Commercial Mortgage Loan News, Links and Answers

See today's average credit card rates across the country. - MSNBC

NEW YORK - The 40-story skyscraper sits on a prime corner in the country's wealthiest commercial market, steps from the Museum of Modern Art and a few blocks from Rockefeller Center and Central Park. It recently sold for $100,000. The 1330 Avenue of ... continued

Credit-Crunched Times' Writer Edmund Andrews Responds To Sketchiness ... - Gawker

NewsHour, who ran a segment on his book Thursday night, asked him for a quote on the kerfuffle. He cries innocence: It is hard to believe that anybody would accuse me of trying to airbrush a story in which I recount the cringe-inducing details of my ... continued

Credit-Crunched Times' Writer Edmund Andrews Responds To Allegations ... - Gawker

Fed opens TALF to commercial property loans - CNN Money

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Federal Reserve Tuesday widened its safety net for the downtrodden commercial property sector by making older loans eligible for an emergency program set up to revive dormant credit markets. The Fed said its $200 ... continued

Mortgages: Lloyds offers new lifeline to first-time buyers with 95pc ... - Daily Telegraph

Home loans for 95pc of the property value have been virtually unobtainable recently as lenders responded to the economic crisis by tightening lending criteria. The new mortgage, called Lend a Hand, offers a three-year fixed rate of 4.39pc. But ... continued

Mortgage pre-nup - Evening Sun

Thanks to all of my readers for continuing to pose such great questions. I am happy to hear that people are benefiting from this column and telling others. This week, we have some more great questions: Dear Carl: Thank you so much for making yourself ... continued

New Mortgage Scheme for NMG staff - Daily Nation

Nation Media Group on Tuesday unveiled several improvements on its funded mortgage scheme that will allow more staffers to own houses. Speaking during the signing of the scheme with mortgage financier Housing Finance, NMG chief executive officer ... continued

Farmer Mac is option for agricultural loans - Brush News Tribune

FORT MORGAN, Colo. — Fort Morgan State Bank may have the solution for some of those who must find a way to move their agricultural loans from New Frontier Bank. Customers of New Frontier, which was closed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp ... continued

Foreclosure sought on Union Trust Building - Pittsburgh Tribune Review

A California bank that wants to foreclose on the historic Union Trust Building in Downtown claims the owner defaulted on a $34.5 million mortgage because about $3.6 million in mechanics liens have been filed against the property. California National ... continued

MBA: First Quarter Commercial, Multifamily Loans 70% Below Q1 2008 - HuntingtonNews.Net

Commercial and multifamily mortgage loan originations continued to drop in the first quarter of 2009 to a rate 70 percent lower than the first quarter of 2008 and 26 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the Mortgage Bankers ... continued

Commercial Mortgage Lenders | Commercial Real Estate Loans & Financing

Get commercial mortgages, apartment loans, real estate loans, no cost commercial mortgage loans from Commercialmortgage.net with LOW interest rate.

Commercial Mortgage Loan

Since 1977, we've been offering commercial mortgage financing and commercial loan services for many satisfied clients throughout the world.

Commercial Mortgage Rates | Commercial Refinance Loans

Get current commercial mortgage interest rate quotes from multiple lenders. Read about commercial real estate, commercial refinancing loans and try our calculator.

Commercial mortgage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A commercial mortgage is a loan made using real estate as collateral to secure repayment. A commercial mortgage is similar to a residential mortgage, except the collateral is a ...

C-Loans Commercial Lenders List and Commercial Loan Application

Commercial mortgage loans from 500 hungry commercial lenders. Enter your commercial loan needs. The 20 most suitable commercial lenders will appear, and then apply to the ...

Commercial Mortgage Loans; MasterPlan Capital LLC

Commercial Mortgage Loans, Equity Financing, Joint Ventures, Asset Management. Actively Funding Commercial Mortgage Loans. Lending for Purchase, Refinance and Construction ...

Commercial Loans & Apartment Loans -- Commercial Mortgage Lender ...

Commercial loans and apartment loans from CommercialBanc. Save with low fixed rates, no points and low closing costs. #1 rated commercial mortgage lender offering apartment ...

Commercial Mortgage Loan

Low rates for Commercial mortgages 100% Development funding . Managed yen currency accounts. Mortgage for business and commercial property. Advise on development finance and ...

Commercial Mortgage Loans

Submit your commercial mortgage request to the best matching lenders. Fast, Efficient, and Free

Commercial Loans, Commercial Financing, Commercial Mortgage - YSPLoans

YSP Loans, a division of Griffin Capital Funding is a nationwide wholesale commercial loan lender, offers six different commercial loan products.

Voting Question: What can I do if an individual won't release a paid in full mortgage on my property?

We own an investment property. We obtained a loan from an individual 5 years ago to start our own business in which the individual used our investment property as collateral and filed a 2nd mortgage on it. We paid the 2nd mortgage off in full 9 months after obtaining the loan, and the individual refuses to file the release of mortgage, there are no other penalties owed to him etc. He is also the landlord on the commercial space we rent for our business, and he likes having the mortgage lien on the investment property as insurance he will get his rent every month. Rediculous! We are now trying to sell the investment property and he has caused us to lose one buyer because of the title issue, by some miracle we have another buyer, does anyone have any creative ideas other than a lawsuit in civil court? This guy is not a brainiac, but he does have a decent lawyer, everything he owns is in a trust and the mortgage was funded out of that trust. There just has to be a way to force this guy to do the right thing and stop using these mafia tactics to push us around. Help! more

Resolved Question: Why was it so fast and easy for Obama to get giant credit card companies to reform but not mortgage companies?

It took a week to introduce/pass a bill that would lower late fees and other shark tactics credit card companies use, but Obama's mortgage bill didn't pass nor any reforms with mortgage companies. How is it that mortg companies have more power/influence to be untouchable? Why did Obama lie by constantly telling us he passed reforms that would allow loan modifications when none of it even came close to passing and only got side tracked by the swine flu the same week the bill failed? He even stared in commercials for the scam artist modification companies who stole people's money pretending they'd modify their loans, only for the mortgage companies to say NO WAY JOSE.Unka it was the sharp decline of housing prices that brought on this mess to begin with. People can no longer refinance or sell their homes bec their mortgages are higher than the value so you are obviously misinformed.MikeGolf - interesting, I had not thought of that. more

Voting Question: Mortgage Insurance: Do you think they would insure me?

I own a commercial property. I owe 500k to the bank and it was appraised for $1.15m 2 years ago. I would guess an appraisal would come to about 900k today. We are working out a deal to seller finance it to a developer for $1.15m who will put down 325k and use his remaining funds to build an additional store on the lot to increase the value, then refinance in a year or so and pay us the rest. Now this means we would be in a second lien position. We have came up with a few different safeguards to minimize the risk. Do you think a mortgage insurance company would insure this since it is technically a loan? more

Resolved Question: Why do some people blame the housing crisis on CRA when it isn't true?

http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/quick-references/cra-is-not-to-blame-for-blame-for-the-mortgage-meltdown.html Very few of these sub-prime predatory loans were made by CRA backed institutions, most were made by these big mortgage companies like countrywide which are now bankrupt. And most of the mortgage defaults were people who re-financed, not firts time homebuyers. It was this whole system of commercial banks making these predatory loans and selling the mortagages to investment banks and investment banks selling the mortgages in derivatives to global investors. Now this whole derviative bubble burst and all these global investors have AIG in case they loose money. It was awful greed and corrpution on wall street that caused this mess. Instead of giving trillions of dollars to investment banks to kep donig the same things they have been doing, how about giving the money to homeowners to elimenate mortgages?true- CRA never forced any bank to make high risk loans, it just ended redlining.http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200812021226DOWJONESDJONLINE000492_univ.xml Bernanke said this himself.well stl many people were scammed by this whole predatory lending system.I also have a link by Bernanke saying CRA wasn't to blame, certainly not a democrat. more

Resolved Question: the Questions about Real Estate in Market.?

What is going on with RE market? Residential vs. Commercial? Property Values? Loan Defaults? Institutional Losses? Why is it so difficult to get a mortgage now? What are the causes? What types of loans were the culprits of the bubble? How did Wall Street make it worse? What forms of fraud did borrowers commit? Are they the victims? What conflicts of interest existed among the various market participants? What were some of the excesses of the lending institutions? How is it possible that the US residential crisis could bring down the global financial system? more

Resolved Question: can you tell me if i have understood this paragraph on banks and credit and mortgages right ?

PLEASE READ THE PARA FIRST SIVs used short-term commercial paper, sold at low interest rates, to buy longer-term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with higher rates of return. With the seizure of the credit markets, many SIVs had trouble selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper. The collapse in sub-prime mortgages and in the commercial paper that supported them has simply adjusted the value of the principal to make up for the outsized returns that these investors got over the past five years. The money that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t change. These banks are going to offer more commercial paper to buy mortgage assets; in other words, they are going to borrow more short-term money in order to buy long-term assets from themselves! That is, if they can borrow the money in the first place. One of the casualties in the rout was the commercial paper market; investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the commercial paper that backs the mortgages. NOW - IS MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT ? Borrowed money - The SIVs sold short-term commercial paper at low rates of interest – so they borrowed money for a ST at a low IR. They did this regularly to keep getting funds. Lent money - The banks told the people that we will give you money – mortgage your house at 12 % IR. ( Or the banks bought mortgage investments from investors.) The banks took the cheaper loans from CP and invested it in longer term mortgage-backed securities and other instruments with higher rates of return. But when the market collapsed, the value of the house collapsed, borrowers could not pay loans and high IR, and the bank was left with a house which was not worth 25% of the loan they had given. Oversized interest rates often mean that the investment is in fact sucking money out of principal. Sometimes investors can get away with the gambit for awhile, but eventually somebody pays the bill. Secondly, with the seizure of the credit markets, many SIVs had trouble selling new commercial paper to replace upcoming obligations on older paper. Thirdly, The money that banks owe on their commercial paper didn’t change. Sounds like trouble. Now the banks have paid Rs 100 to the borrower, in return they have a house which is worth Rs 20. How do the banks cover the balance Rs 70 ? These banks are going to offer more commercial paper ( and take ST loans at low IR ) to buy mortgage assets; in other words, they are going to borrow more short-term money at low IR in order to buy long-term assets from themselves! That is, if they can borrow the money in the first place. One of the casualties in the rout was the commercial paper market; investors are realizing that it backs a lot of lousy mortgage debt, so they are backing away from investing in the commercial paper that backs the mortgages. more

Resolved Question: Should I go bankrupt with $53,000 credit card debt and a $559,800 mortgage?

Should I go bankrupt with $53,000 credit card debt and a $559,800 mortgage? I feel pressure everyday, and sleepless nights, often the demons come at 3:00 am evry morning, the anxeity is killing me. I feel so far gone. I tried for a loan modification but was told, becasue I make the payments and my loan does not adjust until 2012 that I am declined. Then with the credit cards, I am overwhelmed, I guess my real question is what would be the best path to restructure my debt so I can pay it down, but still support my family? Do the credit counselors you hear in the commercials really work? Need financial expert....I dying over here.......Always have made payments on time. The goal is not to walk away but pay what I signed up to pay, just relax the terms a little to payments I can live with. My wife does not work, shes takes care of the kids. We have lived a little above our means, however, with the recent down turn I have lost money, bonuses, and have actaully had to take off 3 weeks per quarter with out pay. So the cards helped bridge the gap.I am not a victim hear and I completely realize that, I am fully responsible for this situation. more

Resolved Question: Do outside sales/inside sales jobs prefer no experience or is there a trick that I dont get?

I've been applying to inside outside sales jobs(account executive and manager) and doing pretty good in the interviews but getting very few offers. Keep in mind these are entry level positions requiring 1-3 years of experience. I'm a recent grad from college and have had much more part time experience than any of my friends while in school. These jobs came with much greater responsibilities as well. So basically I dont know if theres somthin on the resume that scares them away or what it is that makes these deals fall through. Most of my friends were able to land these jobs that require 1-5 years of experience with pretty much 0 expererience or at best it would be very unrelated to the job. Keep in mind most didn;t have an IN or a contact in there that would place them in the company. Any idea what im doing wrong or whats wrong on my resume? I do good on interviews and the main concern for hiring managers is that I have no B2B sales experience it seems. Only the first company is my first real full time job. company 1, A January – March 2009 Business Development Associate • Analyzed all physicians within market for referral patterns and potential marketing plans. Concentration placed on Neurosurgeon, Orthopedic and Chiropractic physicians • Generated new business by cold calling physician offices and effectively presenting, marketing and advertising our service • Cooperate with other divisions and business units to ensure that our marketing strategy and measures are aligned with overall corporate strategies Company 2 January – July 2008 Sales Intern Program • Building and maintaining nationwide database of over 500 prospective clients • Calling commercial real estate buyers throughout the U.S. to introduce transactions, drive bids and assist in driving the market-making process • Assisting Directors with the hands-on execution of transactions in various phases • Creating sales proposals and market evaluations using necessary documents from third parties Company 3 2005 - 2008 Manager • Directly responsible for management and operation of a high quality 24- hour care center for elderly and disabled residents • Analyzed existing business practices and developed new business model to maximize high quality of service • Worked closely with the Department of Social and Health Services to meet the WAC regulations company 4 2004 – 2005 Agent/Marketing Specialist • Marketed listings throughout Seattle and held open houses to aggressively grow area sales • Prepared contracts and documentation; advised clients on general escrow and title procedures • Designed and updated marketing materials. Performed competitive product evaluations company 5 2003 - 2004 Manager • Responsible for the marketing and managing of a $10 million portfolio consisting of over 18 commercial and residential real estate assets in the Puget Sound area company 6 2002 - 2003 Junior Loan Officer • Assisted Customers in determining financial needs and recommended appropriate mortgage solutions • Embraced cold calling as means to build business and generate new leads more

Voting Question: Easy 10 Points! 10 multiple choice money and banking questions?

1) The concept of ________ is based on the common-sense notion that a dollar paid to you in the future is less valuable to you than a dollar today. A) future value B) deflation C) interest D) present value 2) If $22,050 is the amount payable in two years for a $20,000 simple loan made today, the interest rateis A) 5 percent. B) 10 percent. C) 22 percent. D) 25 percent. 3) If a $10,000 face-value discount bond maturing in one year is selling for $5,000, then its yield to maturity is A) 5 percent. B) 10 percent. C) 50 percent. D) 100 percent. 4) The return on a 5 percent coupon bond that initially sells for $1,000 and sells for $950 next year is A) 5 percent. B) -5 percent. C) 0 percent. D) -10 percent. 5) Which of the following are generally true of all bonds? A) Even though a bond has a substantial initial interest rate, its return can turn out to be negative if interest rates rise. B) Prices and returns for short-term bonds are more volatile than those for longer term bonds. C) The longer a bond's maturity, the greater is the rate of return that occurs as a result of the increase in the interest rate. D) A fall in interest rates results in capital losses for bonds whose terms to maturity are longer than the holding period. 6) What is the return on a 5 percent coupon bond that initially sells for $1,000 and sells for $1,200 next year? A) -5 percent B) 25 percent C) 5 percent D) 10 percent 7) Dealers in U.S. Treasury securities always refer to prices by quoting the A) current yield B) yield to maturity. C) coupon rate. D) yield on a discount basis. 8) Which of the following are true of fixed payment loans? A) The borrower pays interest periodically and the principal at the maturity date. B) Installment loans and mortgages are frequently of the fixed payment type. C) The borrower repays both the principal and interest at the maturity date. D) Commercial loans to businesses are often of this type. 9) An $8,000 coupon bond with a $400 coupon payment every year has a coupon rate of A) 5 percent. B) 8 percent. C) 10 percent. D) 40 percent. 10) Which of the following are true for a coupon bond? A) The yield is less than the coupon rate when the bond price is below the par value. B) The yield to maturity is greater than the coupon rate when the bond price is above the par value. C) The price of a coupon bond and the yield to maturity are positively related. D) When the coupon bond is priced at its face value, the yield to maturity equals the coupon rate. more

Resolved Question: Tax Question Please Help!?

You personally own a commercial office building with a basis of 8,000,000. You sell it for 20,000,000 and immediately lease it back for 40 years at a rental rate exactly equal to the buyer's mortgage payment (the buyer borrowed $20,000,000 from a bank to make the purchase). No improvements will be made on the building during the lease term. You will pay all costs associated with the building. You have the right to reacquire the property at any time by assuming the outstanding mortgage and paying the buyer all of its principal payments on the loan plus a market interest rate thereon. The buyer has no duty to compensate you if the building becomes unusable for any reason. Will you recognize a gain on the sale? more

Voting Question: Econ (money and banking) Homework Help?

Resolved Question: Is Bill Clinton partially responsible for the economic meltdown in the US?

Former President Clinton is on the campaign trail claiming he has nothing to do with the current economic crisis. However, the facts are these: When President Clinton was president his terms was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, which was in 1999 then the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. It is therefore seen that the repeal of this act is directly responsible for the Global financial crisis. That was not enough for former President Cliinton. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 has received criticism for the so-called "Enron loophole," which exempts most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. This was one of the big reasons for the collapse of Enron. Not convinnced yet? In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. All these rules changes played a role in creating a permissive lending environment. This in turn led to more loans being given to people who really could not afford them, leading to defaults today. After all of this, do you believe our former president when he says to the media, "I am not a fault for any of this financial mess? Do you believe if my economic team was in place that any of this would have happened?" My answer is yes I do - after reading about all the things he did in great detail, I put part of the blame squarely on his broad shoulders. To deny he had nothing to do with it seems like he is trying to rewrite history. What do you think?Hmm. The surplus has nothing to do with the current situation. How does that figure into this quesstion? True, anything can be overridden - but how does that absolve Clinton for pushing these ideas in the first place? Although Clinton is not formerly campaigning, he is making repeated statements (three in the last two days) stating he has NOTHING to do with the economic downturn. If this is not campaigning for his reputation history, what is it then? Just random statements? more

Resolved Question: Question for mortgage bankers regarding down payment programs?

My father said he saw a commercial that said the IRS is offering a program to help people with a down payment loan. I said to him, "Are you sure it's the IRS, Daddy? They're tax people, they're not about mortgage loans." He said that for sure, it's the IRS. So as to not leave any stone unturned, is the IRS actually offering such a program? My Daddy and I wanna buy a home, that's why we're poking around in the home market to begin with. Any information would really be appreciated, thanx. Btw, we're in California, if that makes any difference. And I've already tried CalFHA, and they're broke. D ^X more

Voting Question: What´s the best site for applying for a commercial mortgage loan?

I am beginning the process of applying for a commercial mortgage loan for an owner (me)-occupied retail property. I found a site and they say they will submit an application to 50+ lenders but they want $200 for the service. Am I getting ripped off? This is a legitimate question! I'm not shilling and please honest info and experiences! Thanks! more

Resolved Question: It is hard to argue that we are not in a global financial crisis?

Many have contended that one of the reasons that we have fallen so hard as a nation is because of poor fiscal responsibility. For example, remember all those commercials a few years ago saying you can get $200,000 for a home loan and only pay $900/month??? What these companies didn't tell people is that the fine print states that your mortgage rates can be increased whenever they want!!! So some people now have $2000/month mortgages that they can not pay and foreclosures are happening right and left....hence a financial crisis. So here's the question...who do you blame MORE? 1) Do you blame the thousands of companies that offered all this money to people who may not have been able to afford to pay it back (a.k.a predatory lending) OR 2) Do you blame the millions of people who took out loans for way more than they could afford to pay back and not reading the fine print OR 3) Do you blame the government for not regulating these companies better by putting tighter restrictions on their lending practices? more

Resolved Question: IS Time to Sell BOA ?

WASHINGTON (AFP) - - The US government extended a new lifeline Friday to Bank of America, injecting another 20 billion dollars in capital and guaranteeing shaky assets to help it weather the grinding financial crisis. ADVERTISEMENT The bailout for the largest US bank by assets is aimed at helping Bank of America absorb broker Merrill Lynch, which faced a meltdown last year as the credit crunch intensified. A joint statement by the US Treasury, Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) said the government would invest 20 billion dollars in the bank, on top of a 25-billion-dollar injection last year under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Additionally, the government "will provide protection against the possibility of unusually large losses" on 118 billion dollars of assets backed by residential and commercial real estate loans, the market for which has been frozen due to the housing meltdown and credit crisis. The banking giant will pay the government a dividend of eight percent on the investment and agree to limits on executive compensation. The bank also agreed to implement a "mortgage loan modification program" to limit foreclosures that threaten to undermine a recovery in the housing sector. The announcement came hours before BofA released its fourth-quarter earnings. The Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank posted a loss of 1.7 billion dollars, after managing a profit of 268 million dollars a year earlier. The results stem from soaring credit costs and massive write-downs. Merrill Lynch, which was not included in the results, lost over 15 billion dollars in the quarter. The bailout comes with US authorities scrambling to avert a further collapse in the banking sector that could deal another blow to an ailing economy. A similar deal was announced last year with Citigroup. "The objective of this program is to foster financial market stability and thereby to strengthen the economy and protect American jobs, savings, and retirement security," the Treasury said. But some analysts were skeptical and Bank of America shares fell 13.7 percent to 7.18 dollars after a dive of 18 percent on Thursday. "These measures have seemingly removed a worst-case scenario for equity holders, but they show just what a mess Bank of America has managed itself into," said Patrick O'Hare at Briefing.com. Even as other banks reeled, Bank of America appeared healthy enough to buy up troubled mortgage lender Countrywide Financial last year as well as Merrill Lynch. But Robert Brusca at FAO Economics said the bank "simply bit off more than it could chew." Peter Cohan of Peter Cohan & Associates consulting firm said Bank of America rushed to buy Merrill without a full understanding of its troubles. "The numbers clearly show that without Merrill, Bank of America would be in relatively good shape, but with it, Bank of America is a financial basket case," Cohan said. Standard & Poor's said it could downgrade the bank's credit rating and warned that BofA faces the possibility of "further write-downs" from Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. BofA has already received 25 billion dollars in capital injections from the TARP, a US financial bailout fund set up to help rescue mainly banks reeling from financial turmoil triggered by a home mortgage meltdown. That included 10 billion dollars for Merrill Lynch. Under the latest agreement, BofA will absorb the first 10 billion dollars of losses and the US taxpayers will cover the next 10 billion. Any additional losses will be shared 90 percent by the US government and 10 percent by BofA. The government aid comes as the banking sector remained in deep trouble from the real estate meltdown and subsequent credit crunch that has led to around one trillion dollars in worldwide losses. Citigroup announced Friday a quarterly loss of 8.29 billion dollars and said it was splitting into two businesses in an effort to restore profitability. Bank of America on September 15 announced it was buying Merrill Lynch for 50 billion dollars in stock, scooping up the Wall Street icon battered by the housing and credit crisis. While giving a lifeline to a troubled Wall Street giant, the deal created the world's largest financial services company. The announcement came at the close of a tumultuous weekend that saw Wall Street rival Lehman Brothers seek bankruptcy protection, leading to an intensification of the crisis in the global financial system. They cant even survive after M&A with bad debts out b4 they M&A so a waste of taxes-payer $ . so i have a chance to sell it .I not invest in all companies that have been bailed out is as good as they dead. more

Resolved Question: What is your opinion of the attached editorial?

History repeats in housing disaster We all await word from Washington, D.C., concerning our new president’s plan to fix the economy. We’re told to expect bags of money to be distributed by the federal government soon. We’re expected to believe the generosity of Washington will save us from our current circumstances. Really? Let’s take a look at what brought us to the current situation. Research begun immediately after the stock market crash of 1929 found that a major factor in the market crash of 1929 was a sudden downturn of real estate prices (a housing bubble burst). Does this remind us of recent events? In 1932 Senator Glass and Representative Steagall co-sponsored a bill to preclude a recurrence of what happened in 1929. This bill, intended to keep commercial banks from selling loans to investment banks, was known as the Glass-Steagall Act. President Roosevelt signed the bill into law in 1933. The deepest significance of the new law was to require mortgage lenders to pay close attention to the viability of every loan they were considering. Since new loans could no longer be sold to investment banks each lender was strongly motivated to be sure a borrower was capable of repaying the loan. In 1938 the Federal Government created FNMA (known as “Fannie Mae”), a Federal agency whose purpose was to make more money available to lower-income citizens for purchasing of homes. In 1968 the Feds acted again. The structure of Fannie Mae was changed to public corporation. Known as a Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) this revised structure enabled citizens to invest in mortgage lending markets by buying stock in Fannie Mae. Later that same year Uncle Sam created “Freddie Mac” as a GSE. The Feds were working to make even more money available to lower-income folks for the purchase of homes. In 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted to “encourage” lenders more aggressively to make money available to home buyers, primarily in the inner-city neighborhoods. There has been a long-established concern in Washington about home ownership and lower-income people. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Early in the Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the Justice Department would start investigating lenders who were not meeting the “aims” of the CRA. To avoid being charged with misconduct alleged by the attorney general, many mortgage lenders began granting loans to applicants who otherwise might not qualify for a standard loan. The so-called “sub-prime market” was born. Paying higher loan fees and higher interest rates on these loans, low-income borrowers were helped to access home ownership. 1999: In its infinite wisdom, Congress repealed Glass-Steagall. Now mortgage lenders could once again sell their loans to investment banks (Wall Street). With many questionable loans now on their books there was great motivation to do so. Upon purchasing loans from lenders, investment banks would package them as investments (known as Collateralized Mortgage Obligations or CMOs) and then promote them to mutual fund companies. This is how this all got into your 401k ! Early in the current decade there were numerous reports to Congress about the questionable dealings at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators’ voices were heard in Congress urging immediate investigation. Each time the voices were silenced with strong retort from the likes of Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barnie Frank. No investigation was ever conducted. Where are we now? We are expected to believe that the Federal Government can “save our economy.” Do you believe that? You can’t be serious. The Federal Government created this mess. Last week Mr. Obama stated he had only recently become aware of how bad our economy is. Are you kidding me? We are supposed to look to this guy for real leadership and real change? This is absurd ! Write your Congressman. Demand that a new Glass-Steagall Act be put in force immediately.Peyton - You own something alright but it isn't anyone else. more

Resolved Question: ARE U A BULL OR A BEAR?

WHAT TIME FRAME OF THE YEAR DO YOU THINK WE WILL BE IN A BULL MARKET? I THINK THE DOW WON'T BE ABOVE 9,500 TILL MID 2010, TILL THEN IT WILL STAY VOLATILE FOR MANY REASONS THAT ARE LISTED BELOW................. October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August and February. ~Mark Twain While there is much to celebrate this year, we find little cause for joy when looking at the financial markets. While many pundits have predicted that the final closing low in the bear market was reached on November 20th, we at Hurricane Capital Global Alpha Fund still believe there will be more red than green in the stock market in 2009. However, during every major bear market since World War II, the time to buy stocks was after a 30-50% decline in the S&P 500. So one may ask why we would recommend something different this time around. In the spirit of Christmas, we present twelve reasons why there is more downside to the stock market in 2009. 1. Valuation: Historically the price to earnings ratio (P/E) and price to book ratio (P/B) of a stock or index is considered cheap when trading at less than ten to one and one to one respectively. Stocks in the US bottomed with at a P/E of 7 in July 1982. During the Great Depression, Benjamin Graham wrote about how many of the greatest US companies would be worth more if liquidated for the cash on their balance sheets than kept. These stocks were trading below their net current assets. According to Bloomberg, the Russell 3000, which incorporates 98% of the market cap of us stocks, has a trailing P/E of 24.64 and a P/B of 1.68. Despite the massive drop that occurred in 2008, it would be tough to characterize the market as cheap from a historical perspective. 2. Housing Prices Crashing: The latest monthly reading of the Case-Shiller home price index from October 2008 showed a drop of 18.04% year over year, the largest drop on record. Amazingly, the drop in home prices is still accelerating two years into the decline. We are not going to find a bottom in the market until the pace of decline slows significantly. The massive tailwind the US consumer had been receiving from equity extractions has officially ended. 3. Debt Destruction: American consumers doubled household debt this decade while incomes stagnated. Consumers adding a trillion dollars in debt ever year on average for the first 7 years of the decade. Two trillion in consumer credit lines may be pulled in 2009, and home equity extractions are done for the foreseeable future. Another way to look at this is consumers would have a trillion dollar pullback in spending from 2007 levels if debt stops expanding. Debt destruction, which we believe is going to occur, means purchases would have to decline by over a trillion dollars. This would mark the first significant destruction of debt in the US since the 1930s. Growth of household debt to GDP did not start increasing again, until after World War II, over a decade later. 4. More Writedowns: We have another trillion or so of losses to take in the commercial real estate, jumbo mortgage, prime mortgage, leveraged loans, asset backed, corporate bond and credit default swap markets. This is assuming subprime and Alt-A are now priced correctly. On second thought, considering the debt destruction process, it could be more like 1.5 trillion. 5. US Corporate Earnings Collapse: Corporate earnings estimates are way too high. The consumer is dead due to the debt destruction, and there is another trillion (give or take) in losses yet to be realized across the financial sector. Almost all earnings growth in the first half of 2008 came from oil, basic materials and technology. Pricing has collapsed in all three areas. We have not yet seen the price collapse reflected in the EPS of companies in these industries. We will see it in 2009. Be wary of people touting cheap stocks based on future earnings. Trailing twelve month earnings on the S&P are $44.91 a share. The average analyst estimate on Bloomberg for the S&P 500 is currently $71.69 per share for 2009. There is absolutely no way companies will earn more in 2009 than in 2008. None. 6. Corporate Credit: Credit spreads are at levels where companies cannot fund themselves and survive. This is if companies can roll their debt at all. Much of the lending during the last 5 years was never meant to be paid back. Spreads on CCC bonds hit 40% in December. There are loan sharks who charge better rates than this. The debt markets are still closed for virtually everything high yield. 7. 12.5% Underemployment: And rising fast. 8. No Savings: The savings rate was under 2% from 2005-2007. Interest rates were low, and lots of spare money was funneled into the stock market. It always goes up if you buy and hold. Right? This was conventional thinking anyway. Many people now need this money to live on. This means more

Resolved Question: Why haven't I heard the words 'Commercial Fraud' uttered during the collapse of bank/finance as we knew it? ?

Estate Agents claiming commission from money lenders to knowingly organise mortgages [many self certified] for borrowers who didn't have the level of income required to repay the loan, Banks & Building Societies putting up the money for the mortgages in the knowledge that they didn't have the funds to cover them and then proceeded to sell the mortgages on to another bank who also knew they didn't have the funds to cover the mortgage, must surely have qualified for at least the words 'Commercial Fraud'? So who has been arrested and apart from redundancies what punishment have the perpetrators been given? more

Voting Question: How to take some $$$ from our tenement property in Manhattan, NYC?

My two brothers and myself inherited our parent's 5-story, 12-unit apartment building on the vibrant west side of Manhattan, NYC over four years ago. We also have a commercial tenant on the ground floor (a successful restaurant). Almost three years ago we took out a 7-year $1 million mortgage on this property (and our building pays around $9,500 per month for this mortgage) and I was happily able to retire on the $300K I pocketed. We have recently discussed what more we can now do to get another nice chunk of $$. This past year we were able to take an annual total of approximately $24K each from the building's profits (our rent-roll totals around $25K per month). All three of us agree that attempting to sell the building right now in this terrible economy is not an option. MY suggestion was that we refinance our mortgage as interest rates are low now. However, one of my brothers feels uncomfortable doing that because (a) we would have to pay around $80K outright just to take care of the first mortgage, in addition to paying closing costs, fees, etc., and (b), although he feels that the building would be able to pay the higher monthly mortgage payment, he feels uncomfortable about leveraging our building for over $2 million, especially when right now all property values are low. He would prefer for us to just continue taking our monthly $$$ from the building's profits. My answer to that is that this current terrible economy is hopefully a temporary anomaly and that property values will rebound in a year or two. The three of us are in our 60's and I feel that tomorrow is promised to no one, and we should enjoy as much money as we can while we are still healthy enough to. I am the only brother who REALLY needs a financial shot in the arm now; they don't. I expressed to my brother that his discomfort level shouldn't deny us in getting another nice chunk of money each. Is there any method of perhaps having a bank give us a "mini-loan" allowing just me to get around $100K? Does anyone have any idea how we can safely get more $$$ from this valuable property, instead of just taking "nickels and dimes" per month from the building's profit? Perhaps there is some way that I could somehow take $100K from the building without jeopardizing the financial integrity of the building, if my two brothers agree to that method? Thank you. more

Voting Question: 100% equity in home... need loan advice?

hey all, i'm a 21 year old college student majoring in music (production/recording). i just purchased my 1st home cash/outright. i lost my mom in 2001 when i was 13 and used the modest life insurance policy she left for me to purchase the home. after losing my mom i moved in with my grandmother and lost her in 2004 after a year long battle with cancer. she left me a 1400/mo inheritance which i have been using for my education and related expenses. this $ is from her interest in a family business and will continue uninterrupted until her siblings sell the 2 commercial buildings they own and rent out. unfortunately i am a silent partner with no voting power and/or the ability to borrow and/or cash out of my interest in the co. i have 100% equity in this property and its TAX ACCESSED value is 200k. just before i purchased the property i bought (cash/outright) 50k of landscape equipment and will be self employed/full time in the spring of 09. my education is almost complete...1 more semester and will continue on a part time basis. at this moment i have 10 weekly customers (800/wk or 3200/mo) and am looking to increase that # to 20-25 by spring. my property will also generate income...it consists of a 4br house, 2 br cottage, 2 car garage and is zoned "village commercial". with this zoning, there is an option to rent part or all of the property to certain types of business... pottery shop, general store, real estate office, bar/restaurant, etc. i have a couple ready to sign a contract for the cottage (1200/mo) and 2 roommates to share the house with me (600ea/mo). i also have the option to rent out a small commercial suite on the 1st floor of the house (1000/mo). my long term plan is to use this (comm) space for my professional recording studios... not ready ($). although i do not "technically" have a declared income (yet), can i get a 100k loan using my property as collateral? moreover, can i use the rental, inheritance and landscape as income NOW, or how long do i have to wait to "technically" be considered a landlord and/or small business owner? i know i can handle this loan without any problem just with what i make right now. sad thing is... had i closed just a few months prior, it would have been "rubber stamped" by any bank and/or mortgage co. the way i found the property right up to the closing was done unconventionally... i am UNAFRAID to think and/or act out "outside of the box". any information and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. hope all is well. have a good one. more

Voting Question: What are the current commercial mortgage interest rate?

I have a commercial loan. I am paying 7.25% the balance is 375000.00 What is the currant rate? My banker is beating around the bush when I bring up the subject. more

Resolved Question: I want info. on how to do a loan Modification?

I have been having a hard time with Mortgage these last few months. Since the value in my neighborhood has went from the original $130.000 to a $240,000 to now a $80,000 . I have been hearing commercials on the talk radio that I listen to in Phoenix, and it talks about being able to lower principle owed on house to lower payment. My question; is there a such program and if there is could someone explain to me so I could lower my payments. I have a 6.75 fix and owe $125,000.. have talked to bank about this because I couldn't make the Nov. Or Dec. payment to see if they would help me in some way. They said no.. I have brought mortgage to a current status for now but would like to see if I could do something about lowering my house note. If anyone has any info. on how to do this Modification, I would appreciate your help.. Thanks more

Resolved Question: Arizona - Insurance & Mortgage?

I am a licensed commercial real estate agent in phoenix, az, and am interested in providing insurance and mortgage services to my clients,essentially I want to be able to shop 5 lenders/insurance companies to provide my clients the best deals. How do I identify 5 banks/insurance companies that do commercial transactions? How much money can I make by providing these additional services assuming that all transactions are more than 300K ( for loans + insurance) Thanks more

Resolved Question: How do I get a loan on a non-conforming residential property?

I have been looking at a property for a while and absolutely love it. As it turns out, we looked at the zoning and it is a non-conforming residential. It is beside an industrial park, so they zoned it so that when the house is destroyed or abandoned over a year, it must become commercial. Since the bank did not want to deal with this zoning "problem", they just told us that we need to find a house they will give a mortgage on. It has been forclosed on for almost 9 months, so rezoning it would take too long. I was just wondering if there was anyone with advice. Thanks. more

Resolved Question: real estate developers share of the bailout money?

Here's a clip from the AP story:Commercial real estate developers said Monday they also are petitioning the government for support from the $700 billion rescue fund. The Real Estate Roundtable said an estimated $400 billion of commercial real estate mortgages will come due by the end of 2009 without adequate refinancing options. Industry officials said thousands of office buildings, hotels, shopping centers and other commercial buildings could be headed into foreclosure or bankruptcy unless the government provides support. Jeffrey D. DeBoer, president of the Real Estate Roundtable, said the industry has written to federal officials asking to be included in a new $200 billion loan program being run by the Federal Reserve, with support from the financial bailout program, to bolster the market for credit card debt, auto loans and student loans. DeBoer said the commercial real estate industry would like to see that program expanded to cover their properties or have a similar program begun to help their industry. So I had to ask Banks car companies and now maybe commercial real estate developers... So where will the government getting around to helping those in real need... American families???Well said Toopy but I still have to point out these are the very same people who landed us in this mess and they rather then step-up and try to fix the mess they made the go whining about needing more money because we little guys can no longer afford their services. more

Resolved Question: Mortgage loan modification?

Do you think a mortgage co. is likely to do a loan modification on a commercial property to avoid foreclosure? more

Resolved Question: Question for commercial banker about a commercial mortgage?

I am selling an office building and I want to make money off the mortgage itself if possible. Hopefully someone who does commercial loans will read this. Is there any way I can work with a commercial lender to try and sell a mortgage from them, instead of just sending the buyer out on their own to go get a commercial mortgage? Just so there is no confusion, I am not looking for a commercial mortgage. I am the seller of an office building looking to also make money off the mortgage if I can get the buyer to go with a mortgage lender of my choice, if this is possible. more

Resolved Question: Can I get a bailout if the banks can?

Seriously. Can I get a bailout? I have a substantial mortgage payment, bills, and student loans that I'd love some help with. Aren't the American taxpayers collectively, "too big too fail"? Who the hell is going to bail us out with all this shitty commercial paper that these banks were peddling. more

Resolved Question: Whose fault is the economic crisis anyway?

So let’s look at how we got here: ILLUSIONS Big part of what makes the American Dream is hope. However unrealistic, uneducated, and misinformed choices replace hope with illusions. Buyers had the illusion that homes would always keep increasing rapidly in value. However, they failed to understand that the real estate market has cycles. Some of the factors that create a change in the market are increased amounts of supply or demand, deregulation of the financial industry, easy and available credit, low interest rates and much more. People who bought homes they could not afford did it because they saw an opportunity to “invest” their life savings and achieve the American dream. They viewed this opportunity as attainable because banks made it possible, unscrupulous agents/brokers made them believe it was possible, and because they lacked the knowledge necessary to understand the responsibilities, risks and benefits of owning a home. Other illusions buyers had was their wages. The had the illusion that their wages would go up enough year after year to cover their ever increasing debt due to a lavish life style. This illusion, the lack of financial education and self-control allowed for people to live well beyond their means. Today people, banks, and our government are drowning in debt. CREDIT Competition in the market forces business to improve on their products and allows the consumer to purchase those products at affordable prices. However, competition between banks in a booming economy and low interest rates created a credit bonanza. Instead of banks improving on their products and services, they began utilizing creative financial tools to attract more borrowers. They also lend money to risky borrowers with little regard of their qualifications. Anybody that had a pulse could literally get a loan. Banks can’t accommodate the demand for credit only with their money reserves. So if they want to lend more money, they sell these mortgages to commercial banks and Wall Street lenders. Financial Crisis: Who's Fault Is It, Anyway? Doesn't matter. Because just about everyone is to blame. Republicans opened the door through debt-based credit derivatives and deregulation. Democrats further contributed by turning a blind eye to Fannie and Freddie and insisting that even those who couldn't really afford mortgages be allowed to get them. The Bush Administration touted consumer spending as a means to boost the economy, and encouraged reckless consumer behaviors with billions in "stimulus"money, all while fueling the national debt through a disastrous war and tax cuts for people who don't really need them. And, of course, greedy banks and mortgage lenders went along, doing their best to bilk whoever came through door for whatever they could get -- before passing the risk on to equally greedy investment banks and hedge fund managers. Consumers came along for the ride, abandoning reasonable financial practices and using credit to fuel materialism -- as well as making poor decisions by buying homes they couldn't afford with "creative" mortgage financing. Nearly everyone shares some of the blame. This is not the time to bicker over who is most at fault. It doesn't matter. The past is past. It's time to move forward and fix the problem. REALLY fix the problem. With practical solutions (that's right, follow the link for just one alternative -- and better IMO -- solution) that don't involve throwing a large, arbitrary amount of money at the problem. This is something that requires measured thought. And a change in how our society now views debt, money and the economy. There's no reason to rush into a bailout plan right now. Instead, a little more analysis is needed. more

Resolved Question: Do you agree with the theory that George W. Bush is responsible for the current economic crisis?

Do you agree with this: BUSH ADMINISTRATION responsible for 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see a lot of politicians and forum members pointing fingers at who was responsible for the 2008 Financial Crisis we are currently experiencing. The answer is really simple. THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION! Bush selected the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve Governors are responsible for Banking Oversight. The below quotes are found here: Federal Reserve System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote: Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Quote: The Board of Governors is the part of the Federal Reserve System that is responsible for supervising the private banks. A general description of the types of regulation and supervision involved is given by the Federal Reserve:[11] The Board also plays a major role in the supervision and regulation of the U.S. banking system. It has supervisory responsibilities for state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, bank holding companies (companies that control banks), the foreign activities of member banks, the U.S. activities of foreign banks, and Edge Act and agreement corporations (limited-purpose institutions that engage in a foreign banking business). The Board and, under delegated authority, the Federal Reserve Banks, supervise approximately 900 state member banks and 5,000 bank holding companies. Other federal agencies also serve as the primary federal supervisors of commercial banks; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency supervises national banks, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation supervises state banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System. Some regulations issued by the Board apply to the entire banking industry, whereas others apply only to member banks, that is, state banks that have chosen to join the Federal Reserve System and national banks, which by law must be members of the System. The Board also issues regulations to carry out major federal laws governing consumer credit protection, such as the Truth in Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity, and Home Mortgage Disclosure Acts. Many of these consumer protection regulations apply to various lenders outside the banking industry as well as to banks. Members of the Board of Governors are in continual contact with other policy makers in government. They frequently testify before congressional committees on the economy, monetary policy, banking supervision and regulation, consumer credit protection, financial markets, and other matters. The Board has regular contact with members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and other key economic officials. The Chairman also meets from time to time with the President of the United States and has regular meetings with the Secretary of the Treasury. The Chairman has formal responsibilities in the international arena as well. Quote: Preventing asset bubbles The board of directors of each Federal Reserve Bank District also have regulatory and supervisory responsibilities. For example, a member bank (private bank) is not permitted to give out too many loans to people who cannot pay them back. This is because too many defaults on loans will lead to a bank run. If the board of directors has judged that a member bank is performing or behaving poorly, it will report this to the Board of Governors. This policy is described in United States Code, Title 12, Chapter 3, subchapter 7, section 301:[23] Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time. To me, it looks like the oversight LAWS WERE IN PLACE, and the Federal Reserve GovernoIf Bush hadn't let gas prices get so out of hand we would all have $300-$500 more to spend each month to stimulate the economy.You guys are blaming Clinton? He left us with a surplus. Bush will leave us with the biggest deficit we've ever seen. Bush spent all our money and robbed us blind at the pump. more

Resolved Question: Do you think its funny when McCain supporters still say they dont know what Obama's change is?

Here comes all the "empty suit" references from the rightwing mouthbreathing, knuckledragging squad. John McCain/Bush stands for a third term of the disasterous Bush administration, the guy should be stuffed and mounted and put in a museum somewhere in South Carolina. Here are some of Senator Barack Obama's positions: Opposed the Iraq war from the start. Voted to end the war in Iraq. Supports capturing and killing Osama Bin Laden. Favors a $1000 tax cut for every working American family. Will implement tax form simplification to reduce filing time. Provide tax credit for all middle class homeowners. Provide a tax cut for all families making less than $75,000 a year. Amend NAFTA to protect American workers. Amend NAFTA to strengthen environmental protections. Providing Flex Ed training accounts for workers. Extending Trade Adjustment assistance to service workers. Supported Patriot Employer Act of 2007 that gives tax credits to large companies that keep workers here in America. Double funds for basic federal research. Implement a long term research and development tax credit. Invest in green technologies. Reduce carbon emission gases. Tackle the challenges of global warming. Create an energy focused youth jobs program. Create Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. Extend the Production Tax Credit. Expand Broadband into every community. Keep the Internet tax free. Expand high speed internet access in rural areas. Fight for passage of Employee Free Choice Act. Ensure freedom to unionize. Would overturn "Kentucky River" classifications of Bush's NLRB Protect rights of striking workers. Increase the mininum wage to index it to inflation. Crack down on predatory lenders. Provide a universal mortgage tax credit for homeowners who don't itemize. Sign the Stop Fraud Act to prevent lending fraud. Mandate accurate loan disclosure. Create a fund to protect people from foreclosures. Close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies. Establish a credit card rating to improve disclosure. Ban utilateral credit card charges. Apply interest rate only to future debt. Prohibit credit card interest on fees. Prohibit Universal defaults. Require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments. Protect working people from unfair bankruptcy laws. Ban executive bonuses for bankruptcy companies. REquire disclosure of pension investments. Cap outlandandish interest rates on payday loans. Implement legislation to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business Create a bankruptcy exemption for people that went broke because of medical bills. Double funding for after school programs. Extend Family and Medical Leave Act. Encourage states to adopt Paid leave. Expand the Child Care Tax Credit Supports ratification of UN Convention Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Supports independent, community based living for people with disabilities. Expand educational opportunites for people with disabilities. Expand job opportunities for people with disabilities. Strengthen civil rights enforcement. Sign into law the Fair Pay Act. Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against women. Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against racial minorities. Strengthen federal hate crimes legislation. Eliminate the sentence disparities regarding crack cocaines. Establish drug courts for first time, non violent offenders. Create a prison to work incentive for those transitioning back into society. Passed a law to prohibit the practice of racial profiling. Supported reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. Opposes all discriminatory barriers to voting. Helped reform death penalty system in Illinois to protect innocent people on death row. Voted to ban cluster bombs. Provide high quality affordable child care to families. Will quadrulple Early Head Start funding. Will increase Head Start funding. Creates early learning challenge grants. Abolish overly rigid teach to the test curriculum in schools. Improve accountability in public schools. Invest in intervention strategies to reduce dropout rates in schools. Increase funding for afterschool programs. Supports Step Up program to increase summer learning opportunities. Support English language learner programs. Expand college outreach programs. Create teacher service scholarships. Requires all public schools to be accredited. Create teacher residency programs. Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education. Streamline financial aid application. Introduced legislation to increase Pell Grant to $5,100. Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Confront deforestation. Promote carbon sequestration. Accelerate commercialization of plug in hybrids. Promote development of commercial scale renewable energy. Invest in low emission coal plants. Transition to new electric digit grid. Double science funding for clean energy products. Create Green Jobs Cor more

Resolved Question: How much corruption is acceptable?

Barack Obama helped secure a $25,000 grant for the Blue Gargoyle in August 2000, an organization that was headed by Capers C. Funnye, Jr., Michelle Obama’s first cousin once removed. Obama as the Illinois Senator reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. Unlike what was reportedly available for the general consumer, this special below-market "super super jumbo" loan was secured without an origination fee or discount points. (Questions about the mortgage were first raised by The Washington Post.) Barack Obama’s “squeaky clean” reputation is again being tarnished by shady entrepreneurs who have supported him financially, this time a convicted Iraqi billionaire who funneled millions to the Illinois senator in 2005. A British newspaper has published a lengthy story on the scandal, which connects the Democratic presidential candidate and his indicted longtime Syrian financial supporter (currently on trial for corruption) with one of Britain’s richest people, a criminal Iraqi guru named Nadhmi Auchi. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has blasted Hillary Clinton for withholding her First Lady records while he repeatedly ignores requests to release his own lengthy state legislative records. Obama served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and several media outlets, as well as Judicial Watch, have tried through public requests to obtain his records to no avail. The Illinois Office of the Secretary of State states it doesn’t have the senator’s records and that it has “received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.” In other words, Obama could easily make his state legislator records available to the public by having them archived but has chosen not to. Instead, he has offered several stories relating to the documents since announcing his presidential candidacy. Barack Obama finally was forced to answer questions about his close ties to a domestic terrorist who planted bombs in the Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings to protest U.S. policy. During the nationally televised debate in Pennsylvania, Obama was cornered into addressing his decades-long relationship with William Ayers, a Vietnam-era radical and former fugitive from U.S. justice who has proudly admitted setting the bombs in the 1970s. Ayers, a professor at a public university in Chicago, was a member of the domestic terrorist group Weather Underground and he has publicly said that he doesn’t regret setting the bombs and that his violent group actually “didn’t do enough.” In fact, he still proudly sports a tattoo on his neck featuring the rainbow and lightning weatherman logo that appeared on letters taking responsibility for the bombings. Ayers and his wife, a fellow Weather Underground terrorist, have long supported and collaborated with Obama, donating money to his campaign and hosting fundraising events at their home. The Democratic presidential candidate and aging radical hang out in the same political and social circles, live in the same Chicago neighborhood and for years served on the board of a Chicago nonprofit. According the August 8 edition of The New York Times, Accountable America, a liberal group, plans to send a letter “to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions…The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives. The group is also hoping to be able to respond if an outside conservative group broadcasts a television advertisement attacking Senator Barack Obama, or another Democratic candidate, by running commercials exposing the donors behind the advertisements.” Attempts to intimidate individuals from participating in the presidential campaign can be a violation of federal law. A key federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)), popularly known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, may be applicable if “two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy.” The chairman of an Islamic “charity” shut down by the U.S. government for funding Middle Eastern terrorists has dedicated himself to raising money for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. With his Ohio-based terrorist funding operation closed, Hatem El-Hady has committed to raising substantial funds for more

Resolved Question: Did Obama wow you last night? ?

Well hopefully your eyes were opened to his deceitfulness: WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office. Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them: THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums. ___ THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care." THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers. ___ THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost." THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified." ___ THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. " THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals." more

Resolved Question: Did anyone see Barack Obama's 30 minute presentation on television Wednesday night? ?

I don't have cable so I was not able to see it, but the Associated Press article had the following to say about it. WASHINGTON – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office. Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are — beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them: THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year." THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums. ___ THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care." THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers. ___ THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost." THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years — and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified." ___ THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. " THE FACTS: His proposals — the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more — cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged — although not in his commercial — that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals." Laura - Obama's speech became meaningless when he entered Wright's church and stayed there for 20 years listening to "Black Liberation theology" which is a twisted perversion of the Christian gospel and is heavily racist to the point of wanting to see white people exterminated. Obama was born to a Muslim father, he had a Muslim grandfather, he was raised by a Muslim step father, taught as a boy in a Muslim school, tutored by a man who was a sexual pervert and socialist during his early boyhood, attended the church Wright pastored which had many Muslim members, has been praised by Quaddafi and Hamas - Muslim terrorists, and in an absent-minded moment on tv slipped and said "My Muslim faith." His friends are terrorists and leaders who hate our nation and want her destroyed from without and within. He has not proven his citizenship, and his biggest campaign issue centered around race. He has promised that his future plans are heavily racial in purpose. Christian? Never!Obama voted 4 times against letting a baby receive medical attention if that baby survived an abortion. Fannie and Freddie paid him more than everyone but Chris Dodd and 39 times more than McCain. I believe McCain received a token payment to cover their tracks, and the big three; Dodd, Obama and Kerry were paid to keep their mouths shut or to continue their refusal to vote with Bush regulate them. Obama has NEVER at any time declared he loves America, but has called our troops terrorists and has downgraded our Constitution. He has lied so many times about so many things that it is hard to believe he means any of the things he says. He has vacillated on numerous issues, and has never instituted any legislation in his one year that he actually showed up for work in Illinois. He has can speak eloquently about nothing and people look beyond his lack of knowledge and experience like they are in a hypnotic trance. He is a fraud, and unworthy of the respect of any thinking person. more

Resolved Question: What steps should I take to become a commercial or mortgage loan officer?

I want to become a loan officer ASAP. I have a year of college left, and I'm majoring in Business Management Economics. Basically Economics with some accounting, some computer classes, and some management classes. What steps do I need to take to become a loan officer after I graduate in Miami, NYC, Chicago, or LA? Should I be looking at grad school right now or trying to line up a job? What about grades, how important are they? I'll have a 3.2 GPA when I graduate, is this good enough? more

Resolved Question: Which to choose--keep my long term or go with one year interest-only balloon?

My sister and I have an empty commercial building that is slowwww to sell. Haven't yet been successful in getting a lease at all! Though we each have jobs, it's financially hard on us to keep paying our bills PLUS the mortgage on the commercial building. From the bank with the loan, I've been offered a change in the agreement: to go from my 20 year loan which still had two years to balloon maturity....to a one year maturity date with interest only. The latter saves us money and helps. And though there's no guarantee that the building will sell in the next year, or that they will renew to another one year interest-only loan in a year, there is hope in both fronts, isn't there?? Sure, we have NO bites, but who knows. Are there good reasons to accept or not accept the interest-only one year agreement?? It does financially help us. We are still SO unsure what to do. And please, if you think I should go with one over the other, tell me why. lol more

Resolved Question: PLEASEEE Hey could you please help me answer this, i just dont understand these 5 questions?

a) Suppose the banking system has actual reserves $100 greater than desired reserves. The result would be an increase bank deposits of $1000 and an increase in the money supply of $1050 if: a the desired reserve ratio rr = 0.05 and the cash ratio cr = 0.05. b the desired reserve ratio is 0.05 and the cash ratio cr = 0.01. c the desired reserve ratio rr = 0.01 and the cash ratio cr = 0.00. d the desired reserve ratio rr = 0.01 and the cash ratio cr = 0.01. b) The cash balances held by commercial banks are: a customer saving and chequing accounts. b equal to recent deposits made by new bank customers. c loans available to bank customers who wish to borrow. d bank reserves. c) The distinction between commercial banks and other financial institutions like insurance companies and mortgage brokers and investment companies is that: a commercial banks make loans to their customers. b commercial banks provide their customers with ATM access to cash. c commercial bank liabilities are used as money by their customers. d commercial banks maintain large, ornate banking offices to serve their customers. d) A commercial bank's ability to expand its lending and deposits depends on: a the public's current deposit holdings and willingness to borrow from the bank. b the bank's excess reserve holdings and government policy toward banks. c the current profits earned by the bank and bank customer satisfaction. d the bank's excess reserve holdings and the public's willingness to borrow from the bank and use bank deposits as money. e) An asset that serves as a store of value and a unit of account but not as a medium of exchange is called: a commodity money. b paper money. c near money. d token money. more

Resolved Question: Who really caused the sub-prime crises Democrats?

The Subprime Debacle by Dr. Kuni Michael Beasley 30 Years in Gestation The Democrats are doing a lot to try to pin the subprime debacle on the Republicans and the Bush administration. However, there is a long tail to this problem that just happened to pop at this time. Now, for the rest of the story. Definitions first. Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), founded in 1938 as a publically traded government sponsored enterprise (GSE) that is stockholder owned that makes loans and issue loan guarantees. Its cousin is Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), founded in 1970 as another GSE created to expand the secondary market for mortgages. Freddie Mac buys individual mortgages on the secondary market, pooled them into packages, and sold them to investors on the open market. The secondary market packaged mortgages as collateral and issues securities called collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), to reduce the risk of individual loans. CMOs are a separate entity that is the actual legal owner of the mortgages it has in a "pool." CMOs sell bonds to investors based on the value of the mortgages. Investors receive payments based on the increased value of the loans in the pool. The collateral for the bonds are the actual mortgages. CDOs are a separate entity like CMOs, but are more focused on fixed income assets such as, but not limited to mortgages (and can include commercial mortgages and corporate loans). The focus is cash flow and slices (tranches) of these cash flows are sold to investors. The subprime mortgage crisis surfaced first in 2007, but it had been incubating for years, indeed, decades. Though roots can be traced back to the New Deal legislation in the 1930's, the current crisis actually draws its source from the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) [1977] during the Carter administration that forced banks to lend money to less credit worthy clients. Lending institutions were evaluated to determine if it met the "credit needs of the community" and this was factored into regulatory decisions of the federal government such as applications for facilities, mergers, and acquisitions. Interest in the CRA resurfaced in the Clinton administration when regulations in the CRA (which could be manipulated without any participation of congress) essentially forced institutions to offer loans to higher risk individuals and businesses. The term "Ninja" loans emerged describing high risk loans made to people with No Income, No Job, and no Assets, but completed a particular bank's portfolio sufficient to keep federal regulators off their backs. As access to easy money for high risk borrowers increased, certain institutions began to take advantage of these new opportunities to score fed points and make easy money. Name dropping here: Countrywide began to process, package, and offer investment instruments (CMOs) based on these loans. Revisions to the CRA by the Clinton administration allowed mortgage companies to offer loans without the relative reserve of deposits normally required of banks and other financial institutions. In addition, this allowed for securitization of sub prime mortgages based on the pooling and packaging of cash-flow producing assets into securities that could be sold to investors - with the asset value not tagged to actual value of the property, but to the value of the cash flow produced by the asset held (sounds weird). The first public securitization of CRA loans was started in 1997 by (familiar name) Bear Stearns! Now, let's understand sub-prime loans for a moment. A sub-prime loan is a mortgage offered at a deep discount on interest the first year or two so the borrower could qualify for a larger loan and more expensive house, betting that their economic profile would get better and they could afford large payments later. Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are a form of this where the entry rate is low and rises based on certain criteria such as the rates for government securities. Simply put, lenders (not necessarily banks, but more often mortgage companies) offered low cost, low entry rate mortgages to people who would not normally qualify for that amount of debt. These loans were "warehoused" by financial institutions, where a financial institution like Merrill Lynch would set up a separate, but wholly owned mortgage company (First Franklin) to attract loans. Merrill Lynch would retain control of the loans as a "trustee" or "servicer," and derive benefits from fees for "managing" the loans and increase assets by keeping escrow deposits. In turn, these loans would be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (who were assumed to guarantee the loans), who, in turn, repackaged them for the secondary market. In 2003 the Bush administration tried to head-off what they saw as a potential crisis by moving the supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency more

Resolved Question: Can three separate units on same plot of land have 3 separate mortgages?

We are interested in a 3 unit property on the same plot of land. A friend of mine just bought a 9 unit where 7 units were in one building and 2 were in another. He was able to get one commercial loan for the 7 units and a residential loan for the other. So if there is a property we are looking at that has 3 separate buildings, could we get three separate loans? There is one house and two cottages. more

Resolved Question: What happens if you go into financial default on commercial property?

My sister and I own a commercial building--the business we ran inside went bust thanks to the lousy economy. The building has been up for sale for many months with NO bites. We've lowered and lowered it. No one is buying--small town. My sis and I both work, but this is still financially hard on both of us to keep paying on this building. Mortgage lender has changed our loan to a balloon mortgage, interest only (which saves us several hundred dollars a month), but if I sign it, we have one year & then have to come up with the entire principal, and he said there is NO guarantee they will renew it. There is NO way we can pay it off in a year. So all this makes me wonder if we should just call it quits, keep what little we have left in our savings, stop working so hard to keep up on the mortgage. Our houses are NOT the collateral--the building is. Sure, I know we'll lose both of our top credit standings, but.....this is the pits, and it looks like we could lose it anyway in a year if we sign the new mortgage..... What else would we face if we stop paying? Is it possible that it's worth it?? Any other comments for us to think about?Ananamas, yes, I did like your questions, but wasn't sure how to implement them. For example, how do I find the kind of businesses who don't have to be physically present? How do I contact them? That seemed daunting. Also, I think the city council requires that buildings on our block be a retail for customer to walk into. As far as leasing it, we had some bites, but they ALL wanted to pay FAR less than our mortgage!! Very frustrating. People are low-balling. Networking with local banks and Chamber about new businesses coming in or expanding--not sure either is happening in this community. No, we're not in a dead community at all. It's just the "economy{ thing..... I'm still very interesting in all your ideas. Just not sure how to make them work. This is maddening. more

Resolved Question: HAVE ANY OF YOU READ THIS ABOUT THE ECONOMY?

Subject: From a retired Banker on the current fiasco!!! WORTH THE READ...no matter who you favor for President-- FROM A RETIRED BANKER Written by Jack Kelly Thursday, 18 September 2008 Lending money to people who probably won't pay it back isn't good Business. If you wrap crummy loans in a clever package, they're still crummy loans. Your typical Wal Mart shopper understands this. But the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and in Washington evidently didn't. Ostensibly to aid the poor, the Clinton administration and Congress Encouraged lenders to give mortgages to poor credit risks. The Combination of easy money and the expansion of the number of borrowers By extending loans to poor credit risks sent housing prices through the roof, creating the bubble whose bursting has led to this crisis. Congress in 1999 repealed the law (the Glass-Steagall Act) that established a bright line between commercial and investment banks. This meant bad investments by banks could jeopardize depositors. Wall Street created 'derivatives' which multiplied profits in good times, but which also multiplied risk if there were defaults. Most important was corruption and mismanagement at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage corporation (Freddie Mac), which together controlled 90 percent of the secondary mortgage market. Once your bank has lent you money to buy a house, it can't lend the money again until you pay it back. But if your bank sells your mortgage, it can make another loan right away. Without the secondary market, most of the funds for home mortgages would dry up. Fannie and Freddie went broke because they had bought billions of dollars worth of subprime mortgages, on which borrowers defaulted when the housing bubble popped. Fannie bought most of its bad mortgages from Countrywide Financial, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, gave sweetheart loans to senior executives of Fannie Mae. Fannie and Freddie cooked their books so senior executives would be paid millions of dollars in bonuses to which they were not entitled. Inadequate regulation kept the book-cooking from being discovered until the crisis had become a catastrophe. President Bush proposed regulatory reforms in 2003 but Congress took no action. In 2005, John McCain and three other GOP senators proposed a strong reform bill. It died when Democrats threatened a filibuster. When the bill was reintroduced in this Congress, Sen. Chris Dodd, the New Democratic chairman of Banking Committee, refused even to hold a hearing on it. Democrats opposed reform in part because they feared it would mean fewer loans to poor people. 'Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial Crisis,' Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, told the New York Times when the Bush bill was introduced. 'The more pressure there is on these Companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.' more

Resolved Question: Bankers out there...are you still approving loans for small businesses and mortgages?

I am at a Small Business Development Center conference right now, and we just went reviewed business plans. Our reviews from the commercial bankers were done before the past three weeks, and we were wondering if the companies that got the green light on projects a month ago would still be likely to get the funding in todays situation if nothing has changed on the borrower's end (still have a great business plan and 25% down and good personal credit.) Has there been any official policy changes in the past few weeks? more

Resolved Question: How would you fix the economy? Please include specifics.?

The government now has 7Billion to "fix" the economy. I guarantee you they will not spend it as wisely as we tax payers would like. So how would you spend it? Would you use it to bail out banks, businesses, small business, people? What would you do? If you want to include dollar amounts, fine, but you don't have to. Personally, I'm not sure what I'd do. For sure I would give some to those who are being wise with their money but are having to pay the price at the pump, in the grocery store, with increased interest on loans not related to the housing market. But I'd also buy some of the mortgage loans too - just not the bottom of the barrel ones. I'd help out small businesses by fixing the commercial paper business. But mostly I think I'd overhaul the rules and regs that let this happen in the first place (which probably has little to do with the 7B I'd be given.)I like all three answers so far. I think the economy would have recovered in time on it's own. But now that we have the money, I think it's time for a fresh start. Let's put together a plan that works and makes sense then hit the reboot button. The new plan can be built on many of the same principles as the current one, but you have to admit there are some crazy financial laws out there. Golden parachutes for one (although technically not a law).Smokey, I like yours too. ...except for the invasion of smaller countries thing. I think the time for expansion through conquest is over. However, I'd be for smaller nations (Hatti for example) becoming a US Territory (without voting rights until things settle down over there), especially once they see how our new plan is working. I really like the idea of increasing foreign taxes.While I agree that there shouldn't have been a bailout in the first place, there was and now we the American taxpayer are going to have to pay for this $7billion dollar monstrosity. I just think that since the government is not going to say - oops, we shouldn't have done that, here Mr/Ms Taxpayer, take the money back, that we should be able to say where the money goes. I'm in perfect agreement that if left alone things would work out on their own given a little time (one to two years), but that's not how things worked out. So now what do we do? How do we spend the money? more

Resolved Question: Savings and loan crisis, Enron , Common denominator Deregulation! John McCain I'm fundamentally a deregulator"?

.Glass-Steagall Act. that was Deregulation was design to protect us from the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system like early 1933. " and tend to serve only the rich. Flawed AAA ratings on mortgage-backed securities that turned to junk now lie at the root of the world financial system's http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/derivatives/index.html here must see mcain video http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/20... haven't we been here before bailout? ok..... now I have decided.....http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/09/its_the_economy_2.htmlbailout ok but fix the problem no deregulationbailout ok but fix the problem no deregulation more

Resolved Question: Can I buy a commercial property as a residential property?

I am interested to buy a property for my retirement in a remote area so I can reside there. The part of property has commercial area which is a casual restaruant and an antique shop, but the majority of the property is a house. Also, I have no intention of running any of business but I would like to lease them to tenants. Can I still get a loan as a residential mortgage? Thank You for reading my questions! more

Resolved Question: Exactly who's fault is it again?

Author Bio Letter to the Editor The Public Policy By Peter Ferrara Published 10/1/2008 12:08:01 AM According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the financial crisis is all due to the Bush Administration's "right wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no oversight, no regulation." But at a hearing in the House in 2004, now available in video on YouTube, the Republicans sought to expand supervision and regulation, over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal regulators testified that the reckless financial practices of these two government-sponsored enterprises threatened the entire financial system. Republican after Republican called for a new regulatory authority to supervise Fannie and Freddie and impose standard bank regulation on them. Franklin Raines, the former Clinton budget director who went on to serve as chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified that the mortgage-related securities of these two organizations, which have now rocked the entire financial world, were "riskless." During his tenure, Raines criminally led Fannie Mae to falsify its books so that he would qualify for excessive bonuses and compensation eventually totaling $90 million. But the Democrats excoriated the Republicans for criticizing the wonderful practices of Fannie and Freddie that had been so successful in achieving their goals of affordable housing. The Republican concerns for safety and soundness were dismissed as trumped up efforts to frame the brilliant leadership of Mr. Raines, and said to show once again that Republicans don't care about the middle class and the poor. Barney Frank, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, foolishly laughed off concerns over safety and soundness without offering any evidence to rebut these concerns. Instead, he shamefully led the Democrats in attacking the regulators, who had provided the evidence that Fannie and Freddie were increasingly threatening the safety and soundness of the entire financial system. The following year John McCain was one of three co-sponsors of legislation to impose such regulatory supervision and controls over Fannie and Freddie. The Bush Administration supported this as well, in one of its four attempts to win legislative approval for such expanded regulatory authority. But the Democrats shouted these proposals down as an assault on affordable housing for the middle class and the poor. So it was the Republicans who tried time and again to expand proper regulatory controls to prevent this crisis. And it was the Democrats who stopped them because such regulation threatened their policy of turning Fannie and Freddie into welfare programs. It is Chairman Barney Frank, not SEC Chairman Chris Cox, who should resign for his shameful and stupid role in creating this crisis. And if Franklin Raines is not prosecuted and sent to prison for his naked thievery, then we must let all of the Enron convicts out of jail and issue them a national apology. Apart from this, there is no other instance in which deregulation or lack of regulation played any significant role in the current crisis. Just what "no regulation" was Nancy Pelosi talking about? Does she want the government to stare over the shoulders of all lenders and tell them what loans they can make and what loans they can't? Going all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, it is the government led by the Democrats and their "affordable housing" policies that have imposed increasingly onerous regulations on lenders, forcing them to make shaky loans to increasingly dubious borrowers on increasingly lax terms, and it is the failure of precisely these loans that is at the root of the current crisis. These are the people that are now going to save us with wise, judicious supervision and regulation? On exactly what issue is Nancy Pelosi any more knowledgeable than Sarah Palin? Pelosi can't nearly match Palin's expertise on energy policy, nor Palin's record in cutting taxes and spending. In over 20 years in Congress, the ultra-left San Francisco Democrat has distinguished herself only in the mindless repetition of brain dead political propaganda, such as we saw at the beginning of this commentary. The Democrats have assailed former Senator Phil Gramm for leading the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. But repeal of that outdated regulatory relic from the 1930s, which sought to separate commercial banking from investment banking, has played no role in this financial crisis. Even Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has said as much. Indeed, exactly to the contrary, repeal of Glass-Steagall has been a major factor helping to counter the crisis. It is precisely that repeal that allowed Bank of America to buy out Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan to buy out Bear Stearns, and Barclays Bank to work on buying up the remains of Lehman Brothers. This silly charge is just old, Soviet style propaganda, completely divorced from reality, calculated to mislead the gullible more

Resolved Question: do you really think 700 billion can stop this ? if you dont like reading dont answer?

Martin D. Weiss writes: The proposal before Congress for a $700 billion mega-bailout is far too little to repair the damaged debt and derivatives markets ... and, at the same time, far too much for investors and taxpayers who must put up the money. How big is the problem, really? In the past, Congress has repeatedly asked us for data and analysis on these issues, and we have provided it in Congressional testimony and white papers. In that same tradition, below is a partial first draft of a white paper we will be submitting on this matter: Why the Magnitude of the Mortgage, Debt and Derivatives Crisis Overwhelms The $700 Billion Bailout Plan Now Under Discussion in Congress (Partial First Draft of Weiss Research's Submission to Congress and Federal Banking Regulators) Last week, the President, the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve Chairman announced their view that Congress must get to the root of the debt crisis in America by providing a broad solution that truly puts the crisis to an end. However, the magnitude of the crisis afflicting mortgages, other debts and derivatives clearly overwhelms the $700 billion bailout proposal currently under discussion. To better understand the magnitude of the problem ... First and foremost, we urge members of Congress to disregard data based on the list of troubled banks maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC's list has only 117 institutions with $78 billion in assets. But given the current proposal for a $700 billion bailout, it is clear that Administration officials tacitly recognize that the FDIC list understates the problem. There are many more financial institutions at risk or in need of assistance with their toxic paper. How many more? We believe a more accurate count comes from our analysis of: (a) the derivative risks assumed by major banks, (b) the mortgage holdings of the largest regional banks and (c) all banks and thrifts with TheStreet.com's financial strength rating of D+ (weak) or lower. Based on this analysis, we believe: 1,479 FDIC member banks are at risk of failure with total assets of $2.4 trillion. In addition, 158 savings and loans are at risk with $756 billion in assets. In sum, banks and S&Ls at risk have assets of $3.2 trillion, or over 36 times the assets of banks on the FDIC's watch list. These numbers alone indicate that the $700 billion contemplated for the bailout plan could be severely inadequate. Second, Congress should seriously consider the facts in the Federal Reserve's Second Quarter Flow of Funds Report . In this report, released on September 18, just one day before the President announced the Administration's $700 billion bailout proposal, the Fed estimates that the nation's mountain of interest-bearing debts has now grown to $51 trillion. Plus, it provides critical additional insights regarding the breadth of the debt problems facing the nation, as follows: 1. The ownership of residential mortgages is dispersed among many different sectors. There are $12.1 trillion in mortgages on single- and multi-family homes in the United States. But these are not held only by banks and S&Ls. They are spread among a wide variety of institutions and individuals, all of which could have similar claims to federal assistance. Specifically ... 2. Fannie, Freddie and GSAs are still at risk. As a first priority, the plan would have to expand the recently announced bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to properly secure the residential mortgages held by government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and agencies (GSAs). These now total $5.4 trillion, according to the Fed. Plus ... 3. Private sectors and local governments also own residential mortgages in substantial quantities. The bailout plan would also have to cover: Investment banks and others that issue asset-backed securities, now holding $2.1 trillion in mortgages, Nonbank finance companies ($426 billion), Credit unions ($332.4 billion), State and local governments ($159 billion), Life insurance companies ($61.6 billion), plus ... Private pension funds, government retirement funds and households themselves. 4. Commercial mortgages are now going bad as well. The current debate seems to focus exclusively on residential mortgages. But at many regional and super-regional banks, much of the risk is currently in the commercial mortgage sector, where recent data denotes many of the same difficulties as the residential sector. To truly get to the root of the problem, Congress cannot exclude these either. There are $2.6 trillion in commercial mortgages outstanding in the United States. As with residential mortgages, these are also dispersed widely beyond the banking sector — $644 billion held by issuers of asset-backed securities, $263 billion held by life insurers, $65 billion at nonbank finance companies and $37 billion at Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). 5. Mortgages are less than hal5. Mortgages are less than half the problem. Although it is true that the current debt crisis in America originated in the mortgage market, it is not accurate to say that the root of the crisis is strictly in this one sector. Rather, the debt crisis has multiple and varied roots, with excessive risk-taking in credit cards, auto loans and virtually every other form of private-sector debt. There are currently $14.8 trillion in mortgages in America. But beyond mortgages, there is another $20.4 trillion in consumer and corporate debt. This means that mortgages represent only 42% of the private-sector debt problem in America. 6. Local governments are a higher priority. Overlooking the debt problems of state and local governments would also be a big mistake. Indeed, given the essential nature of their services, including the pivotal role they play in homeland security, it could be argued that their credit challenges take priority over those faced by banks, S&Ls and Wall Street firms.Currently, the Fed estimates $2.7 trillion in municipal securities outstanding, most of which have been reliant on a bond insurance system that remains on the brink of collapse. In short, to truly get to the root of the problem as the President is requesting, Congress' new bailout plan would have to cover a lot of ground beyond just the banking industry. Third, we urge Congress to get a better handle on the enormous build-up of derivatives in America, beginning with a thorough review of the OCC's Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, First Quarter 2008. Although derivatives were originally designed to help reduce risk, it is widely acknowledged that their volume and usage have reached such an extreme level that they have become, instead, speculative bets which greatly increase the systemic risk to financial global markets. And although regulators have few details about these derivatives, most officials now realize they may be at the root of the panic thofficials now realize they may be at the root of the panic that began to spread throughout the global banking system in the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15. Therefore, it should be well understood by all members of Congress that, to ward off possible renewed waves of global panic, the bailout plan would also have to address the following facts: The notional (face value) amount of derivatives held by U.S. commercial banks is $180.3 trillion. The credit exposure to derivatives (risk of default by trading partners) is $465 billion, up 159% from one year earlier. U.S. banks with the greatest credit exposure to derivatives are HSBC (with $7.21 in risk per dollar of capital), JPMorgan Chase (with $4.11 in risk on the dollar), Citibank ($2.79), Bank of America ($2.15) and Wachovia ($.77). Further, after Bank of America's merger with Merrill Lynch, which reports $4 trillion in derivatives, and after a possible Wachovia merger with Morgan Stanley, which holds $7Martin which holds $7.1 trillion, these exposures will likely be intensified. Congress must go into its deliberations with its eyes open, recognizing that any bailout plan that does not include these banks and other players in the vast market for derivatives could leave a gaping hole through which financial panic can spread again. Fourth, for all of these debts and derivatives, a bailout plan would, in normal circumstances, require (a) realistic estimates of the amount that is already delinquent or in default, and (b) a reasonable forecast of how many more are likely to go bad in a continuing recession. However, the only estimates currently available are those reflecting actual write-downs recognized by large, global financial institutions — over $500 billion. That figure does not include the thousands of other institutions which are among the sectors we cite above. Nor does it include losses incurred but not yet properly booked — let alone losses not yet incurred. To date, noTo date, no government agency is providing such estimates. But without them, any budgetary planning for this bailout is next to impossible. No one will know, except in retrospect, if the bailout truly removes the cancerous debts from the economic body or leaves most of them to fester and spread. In sum, there should be no illusion that the $700 billion estimate proposed by the Administration can actually provide anything approaching a total solution to America's current debt crisis. It could very well be just a drop in the bucket. Too Much, Too Soon for the U.S. Government Securities Market There should also be no illusion that the market for U.S. government securities can absorb the additional burden of a $700 billion bailout without traumatic consequences. In its Fiscal Year 2009 Mid-Session Review, Budget of the U.S. Government , the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects the 2009 federal deficit will rise to $482 billion. However, this projection was madebefore the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG and before the White House's $700 billion bailout proposal. Even assuming no budget overruns beyond the $700 billion, these bailouts threaten to double or even triple the federal deficit. The OMB seeks to minimize its $482 billion deficit projection by stating it will be only 3.3% of estimated GDP, which it deems manageable. However, after adding the cost of announced and proposed bailouts — approximately $1 trillion — the federal deficit could be between 8% and 10% of GDP. No reasonable person could deny that such a dramatic increase in the deficit will have an equally dramatic impact on interest-rate levels. To attract investors, the U.S. Treasury will have to pay much higher rates ... and these higher rates, in turn, will drive up rates on mortgages, credit cards and nearly all borrowing.In light of these facts, we have four recommendations: Recommendation #1. Before passing any bailout package to patch up certain sectors of the debt markets, consider the impact of massive government borrowing on all sectors of the debt markets, and on the value of the U.S. dollar. History proves that far less dramatic increases in government borrowing have crowded out millions of private borrowers, driven up interest rates and greatly damaged the economy as a whole. So it's reasonable to assume that the massive increases in government borrowing required for a bailout of this magnitude would put unprecedented upward pressure on interest rates, greatly aggravate the debt crisis, sink the U.S. dollar, and cause even more damage to the economy than in the past. To avoid these consequences, we recommend that Congress reject the Administration's $700 billion bailout proposal and shelve any related legislation, moving forward instead with our recommendation #4 below.Recommendation #2. If, despite the risk of causing much higher interest rates and a sharp decline in the dollar, Congress is determined to pass legislation creating a new government agency to buy up bad debts as proposed, we recommend that the new agency pay strictly fair market value for those debts, including a substantial discount that reflects their poor liquidity. Further, it should be clearly understood that: Due to the recent sharp declines in market values and market liquidity, many of the bad debts on the books of U.S. financial institutions are currently worth only a fraction of their face value. When the government buys these debts at fair market value, it will still leave most of these institutions with severe losses. Many of these institutions do not have the capital to cover their losses and will fail despite the bailout. Recommendation #3. Congress must clearly disclose to the public that: There are several significant risks to the financial system that theThere are several significant risks to the financial system that the government is unable to address with any new legislation, including defaults on other large debts and derivatives, which could trigger a chain reaction of corporate failures. Whether the bailout legislation is adequate or not to stem the debt crisis and prevent financial panic, the government will need to prioritize the protection of its own credit and seek to ensure the stability of the U.S. dollar. The private sector, in turn, will need to handle any further spread of the debt crisis largely without government financial assistance. Recommendation #4. Rather than focusing primarily on a safety net for imprudent institutions and speculators, Congress should devote more effort to bolstering the safety nets for prudent individuals and savers. These include: The FDIC, which insures bank depositors, but has inadequate funding and staffing to handle a large wave of bank failures. SIPC, which supposedly coversSIPC, which supposedly covers brokerage firm accounts, but, in practice, does not compensate investors for losses in most circumstances. State guarantee associations, which promise to cover insurance policyholders, but which have repeatedly failed to live up to their promise when large insurers fail. Unless Congress approaches its monumental task with enormous caution, it could produce the worst of both worlds: A failure to resolve the current debt crisis plus the creation of a new set of crises that merely spread the panic and prolong the pain. more

Resolved Question: If I have a commercial mortgage in a bank that is shut down by the government, what happens to the loan?

Resolved Question: Is the state of our economy due to the fact that people in power were able to manipulate deregulation?

I believe state of our economy is due to the fact that people in power in business and government were able to manipulate deregulation and leverage the stock market to their advantage. Once upon a time, all mortgages were 20% down, at a fixed interest rate. The people that bought houses could afford houses. People saved money for their down payments. They rarely walked-away from their 20% savings investment in their home. Then, deregulation came along. "Greed Is Good" was the mantra of the day. In order to stimulate the economic marketplace in the late 70's due to a recession, congress passed legislation to deregulate the commercial banking / Savings and Loan industries. Thus, the collapse a few years later in the early1980's of numerous S & L's, due to bad decision making on the part of greedy CEO's who had pushed the deregulation and choose to make bad investments to earn outrageous interest rates. These high-rate, high-risk loans to under-capitalized, high-risk people were made with the banks and S & L's depositors funds - people lost their retirement money, pension plans were wiped-out. But, prior to the Black Monday crash of October 1981 the corporate CEO's rewarded themselves outrageous compensation packages and golden parachutes... do you recall The Keating Scandal? Regulation's were tightened back up... but then in early 2001, the economy went south again... partly due to 9-11. So, to stimulate the marketplace, more deregulation... this time of the mortgage and energy industries. Energy deregulation came very quickly, with V.P. "Tricky Dick" Cheney having the first-ever closed-door, zero-oversight private meetings at the White House of Energy Company Executives to create policy to regulate... the Energy Industry? (think fox guarding hen house...). Too soon after came the spectacular energy industry failures... (remember Enron? Kenneth Lay was a personal FOB, "Friend of Bush" ) and the massive compensation packages awarded to the CEO's by themselves. Then, as in the early 1980's, regulation had to be re-instituted. The mortgage industry took off... everyone was happy... lots of money was made by most everyone... lenders, home owners, home builders, investors, wall street... but, no one in government had the foresight to look toward the inevitable over-correction, the "bursting-of-the-bubble" in the market... we were distracted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan... if you're not with us, then you're against us! A primer: Mortgage loans are "bundled" in sets (blocks) of billions of dollars of investments... which had always been traditionally considered as "safe" (remember the down payments that used to be made...?). Lenders then sell these blocks of bundled mortgage loans to large investors, primarily Fannie May and Freddie Mac, quasi "US government-backed agencies" (think the US Post Office, another quasi government agency, overseen by uncle Fed, but run as it's own "company"). This selling-off of the bundled loan packages freed-up the mortgage lenders to create new loans, because they had been "re-paid" when sold to Fannie May & Freddie Mac. When the loans being made were sound, the marketplace worked well... When deregulation or the mortgage industry in early 2002 happened, just about anyone that could fog a mirror and breathe at the same time could suddenly get a mortgage. Previous rules and reg's on lending went out the window. The more loans they made, the more fee's they could collect. Lenders made lots of money, meaning their companies made lots of profit. Wall Street invested heavily in these mortgage securities, which now were weighted-down with the shady, undocumented "B" and "C" grade-paper sub-prime loans. More loans, more fees... more loans, more money to loan out, which were based on these mortgage bundles now loaded with poor-performing loans. This fed the gluttony in America for more and more credit: credit cards, equity loans - borrow, borrow borrow!! The wall street CEO's rewarded themselves handsomely... their companies were making outrageous profits... before they eventually collapsed. I BLAME UNCLE FED FOR THIS MESS - AND I PARTICULARLY BLAME THE REPUBLICANS, who have such a need to deregulate industries to the extent that corporate greed takes-over and fiscal common-sense falls by the wayside. Just because they could deregulate doesn't mean they should have deregulated... when guidelines / rules / regulations go away, greed ALWAYS takes over... EVERY, SINGLE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've worked in Real Estate, Mortgage Banking and as an Escrow Closer for the past 20+ years... saw this disaster coming for the last 5 years... YOUR THOUGHTS??P.S. - I didn't make the loans, I was an administrative staff-support person... I was personally sickened by the loans being made to the people I knew couldn't repay them... but I couldn't do a damn thing about it, except by getting-out of the industry (that was 4 years ago...). more