Fire Victims-Money Mag Jan 08

[equalizer]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/11/pf/fire_familydisaster.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2007121211

Wish the family best. Money mag should have focused more on the getting rebuilding costs fully covered by insurance such as through rider.

Questions

1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.

1. How much were they paid for the story? Just the free financial planner, worth $500-1000?

2. Money’s goal is to provide readers with advice to get most benefits for lowest cost. They encouraged family to try to collect to max policy limits: They are entitled up to $489,000, not just the 245,000 they received for their furnishings. The paid around 800K for house with upgrades and have investment property and he works as a Q eng. Practical, not likely they had Monets.

3. They completely ignored the advice on selling the Hard Rock condo/Hotel. It will have 0% vacancy and price will double in 5 years. Looks like the family should be the financial planners. No joke. I bet their net worth is much HIGHER than the financial planners. High risk (or no risk thanks to Money Mag, Greenspan et al) equals high net worth.

4. With $1.3M in net worth they got $1300 from Red Cross and $300 from a Buddhist relief agency (I’m not even going to bring up Myanmar allegedly killing peaceful Buddhists). Did Red Cross do any means testing, did the family with $5M NW or $50K NW also get $1300? Not their problem if people give them money.

We should discuss insurance problems here and after we solve that issue, we can make comments on the Hard Rock investment.

[kev374]

But the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income

So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.

[kev374]

But the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income

So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.

[kev374]

But the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income

So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.

[kev374]

But the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income

So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.

[kev374]

But the couple had borrowed heavily against their house, in part to pay for a risky real estate venture, leaving them with loan payments that eat up more than two-thirds of their net income

So these guys are speculators?
Feel sorry that they lost their home but had they not used their home like an ATM they would’ve been able to cover their losses. Their situation is their own fault.

[taz]

I appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…

[taz]

I appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…

[taz]

I appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…

[taz]

I appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…

[taz]

I appreciate that greater risk often leads to greater rewards, but I for one couldn’t sleep at night if I were carrying 1.2 million in mortgage debt on a $145k salary. To do so, they obviously must be using interest only loans…

[NotCranky]

1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.

Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.

[NotCranky]

1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.

Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.

[NotCranky]

1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.

Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.

[NotCranky]

1. After 2003 incident, didn’t policy limits change to account for current costs? Companies are insuring for only 150-170 SF, which is builders cost for hundred not 1 home.

Many insurers still under-insure to keep rates low and competetive. They are willing to deal with the issue on a case by case basis when there is a big loss. Not that they make it easy all the time.As stated in the article they put the customer in a bind between wanting the house back quickly and fighting for the rest of the money . Most losses are small so the question doesn’t come up. In place of actual coverage, most offer or automatically put a rider increasing the limits of coverage but the terms for recouping this money are different.

[Author]

Posts