Thursday, October 7, 2010

Good News for Wells Fargo Customers - your modification may be around the corner

Attorney General Paula T. Dow announced today that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage has agreed to provide New Jersey consumers with nearly $67 million in loan modifications and pay the state $3.98 million to resolve allegations that companies it acquired – Wachovia Corporation, Golden West and World Savings — deceptively marketed adjustable rate mortgage loans.
What happened to bring about this announcement?  A loan with negative amortization, that's what.  Negative amortization loans generally kept your monthly payments artificially low.  They were not sufficient to pay down any principal and, in fact, usually neither the interest.  At the end of 5 years, you could owe as much as 125% of the money you borrowed.
New Jersey homeowners accounted for about 5 percent of the “Pick-a-Payment” loans acquired by Wells Fargo as part of its acquisitions of Wachovia, Golden West and World Savings in 2008.
Under terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo will provide across-the-board forgiveness of accrued interest and late fees for eligible delinquent borrowers who live in the homes on which they took out “Pick-a-Payment” mortgages.
Starting on December 18, 2010, the company also will provide loan modification terms that enable affordable payments and reduce principal for some consumers. Modified loan terms will vary according to the circumstances of the borrower, but can include principal forgiveness, loan extension, interest rate reduction, and principal forbearance (which gives the borrower additional time to pay off the loan principal). Borrowers who remain current on their modified payments over three years will earn additional principal forgiveness. Borrowers who qualify may also convert into a fixed rate loan. All modification fees and pre-payment penalties will be waived. The modification program will extend until June 30, 2013.
I'm sure by now we are tired of reading about lender's abuse of their customers but it's good to see that the state is doing something to correct a past abuse.

What do you think?
Read the full story from Real EstateRama- Attorney General Announces Settlement with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Realty Times - New Short Sale Bill Submitted to Congress

Short sales are a fact of life. Their most frustrating aspect is delay by the mortgagee to review and approve the proposed short sale. Realty Times’ Carla Hill writes about legislation designed to alleviate that problem.

“U.S. Representative Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) and Tom Rooney (R-Fla) offered up new legislation to Congress last week. H.R. 6133, "Prompt Decision for Qualification of Short Sale Act of 2010," is an effort from Congress to help keep potential buyers from walking away from short sales, simply because lenders take months to respond to their offers.”
This is certainly welcome news. What is it supposed to do?
“This legislation aims to "require the lender or servicer of a home mortgage, upon a request by the homeowner for a short sale, to make a prompt decision whether to allow the sale." (Library of Congress) “
The bill is strongly supported by the National Association of REALTORS.  We couldn't agree more about its need for passage.
“Hopefully, if this bill passes into law, homeowners will find relief from their mortgage woes, and will be able to sell their home without having to be foreclosed upon.”
Read the full story: Realty Times - New Short Sale Bill Submitted to Congress

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The Empire State Building- what it was not designed to do

I grew up believing that the mast on the Empire State Building in midtown Manhattan, New York City, was put there to serve as a docking port for dirigibles. Dirigibles were a flight of fancy, most notably advanced by the Germans as a source of national pride, for transatlantic flights.

One featured prominently in an Indiana Jones movie, and, most tragically, in a fiery crash in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Now, don't be confused by the blimps floating over football stadiums. Dirigibles have a metal frame to suppor its skin. A blimp is nothing more than a big bag of helium.

The New York Times puts the kibosh on the link between the Empire State Building and dirigibles:
THE new exhibition at the Keith de Lellis Gallery, “New York: A Bird’s-Eye View,” has a striking assortment of aerial views of the city. No image is more arresting than that of the Navy dirigible Los Angeles docking at the mooring post of the Empire State Building, a giant cigarlike cylinder coming nose-to-nose with the tallest building in the world.
That the photograph is a composite, a fake, is disappointing but not surprising: no airship ever docked there, and indeed the whole mooring mast concept was a bit of a stunt itself.
Now, I didn't know that. Did you? Read the full article.

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 27, 2010

Thinking of a savings account? FDIC and NCUA insurance important

There's one thing that we should remember when it comes to opening a savings account or any type of bank account - deposit insurance.

Here's an informative article from E-Wisdom.com that you should find helpful.

"Consumers may consider a number of options when picking a new savings account, including its yield and fees, especially as new federal regulations cause banks to look for different ways to make up losses.

"A recent report from U.S. News and World Report Money's Jim Wang noted there are a number of factors consumers may consider when looking at a new savings account.

"The first thing they should check is if the banking institution is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Credit unions should have backing from the National Credit Union Administration.

"FDIC and NCUA insurance protect up to $250,000 per depositor and if a financial institution doesn't have that protection, pass on it," Wang wrote. "There's no reason why you should put your savings in a bank that isn't insured."

"Interest rates are another factor, and banks may offer a promotional period that lasts a set amount of time. Wang said consumers should make sure the "post-teaser" level is comparable to other offers.

"Potential fees also present a concern and these charges may be connected to how much money is in an account. Some savings accounts, for example, require that a specified minimum balance be maintained to avoid a monthly fee."

Go to the website- FDIC and NCUA insurance important when considering savings accounts

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, September 23, 2010

New York Times - The U.S.-China Exchange Rate Squeeze

Confused by all this talk of the effects of the exchange rates between Chinese and U.S. currency? I know I am. The following opinion by Sewell Chan appeared in the Sunday New York Times.
WASHINGTON — Say there was a way to create a half-million American jobs over the next two years without adding a dime to the debt or deficit. And say it would also revive moribund Rust Belt factories, reduce the country’s gaping trade deficit and help stabilize the international economic system.

All of this would occur, some economists say, if only China would stop manipulating its currency, keeping it artificially undervalued as a means of boosting its exports and fueling its tremendous economic growth.

Anger over China’s exchange-rate policy nearly boiled over in Congressional hearings last week. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner accused China of violating international norms. President Obama plans to press the currency issue, along with complaints about China’s policies on trade and intellectual property, at the Group of 20 summit meeting in South Korea in November.

That China has undervalued its currency, the renminbi, for much of the past decade to boost its surging export-driven economy is not seriously doubted; China intervenes in the markets by buying an estimated $1 billion a day using renminbi. For the lay observer, it’s befuddling. Why does this situation persist?

Would China benefit by letting the renminbi rise?

Yes, most experts agree that China would probably be better off if the renminbi’s value rose. Doing so would give Chinese consumers more purchasing power, lessen the risk of inflation and asset bubbles, and potentially reduce stark inequalities that have contributed to social unrest.

What’s stopping China, then?

Exporters, concentrated along the southern coast, wield enormous clout in Beijing and benefit from an undervalued currency, said Minxin Pei, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. So do state-owned enterprises, which have excess capacity and need to be able to sell goods cheaply abroad. China’s importers are unhappy with the undervalued renminbi — as are officials at the central bank — but both groups are relatively weak.

In the United States, there must be someone against a stronger Chinese currency, right?

Large multinational corporations, and Wall Street, are comfortable with a weak renminbi. Many of the biggest American conglomerates make goods in China (or sell them in the United States) and benefit from the undervalued currency. Financial services companies find deal-making easier with a strong dollar and want to help invest the capital sloshing around China.

But aren’t the forces on the other side just as strong?

A high dollar places tremendous competitive pressure on American agricultural producers and domestic manufacturers, and thereby hampers job creation.

So, it’s not surprising that Midwest politicians and labor unions have been among China’s fiercest critics. High unemployment has also prompted the White House and most Congressional Democrats (and a substantial number of Republicans) to side with the critics.

How have previous problems with a strong dollar been handled?

In the late 1960s, rising federal spending during the Vietnam War and the Great Society pushed inflation upward. The United States had a trade deficit for the first time in the postwar era. Manufacturers were furious. President Richard M. Nixon responded by taking the country off the gold standard in 1971, which caused the dollar to fall by about 20 percent.

From 1981 to 1985, the dollar soared again, as the Federal Reserve boosted interest rates to combat inflation and the Reagan administration borrowed to finance big budget deficits. In September 1985, Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III met Japanese and German officials at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan. Faced with threats of protectionist action by Congress, the two countries agreed on a plan to devalue the dollar.

So, could such an agreement happen again?

A rapid devaluation of the dollar is unlikely anytime soon. No country, even an ally, wants to see its currency suddenly rise in value (and its exports become more expensive) amid a fragile global recovery. The international monetary system has also gotten more complex, with the creation of the euro and the rise of large emerging economies like Brazil, India and Russia.

Though China allowed its currency to rise by more than 20 percent against the dollar from 2005 to 2008, the financial crisis (which led investors to flock to the dollar) led to a return to old ways. In June, Beijing promised greater exchange-rate flexibility, but since then the renminbi has risen by only about 1 percent. Too little, too late, Mr. Geithner testified last week.

Ultimately, says Jeffrey A. Frieden, a Harvard political scientist, exchange rates reflect broader macroeconomic forces. For the dollar to get back in sync, Americans must save and invest more and consume and borrow less, and the Chinese, Germans and Japanese have to recognize that excessive reliance on exports is not to their long-run advantage.

“It’s conceivable that the Chinese might conclude it’s in their own self-interest to let the currency rise,” Professor Frieden said, “but it’s not going to come from browbeating and it’s not even going to come from well-meaning attempts at cooperation.”

Read the column on-line here.

For your next title order or
if you have questions about what you see here, contact
Stephen M. Flatow, Esq.
Vested Title Inc.
165 Passaic Avenue, Suite 101
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel 973-808-6130 - Fax 201-656-4506
E-mail vti@vested.com - www.vested.com
Sphere: Related Content