Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
equalizer
Participant[quote=evolusd]They haven’t changed it in a while, which is surprising to me. They have always been about 25-50 bps higher than ING Orange Savings, but they kept the rate at 2.75% when everyone else dropped down to 1.5%.[/quote]
This link is showing 2.0% for Amex? Do you have special link or just grandfathered rate?http://personalsavings.americanexpress.com/savings-product.html
Participant[quote=evolusd]They haven’t changed it in a while, which is surprising to me. They have always been about 25-50 bps higher than ING Orange Savings, but they kept the rate at 2.75% when everyone else dropped down to 1.5%.[/quote]
This link is showing 2.0% for Amex? Do you have special link or just grandfathered rate?http://personalsavings.americanexpress.com/savings-product.html
Participant[quote=evolusd]They haven’t changed it in a while, which is surprising to me. They have always been about 25-50 bps higher than ING Orange Savings, but they kept the rate at 2.75% when everyone else dropped down to 1.5%.[/quote]
This link is showing 2.0% for Amex? Do you have special link or just grandfathered rate?http://personalsavings.americanexpress.com/savings-product.html
Participant[quote=evolusd]They haven’t changed it in a while, which is surprising to me. They have always been about 25-50 bps higher than ING Orange Savings, but they kept the rate at 2.75% when everyone else dropped down to 1.5%.[/quote]
This link is showing 2.0% for Amex? Do you have special link or just grandfathered rate?http://personalsavings.americanexpress.com/savings-product.html
Participant[quote=evolusd]They haven’t changed it in a while, which is surprising to me. They have always been about 25-50 bps higher than ING Orange Savings, but they kept the rate at 2.75% when everyone else dropped down to 1.5%.[/quote]
This link is showing 2.0% for Amex? Do you have special link or just grandfathered rate?http://personalsavings.americanexpress.com/savings-product.html
ParticipantShould look at 1yr CD since most people here believe rates will go up. Use bankrate’s safe and sound to choose your pick.
For example, Discover Bank 1 yr 2.08%
You may want to consider putting a small portion in very conservative bond fund such as
Weitz Short-Intermediate Income WEFIX
that hasn’t has a down year in last 7 yearshttp://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/TotalReturns.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=WEFIX
ParticipantShould look at 1yr CD since most people here believe rates will go up. Use bankrate’s safe and sound to choose your pick.
For example, Discover Bank 1 yr 2.08%
You may want to consider putting a small portion in very conservative bond fund such as
Weitz Short-Intermediate Income WEFIX
that hasn’t has a down year in last 7 yearshttp://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/TotalReturns.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=WEFIX
ParticipantShould look at 1yr CD since most people here believe rates will go up. Use bankrate’s safe and sound to choose your pick.
For example, Discover Bank 1 yr 2.08%
You may want to consider putting a small portion in very conservative bond fund such as
Weitz Short-Intermediate Income WEFIX
that hasn’t has a down year in last 7 yearshttp://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/TotalReturns.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=WEFIX
ParticipantShould look at 1yr CD since most people here believe rates will go up. Use bankrate’s safe and sound to choose your pick.
For example, Discover Bank 1 yr 2.08%
You may want to consider putting a small portion in very conservative bond fund such as
Weitz Short-Intermediate Income WEFIX
that hasn’t has a down year in last 7 yearshttp://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/TotalReturns.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=WEFIX
ParticipantShould look at 1yr CD since most people here believe rates will go up. Use bankrate’s safe and sound to choose your pick.
For example, Discover Bank 1 yr 2.08%
You may want to consider putting a small portion in very conservative bond fund such as
Weitz Short-Intermediate Income WEFIX
that hasn’t has a down year in last 7 yearshttp://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundnet/TotalReturns.aspx?Country=USA&Symbol=WEFIX
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]
While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.
[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]
Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:
1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.
2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.
3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.
Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)
So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.
In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Thanks for insightful reply.
In the blighted communities there may be a case made for alternatives, pushing the can if you will. Banks, Feds, the towns can’t handle a crush of foreclosures at the same time. If they ideally spread out over several years the pain could be reduced. That’s me and Wishful thinking.Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]
While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.
[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]
Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:
1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.
2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.
3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.
Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)
So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.
In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Thanks for insightful reply.
In the blighted communities there may be a case made for alternatives, pushing the can if you will. Banks, Feds, the towns can’t handle a crush of foreclosures at the same time. If they ideally spread out over several years the pain could be reduced. That’s me and Wishful thinking.Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]
While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.
[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]
Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:
1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.
2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.
3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.
Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)
So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.
In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Thanks for insightful reply.
In the blighted communities there may be a case made for alternatives, pushing the can if you will. Banks, Feds, the towns can’t handle a crush of foreclosures at the same time. If they ideally spread out over several years the pain could be reduced. That’s me and Wishful thinking.Participant[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=equalizer]However flawed the part ownership, it is better than outright principal reduction. [/quote]
While I’m not exactly sure of the details of Taleb’s plan I think it’s straightforward principal reduction in exchange for a part ownership that has little if any value and potentially lots of administrative headaches. If that’s better than outright principal reduction it is only a very small amount better.
[quote=equalizer] Do you have any better ideas short of foreclosure? [/quote]
Back up a second. The problem is that the banks hold loans that due to falling prices are no longer sufficiently collateralized. If the borrower continues to pay the mortgage, the bank does not have a problem. However, if the borrower stops paying the mortgage, the bank has three choices:
1) Take their losses either with a foreclosure or short sale.
2) Outright principal reduction. This is a particularly bad option because doing this for one person only encourages others to go into default hoping to get their principal reduced.
3) Try some scheme that kicks the payments down the road, hoping that some time in the future somehow the borrower coughs up more money. My perspective is that virtually all the schemes put forward, including this one from Mr. Taleb, are nothing more than a fancy cover for this option. They are not a fix, just a postponement of the problem.
Notice that before I listed the bank’s options, I made clear that if the borrower continued to make payments there was no problem. So, if the bank was thinking things through they would realize that a very high priority is to make sure that people keep paying in full at the agreed upon terms. Option 2 and 3 undermine that. (As we’ve discussed in a number of threads here on piggington)
So, regardless of the area I think it’s pretty clear foreclosure and/or short sales are the best answer.
In regards to your comments about areas where the economy is collapsing. (Modesto, Bakersfield, Detroit) In these areas, it’s the broad economic issues that need to be addressed first before housing can be addressed. (ie, what are people in these areas going to produce/sell that will generate the cash coming into the community so that it can grow) Since these issues are not being addressed seriously, I doubt that any kicking the problem down the road will work, only postpone the problem.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
Thanks for insightful reply.
In the blighted communities there may be a case made for alternatives, pushing the can if you will. Banks, Feds, the towns can’t handle a crush of foreclosures at the same time. If they ideally spread out over several years the pain could be reduced. That’s me and Wishful thinking. -
AuthorPosts