Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantA $100-200 dishwasher is going to be builder level crap,even from Sears outlet, especially if you want SS. The dishwasher I bought a few years ago was almost $500 for a Whirlpool gold in white. It runs like a top.
We got a BOSCH dishwasher from Sears outlet for about $500.. $100-$200 was definitely the low end stuff. I would double check to make sure you have all the parts on the Sears outlet products. Some of them don’t. I would also be careful of some of their installers. Our BOSCH got damaged by one of the guys who just ‘threw it on the back of his truck’.. truck wasn’t even a flatbed.. it was a pickup.
ParticipantA $100-200 dishwasher is going to be builder level crap,even from Sears outlet, especially if you want SS. The dishwasher I bought a few years ago was almost $500 for a Whirlpool gold in white. It runs like a top.
We got a BOSCH dishwasher from Sears outlet for about $500.. $100-$200 was definitely the low end stuff. I would double check to make sure you have all the parts on the Sears outlet products. Some of them don’t. I would also be careful of some of their installers. Our BOSCH got damaged by one of the guys who just ‘threw it on the back of his truck’.. truck wasn’t even a flatbed.. it was a pickup.
ParticipantThis year we clearly need a good CPA. We have no idea how to handle the “loss” or loan forgiveness 1099’s on these short sale agreements. It looks like the 2nd is trying to collect already (saw that coming… still scared out of my pajamas).
1) Keep your pajamas on — please
2) Loan loss forgiveness 1099s are not taxable up to 2012. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html Also see “SK in CV”‘s comment above.
3) Did the second 1099 you as well? You seemed to hint that there is more than one 1099. Is there a difference between what you owed on the second and the amount on the 1099? I am wondering if the note was sold off to a debt collector and the bank listed the delta as a loss/1099. A debt collector might go away if you pay them what they paid to buy a note plus a profit. I would strongly suggest an attorney when dealing with debt collectors. They are notoriously shady characters. I would suggest an attorney with experience in bankruptcies and debt collection. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend one.I would also list each contact with them in a log: time/date and the gist of the discussion. If the debt collectors are getting abusive, this log becomes a useful tool in negotiating with them through an attorney.
ParticipantThis year we clearly need a good CPA. We have no idea how to handle the “loss” or loan forgiveness 1099’s on these short sale agreements. It looks like the 2nd is trying to collect already (saw that coming… still scared out of my pajamas).
1) Keep your pajamas on — please
2) Loan loss forgiveness 1099s are not taxable up to 2012. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html Also see “SK in CV”‘s comment above.
3) Did the second 1099 you as well? You seemed to hint that there is more than one 1099. Is there a difference between what you owed on the second and the amount on the 1099? I am wondering if the note was sold off to a debt collector and the bank listed the delta as a loss/1099. A debt collector might go away if you pay them what they paid to buy a note plus a profit. I would strongly suggest an attorney when dealing with debt collectors. They are notoriously shady characters. I would suggest an attorney with experience in bankruptcies and debt collection. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend one.I would also list each contact with them in a log: time/date and the gist of the discussion. If the debt collectors are getting abusive, this log becomes a useful tool in negotiating with them through an attorney.
ParticipantThis year we clearly need a good CPA. We have no idea how to handle the “loss” or loan forgiveness 1099’s on these short sale agreements. It looks like the 2nd is trying to collect already (saw that coming… still scared out of my pajamas).
1) Keep your pajamas on — please
2) Loan loss forgiveness 1099s are not taxable up to 2012. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html Also see “SK in CV”‘s comment above.
3) Did the second 1099 you as well? You seemed to hint that there is more than one 1099. Is there a difference between what you owed on the second and the amount on the 1099? I am wondering if the note was sold off to a debt collector and the bank listed the delta as a loss/1099. A debt collector might go away if you pay them what they paid to buy a note plus a profit. I would strongly suggest an attorney when dealing with debt collectors. They are notoriously shady characters. I would suggest an attorney with experience in bankruptcies and debt collection. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend one.I would also list each contact with them in a log: time/date and the gist of the discussion. If the debt collectors are getting abusive, this log becomes a useful tool in negotiating with them through an attorney.
ParticipantThis year we clearly need a good CPA. We have no idea how to handle the “loss” or loan forgiveness 1099’s on these short sale agreements. It looks like the 2nd is trying to collect already (saw that coming… still scared out of my pajamas).
1) Keep your pajamas on — please
2) Loan loss forgiveness 1099s are not taxable up to 2012. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html Also see “SK in CV”‘s comment above.
3) Did the second 1099 you as well? You seemed to hint that there is more than one 1099. Is there a difference between what you owed on the second and the amount on the 1099? I am wondering if the note was sold off to a debt collector and the bank listed the delta as a loss/1099. A debt collector might go away if you pay them what they paid to buy a note plus a profit. I would strongly suggest an attorney when dealing with debt collectors. They are notoriously shady characters. I would suggest an attorney with experience in bankruptcies and debt collection. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend one.I would also list each contact with them in a log: time/date and the gist of the discussion. If the debt collectors are getting abusive, this log becomes a useful tool in negotiating with them through an attorney.
ParticipantThis year we clearly need a good CPA. We have no idea how to handle the “loss” or loan forgiveness 1099’s on these short sale agreements. It looks like the 2nd is trying to collect already (saw that coming… still scared out of my pajamas).
1) Keep your pajamas on — please
2) Loan loss forgiveness 1099s are not taxable up to 2012. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174034,00.html Also see “SK in CV”‘s comment above.
3) Did the second 1099 you as well? You seemed to hint that there is more than one 1099. Is there a difference between what you owed on the second and the amount on the 1099? I am wondering if the note was sold off to a debt collector and the bank listed the delta as a loss/1099. A debt collector might go away if you pay them what they paid to buy a note plus a profit. I would strongly suggest an attorney when dealing with debt collectors. They are notoriously shady characters. I would suggest an attorney with experience in bankruptcies and debt collection. Unfortunately, I can’t recommend one.I would also list each contact with them in a log: time/date and the gist of the discussion. If the debt collectors are getting abusive, this log becomes a useful tool in negotiating with them through an attorney.
ParticipantSo what does all this add up to? Are they really paying it back? Was the program a success? Yet to be seen? Is this just PR nonsense?
Yes they are really paying it back. It is a qualified success. What caused a lot of the problems was that the capitalization ratios went bad. Due to some of the loan choices that the banks made as well as low capitalization ratios to start with.. the banks were in jeopardy though not necessary insolvent.
CEO’s and execs want their bonuses…I’m being serious…
That is only part of it. As part of the TARP loan, there were warrants against the common stock. The warrants had decreasing strike prices. The warrants are like options but in this case, the option strike price or price that it becomes ‘in the money’ decreases as time goes by. BofA’s strike price on their TARP warrants were going to be ‘in-the-money’ this upcoming year. The effect of the warrant would be that the Bank would have to hand over some of its common stock on request by the gov (gov then owning part of the Bank).
One of the other problems was the interest rate being charged on TARP funds. The rate was different for different Banks. I don’t know what Goldman had for their interest rate on TARP funds, but I suspect it was lower than the rest if not 0. BofA has to pay 3.5% on TARP money (about $405Mil per quarter) Freddie and Fannie have to pay about 10% on their TARP loan (which amounts to over $1Billion per quarter.. each.). These are not currently competitive rates. LIBOR is currently 1.03%. You could say that the Fed was playing loan shark.. they set needed capitalization ratios, and charge banks higher than standard interest rates on the money the Fed lent to cover the needed capitalization. It is costing the Fed 0.5% interest on Treasuries it used to fund TARP… neat spread (0.5% to 10% on nearly 100Bil)
Much of the losses that were recently declared by banks were for increasing their loss reserve. Freddie and Fannie now have over $40Bil in loss reserves.
ParticipantSo what does all this add up to? Are they really paying it back? Was the program a success? Yet to be seen? Is this just PR nonsense?
Yes they are really paying it back. It is a qualified success. What caused a lot of the problems was that the capitalization ratios went bad. Due to some of the loan choices that the banks made as well as low capitalization ratios to start with.. the banks were in jeopardy though not necessary insolvent.
CEO’s and execs want their bonuses…I’m being serious…
That is only part of it. As part of the TARP loan, there were warrants against the common stock. The warrants had decreasing strike prices. The warrants are like options but in this case, the option strike price or price that it becomes ‘in the money’ decreases as time goes by. BofA’s strike price on their TARP warrants were going to be ‘in-the-money’ this upcoming year. The effect of the warrant would be that the Bank would have to hand over some of its common stock on request by the gov (gov then owning part of the Bank).
One of the other problems was the interest rate being charged on TARP funds. The rate was different for different Banks. I don’t know what Goldman had for their interest rate on TARP funds, but I suspect it was lower than the rest if not 0. BofA has to pay 3.5% on TARP money (about $405Mil per quarter) Freddie and Fannie have to pay about 10% on their TARP loan (which amounts to over $1Billion per quarter.. each.). These are not currently competitive rates. LIBOR is currently 1.03%. You could say that the Fed was playing loan shark.. they set needed capitalization ratios, and charge banks higher than standard interest rates on the money the Fed lent to cover the needed capitalization. It is costing the Fed 0.5% interest on Treasuries it used to fund TARP… neat spread (0.5% to 10% on nearly 100Bil)
Much of the losses that were recently declared by banks were for increasing their loss reserve. Freddie and Fannie now have over $40Bil in loss reserves.
ParticipantSo what does all this add up to? Are they really paying it back? Was the program a success? Yet to be seen? Is this just PR nonsense?
Yes they are really paying it back. It is a qualified success. What caused a lot of the problems was that the capitalization ratios went bad. Due to some of the loan choices that the banks made as well as low capitalization ratios to start with.. the banks were in jeopardy though not necessary insolvent.
CEO’s and execs want their bonuses…I’m being serious…
That is only part of it. As part of the TARP loan, there were warrants against the common stock. The warrants had decreasing strike prices. The warrants are like options but in this case, the option strike price or price that it becomes ‘in the money’ decreases as time goes by. BofA’s strike price on their TARP warrants were going to be ‘in-the-money’ this upcoming year. The effect of the warrant would be that the Bank would have to hand over some of its common stock on request by the gov (gov then owning part of the Bank).
One of the other problems was the interest rate being charged on TARP funds. The rate was different for different Banks. I don’t know what Goldman had for their interest rate on TARP funds, but I suspect it was lower than the rest if not 0. BofA has to pay 3.5% on TARP money (about $405Mil per quarter) Freddie and Fannie have to pay about 10% on their TARP loan (which amounts to over $1Billion per quarter.. each.). These are not currently competitive rates. LIBOR is currently 1.03%. You could say that the Fed was playing loan shark.. they set needed capitalization ratios, and charge banks higher than standard interest rates on the money the Fed lent to cover the needed capitalization. It is costing the Fed 0.5% interest on Treasuries it used to fund TARP… neat spread (0.5% to 10% on nearly 100Bil)
Much of the losses that were recently declared by banks were for increasing their loss reserve. Freddie and Fannie now have over $40Bil in loss reserves.
ParticipantSo what does all this add up to? Are they really paying it back? Was the program a success? Yet to be seen? Is this just PR nonsense?
Yes they are really paying it back. It is a qualified success. What caused a lot of the problems was that the capitalization ratios went bad. Due to some of the loan choices that the banks made as well as low capitalization ratios to start with.. the banks were in jeopardy though not necessary insolvent.
CEO’s and execs want their bonuses…I’m being serious…
That is only part of it. As part of the TARP loan, there were warrants against the common stock. The warrants had decreasing strike prices. The warrants are like options but in this case, the option strike price or price that it becomes ‘in the money’ decreases as time goes by. BofA’s strike price on their TARP warrants were going to be ‘in-the-money’ this upcoming year. The effect of the warrant would be that the Bank would have to hand over some of its common stock on request by the gov (gov then owning part of the Bank).
One of the other problems was the interest rate being charged on TARP funds. The rate was different for different Banks. I don’t know what Goldman had for their interest rate on TARP funds, but I suspect it was lower than the rest if not 0. BofA has to pay 3.5% on TARP money (about $405Mil per quarter) Freddie and Fannie have to pay about 10% on their TARP loan (which amounts to over $1Billion per quarter.. each.). These are not currently competitive rates. LIBOR is currently 1.03%. You could say that the Fed was playing loan shark.. they set needed capitalization ratios, and charge banks higher than standard interest rates on the money the Fed lent to cover the needed capitalization. It is costing the Fed 0.5% interest on Treasuries it used to fund TARP… neat spread (0.5% to 10% on nearly 100Bil)
Much of the losses that were recently declared by banks were for increasing their loss reserve. Freddie and Fannie now have over $40Bil in loss reserves.
ParticipantSo what does all this add up to? Are they really paying it back? Was the program a success? Yet to be seen? Is this just PR nonsense?
Yes they are really paying it back. It is a qualified success. What caused a lot of the problems was that the capitalization ratios went bad. Due to some of the loan choices that the banks made as well as low capitalization ratios to start with.. the banks were in jeopardy though not necessary insolvent.
CEO’s and execs want their bonuses…I’m being serious…
That is only part of it. As part of the TARP loan, there were warrants against the common stock. The warrants had decreasing strike prices. The warrants are like options but in this case, the option strike price or price that it becomes ‘in the money’ decreases as time goes by. BofA’s strike price on their TARP warrants were going to be ‘in-the-money’ this upcoming year. The effect of the warrant would be that the Bank would have to hand over some of its common stock on request by the gov (gov then owning part of the Bank).
One of the other problems was the interest rate being charged on TARP funds. The rate was different for different Banks. I don’t know what Goldman had for their interest rate on TARP funds, but I suspect it was lower than the rest if not 0. BofA has to pay 3.5% on TARP money (about $405Mil per quarter) Freddie and Fannie have to pay about 10% on their TARP loan (which amounts to over $1Billion per quarter.. each.). These are not currently competitive rates. LIBOR is currently 1.03%. You could say that the Fed was playing loan shark.. they set needed capitalization ratios, and charge banks higher than standard interest rates on the money the Fed lent to cover the needed capitalization. It is costing the Fed 0.5% interest on Treasuries it used to fund TARP… neat spread (0.5% to 10% on nearly 100Bil)
Much of the losses that were recently declared by banks were for increasing their loss reserve. Freddie and Fannie now have over $40Bil in loss reserves.
December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM in reply to: “Renegotiate” Your Loan – banks giving in to buyers in distress #492258ParticipantMisscotroneo = Casey Serin?
…
“How do I pay all this?” … maybe you should have thought that through before you signed 8 mortgages.I was wondering about that.. Casey bought 8 properties after his first successful flip in 2003. Though it could also be a troll pretending to be Casey (as if Casey wasn’t a troll at times himself..).
…and you [**note] are a greedy idiot mouthbreather douchebag with a narcissistic delusion of entitlement wholly lacking in any sense of personal accountability.
Must be the old NPD Casey…
December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM in reply to: “Renegotiate” Your Loan – banks giving in to buyers in distress #492423ParticipantMisscotroneo = Casey Serin?
…
“How do I pay all this?” … maybe you should have thought that through before you signed 8 mortgages.I was wondering about that.. Casey bought 8 properties after his first successful flip in 2003. Though it could also be a troll pretending to be Casey (as if Casey wasn’t a troll at times himself..).
…and you [**note] are a greedy idiot mouthbreather douchebag with a narcissistic delusion of entitlement wholly lacking in any sense of personal accountability.
Must be the old NPD Casey…
-
AuthorPosts
