vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account.
"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do ""streamline"" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus ""renegotiating the rate"" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage."
Unfortunately, there isn't much you can do.  If your name was on the mortgage, you owe the money, regardless of who kept the house. They can (and likely will) come after you for the money as well.  A bit late in your case, but that's why when people divorce, refinancing the house into one person's name (and the other quit-claiming their interest) is usually part of the settlement. ETA:  As others have mentioned, since you are in California, it appears that they cannot come after you for the difference.
For a $350 monthly payment, she is currently paying $200 monthly in interest. You say that no bank will refinance her, but that is not true, I'm sure many banks are happy to refinance her to the value of the car. She should start that process. You'll find that your suggestion to pay $5000 down on the current loan is pretty similar to what she would need to bring to a bank to refinance (maybe as much as $7000 to refinance). After that she would be paying a much lower amount in interest, and she could still retire the loan a year or two (but she would be paying even less in interest). The advantage to borrowing from her emergency fund is that she retires the loan 14 months earlier. The problem is that you are prioritizing the least amount paid, and she is prioritizing an emergency fund. Emergency funds are also very important. You might have better success if you prioritize paying back the emergency fund in your plan. If she puts $7000 down to refinance, assume a 3 year loan at 4.5% with a $150 monthly payment. Instead of paying down the remaining $5000 quickly what if she put the extra $200/month toward paying back her emergency fund? It would take the same 3 years to fully pay it back without impacting the rest of her budget at all. If she has extra room in her budget, she could pay back that emergency fund even faster. Many of us who prioritize minimizing interest paid and maximizing interest earned already have a robust emergency fund. Your girlfriend isn't wrong to value that. Unexpected emergencies can cause much more interest to be paid if there is no way to deal with them. (That's how paycheck and title lenders capture their customers.) Talk to her about what emergencies she might need the money for, and make a plan to replenish the fund, and you're much more likely to have her buy in.
Are my mortgage terms locked in? Who oversees this? Yes your terms like rate, balance, penalties, due dates, are all covered in the mortgage documents. Those will not change. If the mortgage is an adjustable or has a balloon payment those terms will be followed by the new company. That being said, mistakes can be made. Double check everything. I had a transfer get messed up once, and all the terms were wrong. It took a few months but everything was worked out. In fact because they first tried to stonewall me I was able to negotiate some additional concessions out of them. Running your own escrow account is one thing you always want to do. That makes sure that the taxes and insurance are always paid by you, even if the servicing company has a glitch. Generally you have to have enough equity to not have PMI in order to get them to agree to the self-escrow option. If you have a problem with the servicing company then contact the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau a part of the US Government. They have only been a round a few years, thus I have no experience with them. Have an issue with a financial product or service? We'll forward your   complaint to the company and work to get a response from them. The last few times I applied for a mortgage or refinanced a mortgage the lender had to reveal as part of the application stage the percentage of recent mortgages they still own/service. Check those numbers the next time you apply.
You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.
I'm not as concerned, no, precisely because you can't discharge that debt with bankruptcy. That's why lenders demanded that. I also think that when borrowers are held accountable for the economic consequences of their actions, they make better decisions on balance.
When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years.  If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over.
"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a ""qualified mortgage"", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from ""unacceptable"" to ""acceptable"". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just ""sit tight"" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car.
Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment.  As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself.  I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.
"At no point is it ever a good idea to ""stop making payments to show them [you] mean business"". When you signed up for the credit card account, you agreed to pay what you charged, and any applicable interested accrued on the accounts. You are legally responsible for that debt, and you can be sued, if they are so inclined. Many times, settlement agencies are employed because a risk assessment operator (or whatever they're called at your cc company) calculated that they are currently financially better off settling for a reduced balance than attempting to chase you for the full amount. As soon as the terms of your refinance hits your credit history, that changes. To reiterate and make it clear: This is a very dangerous approach to breaking credit card debt, and I would not advise that anybody proceed with it. EDIT: If you offer 50% of the balance in a lump sum payment, they decline, and you continue with non-payment, they have reason to believe that you are financially capable of making payments, and are much more likely to seek legal action."
The reason is the same as with cell phones payment plans. As competition grows cell phone companies offer better payment plans for the same price or the same plans for lower price or both so that you stay with that cell operator. Banks also make better offers if the financial situation allows. Suppose several banks offer refinancing with better terms but prohibit refinancing loans from the same bank. Okay, you refinance from another bank and them maybe refinance the new loan again from the original bank - it's a new loan after the first refinance and prohibition no longer works. They just make you jump through more loops and it doesn't make sense neither for them nor for you
"Here is the discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6gsvgh/the_supreme_court_has_decided_that_the_fair_debt/    Yes, but the discussion was that this allows for many loopholes where an outside firm can be hired for collections, which can then go back to using tactics like the old dark days.  ...also fyi - I assume in your comment above you meant ""owned"" not ""owed""..."
Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt.  Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.
Our mortgage provider actually took the initiative to send us a refinance package with no closing costs to us and nothing added to the note; took us from a 30-year-fixed ~6.5% note to a 15-year-fixed ~5% note, and dropped the monthly payment in the process.  You might talk to your existing lender to see if they would do something like that for you; it gives them a chance to keep your business, and it cuts your costs.
If you selected a mortgage that allows additional payments to be credited against the principal rather than as early payment of normal installments, them yes, doing so will reduce the actual cost of the loan. You may have to explicitly instruct the bank to use the money this way each time, if prepay is their default assumption. Check with your lender, and/or read the terms of your mortgage, to find out if this is allowed and how to do it. If your mortgage doesn't allow additional payments against the principal, you may want to consider refinancing into a mortgage which does, or into a mortgage with shorter term and higher monthly payments, to obtain the same lower cost (modulo closing costs on the new mortgage; run the numbers.)
The answer to question 1 is yes, you can always reduce your loan when you remortgage by introducing additional funds. There is some possibility a (relatively) small charge might be applicable for managing the marginally more complex transfer, but it shouldn't be too much.. The answer to question 2 is NONE of your over payment amounts would have gone on interest, but you MIGHT incur penalty charges. Interest is only charged on the outstanding loan amount (i.e. £100K initially, reducing to £85K over 2 years in your example) at the interest rate determined by your mortgage agreement - there is no 'paying off interest' as such. Over payments are essentially all capital payments, reducing the principal/loan amount, so no additional interest would be paid if you opted for over payments. If you used your £10K to made the over payments throughout the 2 year fixed period you would in fact have paid LESS interest by the end of the 2 years, because you would be reducing the loan amount at a quicker rate, and thus the interest you pay each month (based on the lower outstanding loan at that time) would be lower. BUT... over payments might have attracted over payment penalties (typically a percentage of the amount you pay) and these penalties often mean it's not worth doing. Most fixed term mortgages have such penalties, but it depends on the agreement, and many mortgages also allow you to make over payments up to a certain amount each year before you get hit. Edit (additional suggestion): If the example you provide is one based on what you expect might happen to you over the next couple of years, something you could CONSIDER is an offset mortgage. Here your £10K that you accumulate reduces your interest through the 2 years, but you keep it in savings where you can access it if you need to. Accessing it will then cause a corresponding rise in interest payments, but to no higher level than you would have been paying if you had nothing in the savings in the first place. You usually pay a slightly higher interest rate for these sort of mortgage, so it's impossible to know if it would be more economical, and how appropriate it would be for you in other respects depends on many factors.
According the FSCS: If the bank fails FSCS would refund the maximum under our rules (currently £75,000 per person).  Any credit balance over and above this would be offset against the mortgage by the insolvency practitioner responsible for the winding up of the bank. FSCS would play no part in that process. (Unless the savings were larger than the debts, but then it wouldn't make sense to have them in a zero interest offset account!) So the money would not be completely lost as such. Whether that would count as an overpayment is an open question, but perhaps a moot point anyway if the bank went under. (Finally, arguably, a pension or other investment might also be better for such amounts.)
As for refinancing: Many institutions charge up-front fees when doing any type of vehicle loan. Typically this is in the neighborhood of 1% the value of the loan, with a floor of $100 (although this may vary by lender). However, for the loan the be secured by the vehicle, the principle value must be less than the collateral value. In your case, this means there is a collateral shortfall of $4,000. When working with a traditional bank, you would have two options: pay the difference up front (reducing the principle value of the loan), or obtaining a separate loan for the difference. This separate loan would often have a higher interest rate unless you have some other form of collateral to secure it with. I doubt CarMax would do a separate loan. All that being said, if you plan on selling the vehicle within the next twelves months, don't bother refinancing. It won't be worth the hassle.
The answer depends on your wife's overall situation, whether you are in a community property state, and other factors. I'm assuming that since your wife paid $5,000 more for a car than it was worth, has a six-year, 25% auto loan and you talk about repossession as a routine event, that her credit history is extremely poor. If that is the case, you're unlikely to be able to refinance, particularly for more than the car is worth. You're in a bad situation, I'd look for a legal clinic at a nearby law school and find out what the law says about your situation in your state. If she has other debt, your best bet is to put the car in a garage somewhere, stop paying and demand better terms with the lender -- threaten bankruptcy. If they don't go for it, and your wife has other debt, she should look into bankruptcy. Given the usurious terms of the loan, you have a fighting chance of keeping the car in a Chapter 13. Find out and the legal implications for this before proceeding. If she doesn't have other debt, you need to figure out to get the thing repossessed on the best possible terms for you. If it's her mother's car, you're in a moral dilemma.  Bottom line, get rid of this thing asap. And make sure that going forward you are both controlling the finances.
Refinancing a car for anything other than lowering the rate is not a good idea. Keep the same term, or take a shorter one. Remember that unlike real property, a car only loses value.  So when you make your payments on your 84 month (!) loan, those payments are amortized so that the interest is front loaded. The problem is, when your car gets totalled around month 24, insurance will generally only pay what the car is worth, and you'll owe more.
No, they are not recession proof.   Assume several companies, that issued bonds in the fund, go bankrupt.  Those bonds could be worthless, they could miss principle payments, or they could be restructured.  All would mean a decline in value. When the economy shrinks (which is what a recession is) how does the Fed respond?  By lowering interest rates.  This makes current bonds more valuable as presumably they were issued at a higher rate, thus the recession proof prejudice.  However, there is nothing to stop a company (in good financial shape) from issuing more bonds to pay the par value on high-interest bonds, thus refinancing their debt.  Sort of like how the bank feels when one refinances the mortgage for a lower rate.   The thing that troubles me the most is that rates have been low for a long time.  What happens if we have a recession now?  How does the Fed fix it?  I am not sure exactly what the fallout would be, but it could be significant. If you are troubled, you should look for sectors that would be hurt and helped by a Trump-induced recession.  Move money away from those that will be hurt.  Typically aggressive growth companies are hurt (during recessions), so you may want to move money away from them.  Typically established blue chip companies fare okay in a recession so you may want to move money toward them.  Move some money to cash, and perhaps some towards bonds.   All that being said, I'd keep some money in things like aggressive growth in case you are wrong.
"Another option would be to not refinance but also not pay any extra each month but to continue as you are making the existing payments and just put the ""extra"" you would have paid aside in an investment of some type (something you are comfortable with)  This as the added benefit of not tying up this extra money in your house should you need it in the next few years for something else. You would then have the option in 2 or 3 years of continuing on this path or closing the investment and paying off the remaining principal in one lump sum.   If nothing else that big payment would be a really fun check to write."
You could be in a bit of a bind.  I wouldn't push it any more until you read your loan papers very carefully. Going back to the lender for a refinance after you converted it to a rental (presumably without their knowledge) is risky.  I doubt they'd let you refinance anyway, as the house is underwater. If the loan is performing then I wouldn't think they'd look too hard for reasons to upset the flow of checks by calling the loan due, but if you brazenly advertise the change of property use to them they may reconsider. Read your loan papers carefully to see what they can do before you lean on them too much. As for managing the finances on that property, I'd build up a cushion to deal with the fact that your payment is going to shoot up considerably in year 8.  Also consider building up a side business to get another income stream going to compensate as well.  You have a little time before it shoots up.
It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.