billions)--- limit current total $11,623.63 $3,800.18 ----------------------------------- ------------------------ federal reserve $7,565.63 $1,478.88 fdic $1,551.50 $400.30 treasury $2,206.50 $1,621.00 hud total $300.00 $300.00 breakdown of federal reserve total pledged (in billions) primary credit discount = $110.74 secondary credit = $0.19 primary dealer and others = $147.00 abcp liquidity = $152.11 aig credit = $60.00 net portfolio cp funding = $1,800.00 maiden lane (bear stearns) = $29.50 maiden lane ii (aig) = $22.50 maiden lane iii (aig) = $30.00 term securities lending = $250.00 term auction facility = $900.00 securities lending overnight = $10.00 public-private investment fund = $1,000.00 term asset-backed loan facility = $1,000.00 currency swaps/other assets = $606.00 mmiff = $540.00 gse debt purchases = $600.00 citigroup bailout fed portion = $220.40 bank of america bailout = $87.20 and that is just the federal reserve pledges. read the linked article to see the rest including breakdown for treasury.

Its pure fraud. It is pretty clear the government is INTENT on destroying the dollars Get out now while you can, the dollar will soon function as toilet paper. (except not as soft)

Powered by

The bail outs are not free market capitalism, that's fascism to have the government dictate the market. don't tell me it divides the rich and the poor. 50% of the american gdp is from small businesses - fortune magazine not to mention majority of america is middle class, there are more suburbs then any other form of society in america. middle class to me sounds balanced, there isn't a majority of lower or upper class, only a select few in population. in free market capitalism the consumers dictate what they want to buy, the businesses can't survive unless they satisfy what the consumer wants to purchase. with the bail outs the government chose to do ruined the free market, the consumers dictated they don't want cars from gm, the government intervened and bailed them out. in a free market capitalist system, that company would go out of business, and a more efficient business would move in that territory and do a better job. bailing out gm will come back to haunt us if it fails again, it will mandate another bail out or bankruptcy. the banks them selves aren't truly a free market. they are mandated by the government with so many regulations they lose their freedom to choose what to do. the community reinvestment act which fannie mae in 1992 was invested in crashed later at the end of the bush term in 2008. that's 18 years difference in time. home mortgage loans take time to pay off. if you give loans to people that have bad credit obviously they're a hazard to possibly repay it back. banks where mandated by the government to give out the loans to people that didn't qualify. not discrediting banks being greedy they where, but it was the bureaucracy that enabled banks to have bad practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/commun ity_reinvestment_act - read the history the regulations banks under went with all the changes and enabling them to give bad loans is the reason we feel this 18 years later. most peoples home loans take longer then 18 years to pay off. giving them to people that didn't qualify makes it even more dangerous, with the housing market devalued the banks got the homes back with a lower value of the origional loan, cooping an even bigger loss since they can't sell it back. it's not free market capitalism to bail out the banks, and it wasn't free market capitalism for the government to regulate banks on how they distribute home loans. the government made the mess, and it's the tax payer that suffers. this isn't free market capitalism. i just want to make sure you realize free market capitalism doesn't involve government regulation/interference. if you mention things like the fda and fcc, those don't dictate what company's can sell their product at or anything, that's for safety purposes, it will effect a company's cost but they will just push it to the consumer, regulating the cost they put to the consumer will damage their ability to independently function in the free market. so don't bash a system you probably know nothing about. it really upsets me people watch michael moore's movie and think that's capitalism. bail outs are not free market capitalism, it's government interference which is fascism. sakata gintoki: wow you're pretty ignorant, the people in other countries wouldn't have jobs in their country if it wasn't for the us providing them. they would be killing each other and be unproductive. in any state where there is no employment, which can be a country like somalia or even the great depression. it was and always will be out of order since there is no production, everyone will just kill each other and constantly be at war. there is no wealth generated. when employment happens, production increases causing wealth to be generated, and it's peaceful. government housing projects have the highest crime rates in america for a reason that is parallel to unemployment. crunch: free market capitalism hasn't existed since fdr, his socialistic ideals make americans dependent on the government. the more dependent on the government one becomes the less independent they become. causing them to demand the government takes care of them. this is why we have health care reform, medicare is costing america too much money each year, obama is going to end medicare and merge it with his new plan. it's going to keep adding to our debt. i'd rather disable all government aid. not allow doctors to be sued by lawyers. then sit back and watch the doctors compete against each other for patients. there would be so much competition doctors would force each other to lower prices. just like fast food when mcdonalds introduced the dollar menu. everyone else had to have a value menu because they where getting killed. the consumer will always win. sakata gintoki: wow you're a whiny little blamer, do you understand everyone has the free will to choose what to do with their lives? you can't blame the employer when the employee willingly works there. you can't blame tobacco companies for people who smoke and get cancer since the individual should of known better. you're discrediting the individuals right to choose what they want to do. you blame others for the individuals fault and sole choice they made on their own. you can't blame someone when the individual chose to do it. no one is forcing anyone to work any where, unless it was a totalitarian state and mandates they must. that isn't the case in free market capitalism. the employees can picket and not work there, if they picket and they get fired and replaced by others, it obviously tells everyone that the work environment must not be that bad if others still want to work there. matthew d: middle class is not defined by how much money you have, since the cost of living per state is different. middle class homes in so cal cost 500k, if you took 500k to alabama you could live in a mansion. the upper class homes here are valued from 900k and up in so cal. you can't live in a big house here. it depends on where you live and what the cost of living is. all suburbs are defined as middle class. government housing projects are lower class, and the upper class are the few rich that live in areas the average person can't afford. most homes in america are affordable for the average american depending on which state you are in. real estate is about location, saying a value determines middle class is stupid, because 500k in so cal isn't worth much compared to alabama. it's about each location and what the norm is. agricult: i know who george orwell is, he is an author of a book 1984 which was a prediction of how totalitarianism would spread. i know what his philosophy is. second i want to say that hitler was a fascist, fascism is two things. 1. the cause of race superiority. 2. the merge of corporations and government i for one see number 2 clearly happening right now in our american society. 61% of gm is owned by the us department of treasury. it's damaging the system america was built upon. the fore fathers wanted a small government, we are constantly stirring away from it, and i don't want to have a government that is parallel to the king of england. if the government today owns many companies and the king of england taxed high percentages, what difference does it make. either way the form of government generates a high revenue through ownership or taxation. i really dislike this, all governments can do is go bankrupt, we see it with the ussr, nazi germany, and with us being 11 trill debt. remmycool: due to lack of comenting space i am allowed i will keep this short. i agree with everything you said, if the world was a free market system america's value would decrease. i don't mind that, i am not about superiority of currency, i am for the innovation free market capitalism has offered the world. i love it and it makes every bureaucrat look like a selfish dictator that wants the wealth through taxation. i agree with your comparison of zimbabwe and them being millionaires. of course not everyone can be a millionaire, it would just be inflation and the value would be even more useless. the problem is people see the rich and think that they're selfish. the belief of that is preposterous since the rich generated that wealth through smart investments. every society there is a rich class, either a dictatorship/government or the people who choose to make innovative ideas in our democratic republic society. i hate the witch hunts people have on successful people. aidan: well for starters i agree with you that the bail outs saved capitalism since it enables banks to give loans to businesses for what ever purpose they need it for. how ever i disagree that you will believe a government report on a government program they allowed. i see a bias there considering if they disagree with their own intended policy it will make them lose credibility, americans will lose trust in them and no one would ever want something like this to happen again. to push this point even further look at the cause and effects of other programs. social security's cause is to allow you to be financially secure by the government past age 65, yet people past 65 still work and aren't retired. welfare sounds nice to help people in poverty, yet those people become dependent on the program and always will be in poverty. there is no incentive to become independent and not depend on the government anymore. i can go on and on, but i hope you get the point, plus i have no more space x x: you do realize oil companies face a major restriction by the government of where they can drill. if oil companies could drill any where and have a massive quantity the price of it would lower. gas would be much cheaper if it was accessable by oil companies to drill any where. the government restricts oil companies to drill any where. so oil companies must buy it from foreign distributors like canada, and the tariff they pay to ship it here adds to the cost of production. due to scarcity and the tariff cost, the oil companies pass these burdens to the consumers. otherwise they would eat a massive loss and go out of business. again that's government regulation ruining the free market ability of oil companies drilling where ever they want. gold is expensive because of the scarcity it holds as a natural resource. same reason why you won't pay money for dirt since it is every where it's so common it doesn't hold a value.

Before Britain and America forced their economic system onto the world, they weren't poor. Asia and Africa and South America were doing OK without us. The problem is that we opened up their markets to our investors and consumers, took everything of value, bought their corporations and governments and turned them into dependents. Wealth is relative. There is no such thing as "absolute wealth." In Zimbabwe, everyone's a millionaire, but their money is worthless. The basic law of inflation dictates that in a capitalistic society there always has to be poor people, and usually a lot of them. What America has done is export the physical labor overseas and keep the management over here. Companies like Nike, which are notorious for manufacturing their goods in third-world countries, nevertheless employ many well-dressed light-skinned American professionals to run things. And the reason America is failing is that the world is realizing that they don't need us to do that for them anymore. India's engineers are better than ours. Japan is the world leader in technology. Germany makes the best cars. All America has is an ego and debt. Unrestrained free market capitalism will eventually and inevitably lead to a better richer future- for the rest of the world. Not America, though. Americans will realize quite quickly that their entire economy (yes, even small businesses and entrepreneurs) can only survive because of the exploitation done by a few big corporations. Look at what happened to Michigan when the auto industry soured. Imagine what will happen to New York when investors start using foreign banks to do their trading. Imagine what will happen to California when Hollywood wilts under the weight of the internet. America's only viable option is to protect itself. End free trade with poor countries. Put limits on outsourcing. Crack down on tax havens. Letting the market decide the future will only guarantee that the future will be Asian.

Powered by

Ct1 actuarial science question 1 a) as of september 2009, for loans of between £10,000 and £25,000, the royal bank of scotland (rbs) typically charges an effective annual rate of interest (also known as the “annual percentage rate” or apr) of 11.4%. calculate the level monthly repayment for a loan of £10,000 which is to be repaid over 5 years. [3] b) for a loan of £5,000, repayable monthly in arrears over 5 years, the level monthly repayment required is £111.68. and, for a loan of £1,000, repayable monthly in arrears over 5 years, the level monthly repayment required is £26.26. calculate the apr (rounded to the nearest 0.1%) for each of these smaller loan amounts. note: you may want to use the “solver” function in excel to help here. [4] c) give two possible reasons why the apr decreases as the amount of the loan increases and briefly explain1 your answer in each case. [4] d) alternatively, give one reason why you might expect the apr to increase as the amount of the loan increases. [2] e) the rbs website states that these quotes are “for illustration purposes only” and that “the actual rate you will be charged will depend on an assessment of your individual circumstances”. give five distinct examples of “individual circumstances” that may result in the apr charged for a loan being higher than the “typical” rates quoted above and explain briefly why in each case. [10] f) alternatively, homeowners may be able to borrow similar amounts at a significantly lower apr. explain briefly why this is the case. [2] [total 25] 1 according to the dictionary, “explain” means “to make clear the cause or reason of” ... please bear this in mind when giving your answer to this and other questions! question 2 you are interested in buying a house costing £200,000 and have a maximum deposit of £50,000. thus, you need to find a mortgage for £150,000, which you intend to repay over a 25-year period, and you have narrowed the choice down to the following possibilities: 1) a five-year fixed-rate repayment mortgage from lloyds tsb. as of october 2009, this is based on a fixed-rate of interest of 5.89% per annum convertible monthly for the first five years. at the end of this period, the rate of interest (again, convertible monthly) changes to the bank’s standard variable rate (which is defined to be 2% above the then current bank of england base rate – which, as of october 2009, is equal to 0.5% per annum). in addition, there is a product fee of £995, which is added to the initial mortgage amount (although, in practice, can be paid in full at the outset). 2) a life-time tracker repayment mortgage from hsbc. as of october 2009, this is based on a variable rate of interest (convertible monthly) equal to the current bank of england base rate – of 0.5% per annum – plus 2.99%. in addition, there is a booking fee of £599, which must be paid as a lump sum at the outset. a) for each of the two mortgages above, calculate: (i) the initial monthly repayment amount, in addition, for the five-year fixed-rate mortgage, calculate the expected monthly repayment amount after the end of the five-year fixed-rate period. (ii) the total cost of the loan (i.e. the total amount repaid including the fees), (iii) the apr on each loan (expressed as the effective rate of interest per annum, quoted to the nearest 0.1%). [18] b) despite the fact that the five-year fixed-rate mortgage is considerably more expensive, explain the key advantage in choosing this mortgage over the life-time tracker mortgage. also, comment on why such an advantage might be particularly attractive in the current economic climate. [4] c) whilst there are a few mortgage packages available in the market with a fixed-rate period of longer than five years (indeed, the maximum currently available is 15 years), such arrangements are unusual. give two possible reasons why longer term fixed-rate mortgages are so uncommon. [4] d) if the loan-to-value ratio (lvr), defined as the ratio of the initial mortgage amount to the value of the property, is greater than 75%, then the rate of interest charged by lloyds tsb during the five-year fixed-rate period is increased from 5.89% per annum to 6.99% per annum (with the rate of interest after this period remains unchanged). explain why this is the case. [2] e) alternatively, for the life-time tracker mortgage, the initial booking fee of £599 can be avoided by choosing a nil-fee version with a rate of interest convertible monthly equal to the bank of england base rate plus 3.29% for the entire term of the loan. discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the choosing this option over the standard lifetime tracker mortgage. [4] f) a friend of yours, who has little financial knowledge, has suggested that you could save a lot of money by taking out an interest-only mortgage. he recommends a life-time tracker mortgage from ing direct, where the rate of interest convertible mont

So you can't use computers? These are all elementary calculations. I still have my old HP 12C from about 30 years ago, but sadly the batteries are run down. Surely there is a financial calculator and accompanying instruction docs that cover just this sort of problem.