[SK in CV]

A couple of ideas for you. Over the last 10 years I’ve used or maintained (I do IT for a small company) Dells, Acers, Sonys, HPs (and Compaqs before that) and Toshibas. The Sonys and HP’s were the least reliable but I’ve been told by others in the IT business that HP has greatly improved recently.

If you’re going to be lugging it around a lot, or even sitting it on your lap, consider going with the smaller screen (usually 14.1″). The extra weight really does make a difference. If you’ll be using it mostly sitting at a desk, the larger (usually 15.4″) is fine.

If you’re not going to go Mac, there really is no reason to spend more than $500-600. My favorites right now are the Dell Vostro line and Toshiba satellites.

The dell vostro line was specifically designed for business users and doesn’t come with all the pre-loaded crap that most people never use anyway. They’re a bit heavy but very sturdy and reliable. I’ve got 3 of them in my office. As of a few days ago, they could also be loaded with XP instead of Vista at no additional charge. My experience with Dell’s service department has also been very good.

The Toshiba satellite line gives great bang for the buck. The Best Buy Black Friday special (model L305D-S5892) was like $379 but not available anymore at that price in retail outlets, but is still available on ebay in the high $400’s. I bought 2 of them, one of them for my personal home use, and its working fine. My only complaint is that they’re a bit heavy. Of the older Toshibas that I’ve had, I’ve only needed service on 1 (out of 3), and their warranty service was outstanding. Call them up, give them the serial number and they tell you where to take it to get it fixed, no hassles whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

A couple of ideas for you. Over the last 10 years I’ve used or maintained (I do IT for a small company) Dells, Acers, Sonys, HPs (and Compaqs before that) and Toshibas. The Sonys and HP’s were the least reliable but I’ve been told by others in the IT business that HP has greatly improved recently.

If you’re going to be lugging it around a lot, or even sitting it on your lap, consider going with the smaller screen (usually 14.1″). The extra weight really does make a difference. If you’ll be using it mostly sitting at a desk, the larger (usually 15.4″) is fine.

If you’re not going to go Mac, there really is no reason to spend more than $500-600. My favorites right now are the Dell Vostro line and Toshiba satellites.

The dell vostro line was specifically designed for business users and doesn’t come with all the pre-loaded crap that most people never use anyway. They’re a bit heavy but very sturdy and reliable. I’ve got 3 of them in my office. As of a few days ago, they could also be loaded with XP instead of Vista at no additional charge. My experience with Dell’s service department has also been very good.

The Toshiba satellite line gives great bang for the buck. The Best Buy Black Friday special (model L305D-S5892) was like $379 but not available anymore at that price in retail outlets, but is still available on ebay in the high $400’s. I bought 2 of them, one of them for my personal home use, and its working fine. My only complaint is that they’re a bit heavy. Of the older Toshibas that I’ve had, I’ve only needed service on 1 (out of 3), and their warranty service was outstanding. Call them up, give them the serial number and they tell you where to take it to get it fixed, no hassles whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

A couple of ideas for you. Over the last 10 years I’ve used or maintained (I do IT for a small company) Dells, Acers, Sonys, HPs (and Compaqs before that) and Toshibas. The Sonys and HP’s were the least reliable but I’ve been told by others in the IT business that HP has greatly improved recently.

If you’re going to be lugging it around a lot, or even sitting it on your lap, consider going with the smaller screen (usually 14.1″). The extra weight really does make a difference. If you’ll be using it mostly sitting at a desk, the larger (usually 15.4″) is fine.

If you’re not going to go Mac, there really is no reason to spend more than $500-600. My favorites right now are the Dell Vostro line and Toshiba satellites.

The dell vostro line was specifically designed for business users and doesn’t come with all the pre-loaded crap that most people never use anyway. They’re a bit heavy but very sturdy and reliable. I’ve got 3 of them in my office. As of a few days ago, they could also be loaded with XP instead of Vista at no additional charge. My experience with Dell’s service department has also been very good.

The Toshiba satellite line gives great bang for the buck. The Best Buy Black Friday special (model L305D-S5892) was like $379 but not available anymore at that price in retail outlets, but is still available on ebay in the high $400’s. I bought 2 of them, one of them for my personal home use, and its working fine. My only complaint is that they’re a bit heavy. Of the older Toshibas that I’ve had, I’ve only needed service on 1 (out of 3), and their warranty service was outstanding. Call them up, give them the serial number and they tell you where to take it to get it fixed, no hassles whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

A couple of ideas for you. Over the last 10 years I’ve used or maintained (I do IT for a small company) Dells, Acers, Sonys, HPs (and Compaqs before that) and Toshibas. The Sonys and HP’s were the least reliable but I’ve been told by others in the IT business that HP has greatly improved recently.

If you’re going to be lugging it around a lot, or even sitting it on your lap, consider going with the smaller screen (usually 14.1″). The extra weight really does make a difference. If you’ll be using it mostly sitting at a desk, the larger (usually 15.4″) is fine.

If you’re not going to go Mac, there really is no reason to spend more than $500-600. My favorites right now are the Dell Vostro line and Toshiba satellites.

The dell vostro line was specifically designed for business users and doesn’t come with all the pre-loaded crap that most people never use anyway. They’re a bit heavy but very sturdy and reliable. I’ve got 3 of them in my office. As of a few days ago, they could also be loaded with XP instead of Vista at no additional charge. My experience with Dell’s service department has also been very good.

The Toshiba satellite line gives great bang for the buck. The Best Buy Black Friday special (model L305D-S5892) was like $379 but not available anymore at that price in retail outlets, but is still available on ebay in the high $400’s. I bought 2 of them, one of them for my personal home use, and its working fine. My only complaint is that they’re a bit heavy. Of the older Toshibas that I’ve had, I’ve only needed service on 1 (out of 3), and their warranty service was outstanding. Call them up, give them the serial number and they tell you where to take it to get it fixed, no hassles whatsoever.

[SK in CV]

Discharge of HELOC debt in bankruptcy is complicated. Generally, in California, for purchase money debt (standard 1st mortgage debt or HELOC), the creditor’s only recourse is the property. For all other debt, (Refi’s with or without cash-out and HELOC withdrawals) the creditor has the option of a non-judicial foreclosure (which is the standard NOD followed by NOT and then trustee sale) or judicial foreclosure which can result in a deficiency judgement. There is also the issue of fraud in the application process. Credit granted based on a false loan application (over-stating income, for instance) can be considered fraud and may not be dischargeable. These types of judicial foreclosures became quite common during the early 90’s and then virtually disappeared. While I haven’t seen any significant increase yet, I suspect they’ll be showing up very soon.

There was, however, a recent bankruptcy court decision that may change much of this scenario. A bk court judge ruled that despite the fact that a borrower lied on his loan application, the lender relied solely on the value of the property, not the borrower’s credit or wherewithal to repay, and the debt was therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Lenders have never been particularly logical in how they approach these things. I don’t suspect that will change.

[SK in CV]

Discharge of HELOC debt in bankruptcy is complicated. Generally, in California, for purchase money debt (standard 1st mortgage debt or HELOC), the creditor’s only recourse is the property. For all other debt, (Refi’s with or without cash-out and HELOC withdrawals) the creditor has the option of a non-judicial foreclosure (which is the standard NOD followed by NOT and then trustee sale) or judicial foreclosure which can result in a deficiency judgement. There is also the issue of fraud in the application process. Credit granted based on a false loan application (over-stating income, for instance) can be considered fraud and may not be dischargeable. These types of judicial foreclosures became quite common during the early 90’s and then virtually disappeared. While I haven’t seen any significant increase yet, I suspect they’ll be showing up very soon.

There was, however, a recent bankruptcy court decision that may change much of this scenario. A bk court judge ruled that despite the fact that a borrower lied on his loan application, the lender relied solely on the value of the property, not the borrower’s credit or wherewithal to repay, and the debt was therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Lenders have never been particularly logical in how they approach these things. I don’t suspect that will change.

[SK in CV]

Discharge of HELOC debt in bankruptcy is complicated. Generally, in California, for purchase money debt (standard 1st mortgage debt or HELOC), the creditor’s only recourse is the property. For all other debt, (Refi’s with or without cash-out and HELOC withdrawals) the creditor has the option of a non-judicial foreclosure (which is the standard NOD followed by NOT and then trustee sale) or judicial foreclosure which can result in a deficiency judgement. There is also the issue of fraud in the application process. Credit granted based on a false loan application (over-stating income, for instance) can be considered fraud and may not be dischargeable. These types of judicial foreclosures became quite common during the early 90’s and then virtually disappeared. While I haven’t seen any significant increase yet, I suspect they’ll be showing up very soon.

There was, however, a recent bankruptcy court decision that may change much of this scenario. A bk court judge ruled that despite the fact that a borrower lied on his loan application, the lender relied solely on the value of the property, not the borrower’s credit or wherewithal to repay, and the debt was therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Lenders have never been particularly logical in how they approach these things. I don’t suspect that will change.

[SK in CV]

Discharge of HELOC debt in bankruptcy is complicated. Generally, in California, for purchase money debt (standard 1st mortgage debt or HELOC), the creditor’s only recourse is the property. For all other debt, (Refi’s with or without cash-out and HELOC withdrawals) the creditor has the option of a non-judicial foreclosure (which is the standard NOD followed by NOT and then trustee sale) or judicial foreclosure which can result in a deficiency judgement. There is also the issue of fraud in the application process. Credit granted based on a false loan application (over-stating income, for instance) can be considered fraud and may not be dischargeable. These types of judicial foreclosures became quite common during the early 90’s and then virtually disappeared. While I haven’t seen any significant increase yet, I suspect they’ll be showing up very soon.

There was, however, a recent bankruptcy court decision that may change much of this scenario. A bk court judge ruled that despite the fact that a borrower lied on his loan application, the lender relied solely on the value of the property, not the borrower’s credit or wherewithal to repay, and the debt was therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Lenders have never been particularly logical in how they approach these things. I don’t suspect that will change.

[SK in CV]

Discharge of HELOC debt in bankruptcy is complicated. Generally, in California, for purchase money debt (standard 1st mortgage debt or HELOC), the creditor’s only recourse is the property. For all other debt, (Refi’s with or without cash-out and HELOC withdrawals) the creditor has the option of a non-judicial foreclosure (which is the standard NOD followed by NOT and then trustee sale) or judicial foreclosure which can result in a deficiency judgement. There is also the issue of fraud in the application process. Credit granted based on a false loan application (over-stating income, for instance) can be considered fraud and may not be dischargeable. These types of judicial foreclosures became quite common during the early 90’s and then virtually disappeared. While I haven’t seen any significant increase yet, I suspect they’ll be showing up very soon.

There was, however, a recent bankruptcy court decision that may change much of this scenario. A bk court judge ruled that despite the fact that a borrower lied on his loan application, the lender relied solely on the value of the property, not the borrower’s credit or wherewithal to repay, and the debt was therefore dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Lenders have never been particularly logical in how they approach these things. I don’t suspect that will change.

[SK in CV]

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Both the original lender and the borrower have to agree, since both are being affected. As a practical matter, lenders never negotiate with borrowers that are current, so it would most likely apply only to loans that are already delinquent (at least 1 payment late). Lenders could adapt on this one, but given their historical shortsightedness, it’s unlikely.

2. It sunsets at the earlier of the funding of the insurance on the $300 billion or some future date, I think I remember 5 years, though I may have imagined that.

3. FHA loan volume moves as does the market. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90’s and the related deregulation which lead to the expansion of mortgage lending to non-banks, along with the advent of mortgage backed securities, FHA insured lending all but disappeared in many markets. If this bill passes, they will be back in business. At least until they’re not anymore.

4. Appraisals will have to be brand spanken new, paid for by the borrower/lender and the appraisal will have to be done according to strict FHA guidelines, which are much more strict than traditional underwriting guidelines. (I know, its an oxymoron to call recent customs in the lending industry “guidelines”. The were more like suggestions. The FHA does not operate that way.)

5. FHA geographical lending limits will apply.

6. Unless there has been a modification to the bill since I read it last, no. Borrowers who knowingly presented false loan applications on the loan being renegotiated will not be eligible. How strictly the FHA enforces this clause may well be regulated by the demand for the FHA insurance. Lower demand may dictate more lax interpretation. Higher demand would lead to more strict interpretation. At its most strict, the FHA could deem that any exaggeration on a signed loan app qualifies as “knowingly”. I suspect this clause will greatly diminish any expected benefits of the bill.

[SK in CV]

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Both the original lender and the borrower have to agree, since both are being affected. As a practical matter, lenders never negotiate with borrowers that are current, so it would most likely apply only to loans that are already delinquent (at least 1 payment late). Lenders could adapt on this one, but given their historical shortsightedness, it’s unlikely.

2. It sunsets at the earlier of the funding of the insurance on the $300 billion or some future date, I think I remember 5 years, though I may have imagined that.

3. FHA loan volume moves as does the market. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90’s and the related deregulation which lead to the expansion of mortgage lending to non-banks, along with the advent of mortgage backed securities, FHA insured lending all but disappeared in many markets. If this bill passes, they will be back in business. At least until they’re not anymore.

4. Appraisals will have to be brand spanken new, paid for by the borrower/lender and the appraisal will have to be done according to strict FHA guidelines, which are much more strict than traditional underwriting guidelines. (I know, its an oxymoron to call recent customs in the lending industry “guidelines”. The were more like suggestions. The FHA does not operate that way.)

5. FHA geographical lending limits will apply.

6. Unless there has been a modification to the bill since I read it last, no. Borrowers who knowingly presented false loan applications on the loan being renegotiated will not be eligible. How strictly the FHA enforces this clause may well be regulated by the demand for the FHA insurance. Lower demand may dictate more lax interpretation. Higher demand would lead to more strict interpretation. At its most strict, the FHA could deem that any exaggeration on a signed loan app qualifies as “knowingly”. I suspect this clause will greatly diminish any expected benefits of the bill.

[SK in CV]

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Both the original lender and the borrower have to agree, since both are being affected. As a practical matter, lenders never negotiate with borrowers that are current, so it would most likely apply only to loans that are already delinquent (at least 1 payment late). Lenders could adapt on this one, but given their historical shortsightedness, it’s unlikely.

2. It sunsets at the earlier of the funding of the insurance on the $300 billion or some future date, I think I remember 5 years, though I may have imagined that.

3. FHA loan volume moves as does the market. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90’s and the related deregulation which lead to the expansion of mortgage lending to non-banks, along with the advent of mortgage backed securities, FHA insured lending all but disappeared in many markets. If this bill passes, they will be back in business. At least until they’re not anymore.

4. Appraisals will have to be brand spanken new, paid for by the borrower/lender and the appraisal will have to be done according to strict FHA guidelines, which are much more strict than traditional underwriting guidelines. (I know, its an oxymoron to call recent customs in the lending industry “guidelines”. The were more like suggestions. The FHA does not operate that way.)

5. FHA geographical lending limits will apply.

6. Unless there has been a modification to the bill since I read it last, no. Borrowers who knowingly presented false loan applications on the loan being renegotiated will not be eligible. How strictly the FHA enforces this clause may well be regulated by the demand for the FHA insurance. Lower demand may dictate more lax interpretation. Higher demand would lead to more strict interpretation. At its most strict, the FHA could deem that any exaggeration on a signed loan app qualifies as “knowingly”. I suspect this clause will greatly diminish any expected benefits of the bill.

[SK in CV]

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Both the original lender and the borrower have to agree, since both are being affected. As a practical matter, lenders never negotiate with borrowers that are current, so it would most likely apply only to loans that are already delinquent (at least 1 payment late). Lenders could adapt on this one, but given their historical shortsightedness, it’s unlikely.

2. It sunsets at the earlier of the funding of the insurance on the $300 billion or some future date, I think I remember 5 years, though I may have imagined that.

3. FHA loan volume moves as does the market. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90’s and the related deregulation which lead to the expansion of mortgage lending to non-banks, along with the advent of mortgage backed securities, FHA insured lending all but disappeared in many markets. If this bill passes, they will be back in business. At least until they’re not anymore.

4. Appraisals will have to be brand spanken new, paid for by the borrower/lender and the appraisal will have to be done according to strict FHA guidelines, which are much more strict than traditional underwriting guidelines. (I know, its an oxymoron to call recent customs in the lending industry “guidelines”. The were more like suggestions. The FHA does not operate that way.)

5. FHA geographical lending limits will apply.

6. Unless there has been a modification to the bill since I read it last, no. Borrowers who knowingly presented false loan applications on the loan being renegotiated will not be eligible. How strictly the FHA enforces this clause may well be regulated by the demand for the FHA insurance. Lower demand may dictate more lax interpretation. Higher demand would lead to more strict interpretation. At its most strict, the FHA could deem that any exaggeration on a signed loan app qualifies as “knowingly”. I suspect this clause will greatly diminish any expected benefits of the bill.

[SK in CV]

To answer your questions, in order:

1. Both the original lender and the borrower have to agree, since both are being affected. As a practical matter, lenders never negotiate with borrowers that are current, so it would most likely apply only to loans that are already delinquent (at least 1 payment late). Lenders could adapt on this one, but given their historical shortsightedness, it’s unlikely.

2. It sunsets at the earlier of the funding of the insurance on the $300 billion or some future date, I think I remember 5 years, though I may have imagined that.

3. FHA loan volume moves as does the market. With the repeal of Glass-Steagal in the 90’s and the related deregulation which lead to the expansion of mortgage lending to non-banks, along with the advent of mortgage backed securities, FHA insured lending all but disappeared in many markets. If this bill passes, they will be back in business. At least until they’re not anymore.

4. Appraisals will have to be brand spanken new, paid for by the borrower/lender and the appraisal will have to be done according to strict FHA guidelines, which are much more strict than traditional underwriting guidelines. (I know, its an oxymoron to call recent customs in the lending industry “guidelines”. The were more like suggestions. The FHA does not operate that way.)

5. FHA geographical lending limits will apply.

6. Unless there has been a modification to the bill since I read it last, no. Borrowers who knowingly presented false loan applications on the loan being renegotiated will not be eligible. How strictly the FHA enforces this clause may well be regulated by the demand for the FHA insurance. Lower demand may dictate more lax interpretation. Higher demand would lead to more strict interpretation. At its most strict, the FHA could deem that any exaggeration on a signed loan app qualifies as “knowingly”. I suspect this clause will greatly diminish any expected benefits of the bill.

[SK in CV]

I’m not underestimating the number of distressed borrowers. That number will continue to expand for another 2 years at least. What I think the CBO overestimated is the number of those distressed borrowers that will qualify under this program. Most distressed borrowers will not. The devil is in the details.

[Author]

Posts