vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
At what point do you resent your brother for failing to uphold his end of the deal? Money and friends don't mix. Money and family mixes even worse. In rare circumstances where you absolutely must mix family and money, get everything in writing. Get it signed, make it legal. Outline all details of the transaction, including interest rates, and examples of how the balances calculate. In 5 years when things go haywire, following the letter of the law is what will keep you from becoming enemies. But with family, often people have an expectation that ""while we agreed I would pay x, he's my brother, so he should take pity on me and allow me to pay only y, if I need to"". Finally, to your question about how to calculate amounts to pay: it will be very complicated. You will need to track minimum balance payments, interest rates, and even potentially the lost income which one of you gives up to pay down the other's debt. You could do these things in a simplified way close to what I've set out above, but then ultimately one of you will lose out. If you pay down your debts first, how can you calculate the lost living potential for your brother, who might want to buy a house but can't save for a down payment for an extra year? What if he has to move, and without sufficient down payment, he needs to pay extra Mortgage Insurance on his loan from the bank? Will you compensate him for that? My recommendation, if you haven't caught it yet, is Do not do this. Your potential savings are not going to be worth the potential heartache of breaking your relationship with your brother. Instead, look at joining your minds, not your money. Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%].
In a process called collateralization, your mortgage is combined with others to form a security that other can invest in. When done right, this process provides liquidity, more money to be lent for more loans. When done wrong, bad things happen.  My mortgage happens to be held by the issuing bank. Yours was sold into such a pool of mortgages. One effect of this is the reselling of the servicing of the loan. I've had other mortgages that were sold every year, but I never paid ahead. With this bank, I'm on my fifth refinance, but the bank keeps the loan in house no matter what. I don't know if there's any correlation, it depends on the originating bank, in my opinion.
"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (""rehypothecation""). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right.  I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares ""for a very short time"". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect ""pocketing the interest"" since interest accrues as a function of time."
Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.
"All this is completely true, but I was going for a more basic level theoretical.  In this case, yes, one person not paying of their loans would not hurt anything (except the person in question as you point out), but if ""people"" not paying of their loans *is* bad as it would rob money from the system (basically $0 of the $30 would come back, or at least so little that the banks stopped loaning).  While the government can inject money, that could only go so far.  Really, I was just trying to explain why not paying off loans was bad for the economy even though staying in sustainable debt is good for the economy (but not necessarily the individual).  Thanks for the info though."
"Thanks to the joint lease, I guess you're still contractually on the hook for the remainder of the rent. Did the apartment owners actually contact you before sending the debt collectors after you? As you do technically owe the money, they can sue you if you don't pay, so it's not ""just"" on your credit report. That said, if they haven't contacted you before sending the goons in, I'd try to negotiate the collection fee - 40% sounds a tad excessive to me."
For insight on what will happen, I suggest looking at the situation from the lender's perspective: If your setbacks are temporary, and you are likely to get back on your feet again, they will protect their investment by making accommodations, and probably charging you extra fees along the way. If your financial hardship seems irredeemable, they probably try to squeeze you for as much as possible, and then eventually take your house, protecting their investment as best they can. If they are going to foreclose, they may be reluctant to do it quickly, as foreclosure is expensive, takes man power, and looks bad on their books.  So it may get pushed off for a Quarter, or a fiscal year. But if you are asking if they'll help you out from the goodness of their heart, well, a bank has no heart, and creditors are interested in ROI.  They'll take the easiest path to profit, or failing that, the path to minimum financial losses.   The personal consequences to you are not their concern. Once you realize this, it may change your thinking about your own situation.   If you think you have a path to financial recovery, then you need to make that clear to them, in writing, with details.  Make a business case that working with you is in their own best interests. If you cannot make such a case, recognize that they'll likely squeeze you for as much as possible in penalties, fees, interest payments, etc, before eventually foreclosing on you anyway.  Don't play that game. If your home is a lost cause financially, plan how to get out from it with the smallest losses possible.  Don't pay more than you need to, and don't throw good money after bad.
If the foreclosed property is sold for more than is owed, then the borrower is entitled to the excess. If sold for what is owed or less, then the borrower gets nothing. Any money that you are entitled to would be determined by your contract with the mortgaged owner, but the bank is the first lien-holder, they get made whole first, and if there is excess then you may see some of your money back depending on your contract with the mortgaged owner. Since the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid off, you would have had to work with the bank in order to have legal ownership of a portion of the house and approving partial sale of a house is not something most banks would likely care to do. A contract you worked up with the borrower doesn't give you legal claim to the house (in foreclosure, at least), due to the bank's lien. You'd have to contact a lawyer for firm answers, but it sounds bleak.
Is it inevitably taxed by the government? Which government? Tax treatment of familial loans varies greatly be jurisdiction. What is proper documentation procedure? If you want to get paid back, definitely a lawyer ... each. Is it better to ask several family members to help contribute so each person loans less? Or is it taxed the same? If this is only a tax issue then see above. If it is a means of spreading risk then sure.
When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset).  When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it.  If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans?  Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?
What if you felt you were cheated by the bank?  What if you had something terrible unexpected happen to you financially?  Also a loan is not a promise.  A loan is a contract.  The contract has outs for all parties.  I never understood why people felt a loan was a promise.  Many people were sold home mortgages that they did not understand.  Of course it is their fault for not understanding what they were getting into.
"Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot  change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action  (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right  away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that ""guarantees"" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All  perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for ""Extra payment applied to principal"" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow,  ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse."
I think the statute of limitations is 2 years so I suspect that she may not qualify, also BOA was not the last bank to hold her mortgage.  I doubt she'll receive anything. She's just glad the whole mess is behind her.
The problem is that you don't have the money now; so they can't know with 100% certainty that you will have it on settlement day.  What happens if you don't file the paperwork in time? or you change your mind because you think the company stock is going to go through the roof next quarter? They would have to pull the funding for the loan. The seller would be upset, and could even file for damages if the deal falls through.  It could even snowball because if they delay the sale then they can't buy the new place, which impacts another closing... Frequently lenders want to see the money for the down payment long before settlement.  They want to know the money is there, and it isn't a hidden loan. While you can point to the money in the ESPP, they would still like to see the money in a regular bank account. Even if you do convince them to delay their evaluation you can count on being asked to prove the existence of the funds in the days before closing, or they will delay giving the loan.
You *choose* to take on a loan and enter debt. Whereas someone brought into slavery was beaten or killed if they opposed the idea of working for someone. I'm sure your credit card doesn't hold the same slave-holding power ;)
It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter.   When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid.   When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property.  If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable.  This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss.   For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage.  Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered).  If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk.   There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk.  It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side.   Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying.  Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble.
They also eliminate the risk associated with that loan, and get the money back to find a loan to someone else, possibly at a higher rate. It really is just about financially neutral for them.
"If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (""We're not paying interest on our bonds"") then make sure you pay off your house.  There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment.  If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes."
"It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a ""second mortgage"". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it."
Because this is Money.SE and you're connecting it to offspring, I'd think about a discussion with them to get their agreements. From my perspective, anything (my wife and) I have will go to offspring in the end. As such, everything borrowed and not repaid simply reduces the estate by that much. Among multiple offspring, such reductions should be against the borrower rather than spreading it out. That should be accounted for in whatever will is created. This would be the discussion point. It might also be discussed how or even if any interest should accrue for unpaid amounts. If, for example, a 1% APR is agreed upon for unpaid loans, then the final principle+interest amount is taken off of the borrower's inheritance. Existing outstanding loans might (or might not!) be useful examples for sample calculations if desired or needed. (If nothing else, they might serve as reminders that loans were not forgotten.) By having such a discussion, you can show that you are trying to plan for a fair distribution of your estate, perhaps thereby sidestepping any concern about charging interest to offspring for repaid loans. At the same time, you're handing over some financial responsibility, giving them a power of personal choice, which seems to be a part of what you're concerned about. Once such a discussion is started, it's possible that any question of interest will resolve itself naturally. The discussion almost necessarily must include all offspring at once. One will find it harder to negotiate from a standpoint of pure self-interest without objection from another. Think beforehand about what will be said and about what responses might come. Think things through as much as you can.
I got a credit card as a student with no income, not even a part time job. They called me, I agreed to one thing and they did another and now I have an old credit history. They don't do this anymore. But technically, student loan debt is unsecured?
The original note should have had a a clear start and expiration date included with in it (the term).  If it did then the term has likely expired by now (since you said it had been years) and you should issue an amendment to the note that clarifies the new term and also clarifies the interest rate terms.  If the original note did not have an expiration date then that would be unusual and your mom should work with her friend to execute a new note with clear start and expiration dates and that also clarifies the payment and interest terms.  From my experience it is best to include a specific payment schedule within the note as well as very specific and clear terms around how interest will be handled in the event of a missed payment, late payment, or inability to pay the note off in full at expiration.  There are many good examples available online to help you craft the appropriate verbiage for your specific needs: http://tinyurl.com/note-examples
It is pretty easy to setup a spreadsheet for calculating interest payments and remaining balance.  Do a quick search online.  You may want to put it in something like Google Docs, where brother can view the status, but only you can edit it.  When you get a payment, a portion goes to interest and another to principle.  The formulas will do the work for you. However, I feel that there is a bigger issue.  The math may seem like a good deal for the both of you, but I would be very hesitant to loan a family member money. What if he does not pay?  What if he is late with a payment and goes on a vacation himself?  What if his significant other resents the payment that you collect which precludes her from  buying a new TV, etc... People come to hate/resent big corporations that they have to make payments.  How much more so one that has a face....that comes over and eats?  While this loan is outstanding holidays may never be the same.   Is the loan a real need?  Are you in a position to give them the money?  You may want to consider the latter. Is there a reason he can't just borrow the money from the bank?
"Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Certainly not.  What some might do, however, is not pay them immediately, with the intent to negotiate them down or get them written off.  You can also see if there's a discount for paying immediately - I've had moderate success with this, but it was during a time where we couldn't pay them all immediately, so I was more trying to figure out which ones to pay first rather than just haggling.   The obvious risk is that they go to a collections agency and get reported as unpaid debt to your credit.  I'm with you, however - it's a service that you received and it should be paid. I must precise that they are wealthy upscale members, who can afford paying these bills. Are you certain that they have large medical bills?  I suppose it's possible that they have resources that  can negotiate these on their behalf, or they don't care about the impact to their credit score. But to say ""no one is doing it here"" seems ludicrous."
"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise.  With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually.   The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan.  In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their ""fair share"".   I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process.   Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings."
This is business as usual, except that you need to keep in mind that the corporate entity is separate from the individual. As such - all the background checks and references should be with regards to the actual renter - the corporation. You should be cautious as it is not so easy to dissolve an individual (well... Not as easy, and certainly not as legal), as it is to dissolve the corporation. So you may end up with a tenant who doesn't pay and doesn't have to pay because the actual renter, the corporation, no longer exists. So check the corporation background - age, credit worthiness, tax returns/business activity, judgements against, etc etc, as you would do for an individual.