vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
During such repair and restoration period, Lender shall have the right to hold such insurance proceeds until Lender has had an opportunity to inspect such Property to ensure the work has been completed to Lender's satisfaction, provided that such inspection shall be undertaken promptly. Lender may disburse proceeds for the repairs and restoration in a single payment or in a series of progress payments as the work is completed. Unless an agreement is made in writing or Applicable Law requires interest to be paid on such insurance proceeds, Lender shall not be required to pay Borrower any interest or earnings on such proceeds. Fees for public adjusters, or other third parties, retained by Borrower shall not be paid out of the insurance proceeds and shall be the sole obligation of Borrower. If the restoration or repair is not economically feasible or Lender's security would be lessened, the insurance proceeds shall be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. Such insurance proceeds shall be applied in the order provided for in Section 2."
Uno de los mayores quebraderos de cabeza a los que se enfrentan muchos españoles es el hecho de arrastrar deudas impagadas con su banco habitual o no lograr refinanciar dicha deuda con otra entidad bancaria ¡Infórmate sobre cómo solicitar créditos con Asnef y liquida tus deudas!
First, you are reading that document correctly, but it's not 78% of original mortgage. It is actually 78% of original home value.  For example, if the home was valued at $100K when you bought it and you received a $90K loan, PMI must be removed when you owe $78K, not 78% of $90K. To make matters worse for the bank, they missed the required timing to drop PMI. I would print the document you referenced, cite the applicable portion, and tell them if they do not comply, you will report them for failure to comply. For example,  I'm sure I am not the only one in this situation, and the FDIC will be   eager to assess the huge fines they can collect from a bank that isn't   operating within the law. Something like that.
Your calculations are correct. It is likely that the bank's software has a rounding error.  In effect, either your bank is overstating your interest by eight cents per month, or your bank is insisting that you prepay your principal by eight cents per month.  If the bank's ongoing interest calculations are correct, your final payment will be slightly smaller (because of the prepaid principal, and because of compound interest on those prepayments).  I have performed similar calculations for my mortgages over the years, and except upon early payoff in the middle of the month, I have always matched my banks' calculations to the penny.  Ironically, this means that my banks' formulas are a bit weird: After making these adjustments, even my calculations for the mid-month payoff matched to the penny.
Subprime loans typically pay a higher rate of interest. If you earn 10% on a subprime loan and 4% don't pay you earn 6%. If you earn 5% on a prime loan and 1% don't pay you earn 4%.   During the years up to the financial crisis a lot of subprime loans were sold to investors, earning the originating banks money from fees. If you can make a $1K loan and sell it to an investor for $1050, that's a damn good business.   Subprime lending isn't so much about being good at picking borrowers, it's more about being good at collecting. Different skill set.
My insurance has been the same for nearly a decade. Cable, too. Some groceries have gone up, like fresh fruits and Milk, but I've eliminated my home phone in that time, since my cell phone works everywhere, so it sort of balances out.
Renters' Insurance should also have some level of liability coverage. I.e.: if you caused a flooding because you went on and broke the pipe, or a fire because you smoked in the bed - there should be some level of coverage for that. However, most of the damage the tenant can do is probably not accidental. If you broke the pipe - you probably did something wrong. If you caused fire by smoking in bed - you obviously did something wrong. While seemingly accidental, you're deeply at fault. Insurance companies are not in business for rewarding risky behavior. Accidents where the tenant has nothing to do with what happened (earthquakes, fires because of, say, wiring, flooding because it rained too much, or bird flying into a window and shattering it) - are covered by the homeowner's insurance. In any case, talk to your insurance agent about your specific policy and concerns.
One that isn't typically mentioned: move. Rates are often higher in certain zip codes where there are more accidents and/or thefts. I cut my insurance nearly in half by moving. If you're looking at moving anyway, it's worth considering.
The fact that a lawsuit has been filed is not ipso facto evidence of wrongdoing. BoA has a lot of ugliness yet un-accounted-for, but escrowing insurance and taxes is 100% standard practice, to the point where you cannot get a conventional mortgage that *doesn't* escrow that stuff.   **NO** bank will give or carry a conventional home-loan *without* escrowing taxes and insurance. If you have a conventional mortgage, your insurance and tax payments are made by the mortgager whether or not you pay, because the bank doesn't want the house (their collateral) repo'd or destroyed due to lack of a $100 insurance/tax payment.   To the point, no bank in 2011 wants *more* foreclosed homes on their books. Banks *lose* money in foreclosure. The thesis that BoA conspired to get a bigger portfolio of underwater homes defies sanity.   Just because BoA robbed a liquor store doesn't mean that they also molested children and killed JFK. There might be a colossal paperwork snafu here that BoA has to make right, but that can be unwound. But the narrative that BoA was gaming the paperwork to get a higher ratio of foreclosures on their books doesn't make sense.
It's always hard to know the exact policy terms, but as a general rule there are two main contributions to insurance payouts. The first part covers expenses aimed at restoring the situation to its previous state pre-incident. This may include repair work and materials etcetera. The second part kicks in when it's not reasonably possible to repair the damage, or at least not in a financially efficient way. In this case, the insurer can decide to pay out the decrease in value. This is in fact very common in car accidents, where the car is a total loss.  In your case, it's quite possible that your roof, even with the two partial repairs is in a worse condition than it was before the storm. For instance, the new shingles may not match the old ones exactly. Thus the value of your home has decreased despite the reasonable repair attempt. And as mhoran_psprep points out, there can be hidden damage as well, which is a lurking liability. If you've accepted the cash payment in lieu of a full repair, you also accept the roof in its new condition.
"Disclaimer: I work in life insurance, but I am not an agent. First things first, there is not enough information here to give you an answer. When discussing life insurance, the very first things we need to fully consider are the illustration of policy values, and the contract itself. Without these, there is no way to tell if this is a good idea or not. So what are the things to look for? A. Risk appetite. People love to discuss projections of the market, like for example, ""7-8% a year compounded annually"". Go look at the historical returns of the stock market. It is never close to that projection. Life insurance, however, can give you a GUARANTEED return (this would be show in the 'Guaranteed' section of the life insurance illustration). As long as you pay your premiums, this money is guaranteed to accrue. Now most life insurance companies also show 'Non-Guaranteed' elements in their illustrations - these are non-guaranteed projections based on a scale at this point in time. These columns will show how your cash value may grow when dividends are credited to your policy (and used to buy paid-up additional insurance, which generates more dividends - this can be compared to the compounding nature of interest). B. Tax treatment. I am definitely not an expert in this area, but life insurance does have preferential tax treatment, particularly to your beneficiaries. C. Beneficiaries. Any death benefit (again, listed as guaranteed and maybe non-guaranteed values) is generally completely tax free for the beneficiary. D. Strategy. Tying all of this together, what exactly is the point of this? To transfer wealth, to accrue wealth, or some combination thereof? This is important and unstated in your question. So again, without knowing more, there is no way to answer your question. But I am surprised that in this forum, so many people are quick to jump in and say in general that whole life insurance is a scam. And even more surprising is the fact the accepted answer has already been accepted.
We should do away with the concept of insurance for health, period.    You don't have safety insurance that covers police services.  You don't have national defense insurance.  You don't have fire services insurance.  Why?  Because they are essential services that are commonly needed and serve as a public good.  *Every single human being* suffers from the common ailment known as *humanity.*  Thus, every single human being needs health care.  Health *care,* not health insurance.
You can't compare the different quotes unless they have the same numbers to work with. The big companies should use similar models to come up with values for the contents. In many cases they will assume some standard values for things like appliances. Yes you have a stove, but unless it is commercial grade they won't care when giving you a quote. If you have very expensive items you may need a rider to cover them. There is not relationship between the county assessment and the cost to rebuild. The insurance doesn't cover the land. You have to make sure that all quotes include the same riders: cost to put you in a motel, flood insurance... and the same deductibles. Your state may have an insurance office that can help answer your question.  Here is the one for Virginia.
With chronic (long term) care, your back in the same boat as the flu. Often times you can get better, and cheaper, care as a self pay patent, then as a insured patent. That is not always the case however. So you have to measure your own circumstance, and decide if insurance is right for you. But remember insurance is about risk avoidance, and not about paying less. You will ALWAYS pay more for insurance. It's designed that way. Even if the cost is hidden in many ways. (Taxes, spread out over visits, or prescriptions, etc.)"
"And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some ""animal spirits"" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle."
"Give a poorest person money and they will be pretty much guaranteed to spend it.  This creates demand.  Give a rich person money and what?  It will be preferably used to generate some sort of rent -- that is it will give the rich person more money and give us less; because the price of something we need has gone up.    *edit -- I slogged through every page of ""Wealth of Nations."" Adam Smith spends about half the book talking about the problem of rents.  It seems even truer now."
This is one of the issues. Traditionally, people would list their house while they looked for a new one. This has become less common. Now people more often find their dream home and then list their homes.  This creates more buyers for fewer properties at any given time.
If you can find a tenant by networking -- co-worker, friend of a friend, etc. -- rather than openly advertising, that often gives you a better pool. Side advice:  Check what local housing laws apply to renting a room rather than having a housemate. Once you start advertising this you may be subject to fair housing laws, additional code requirements, and so on.
How do prices of an apartment/house correlate to prices becoming more manageable in manufactured goods?  I could also say that  housing is not a good proxy seeing as how prices in housing differ depending on where you live.  I can also point out that more is going into buildings like double paned glass and better materials which would also raise prices on your home.  Yet a computer is much better than today than 35 years ago, and the exact opposite thing happened.  I can also say that there is less timber today than 35 years ago, making the price of wood go up.  I can also get into boring things like Bid Rent Theory, but what's the fun in that?  Nearly all manufactured goods have gone down in price.  Thanks to more open robust trade.
"Why thank you for this unbiassed information, trust deed salesperson.  Basically, trust deeds are a pawn shop for your house, except they aren't well regulated like a pawn shop.  ""Banks are too trustworthy.  I'm going to give my house to Joe, because he'll give me one third of one more percent, and it seems smart to me to gamble my home on a couple hundred bucks and some social network advice."""
To be honest, if it's a home all of you share you should try and save the home for your parents. your 26, you will have plenty of time to make 30k again. Having a home headquarters will bring some security to the family. Not only that your parents are old now, it could be hard for them to get another home. They have sacrificed for you, so maybe you should sacrifice for them? Thank god i have no family.
Don't robbers look at neighborhoods first? You might try making your house the shabbiest on the street. :)
I actually did this once. I wrote a large check along with a letter indicating that I would not be around to receive the next bill so I was prepaying. Not only did they credit the entire check, they didn't send that bill and listed the charges on the next month's bill. They must have done that by hand because there's no way the machines would have understood.
Oh, you were looking for proof?  &gt; i got a 19% raise this year. prices aren't up 19% this year.  That's a good question you asked there. It's very clear and concise what you were looking for. With your added:  &gt; i wasn't looking for an explanation - i was looking for proof, as you provided none.  three posts later, it all suddenly becomes so clear. You should be a writer. Just yell at anyone who doesn't get your subtlety and tell them they're wrong.
Article 1 Section 9 doesn't have a clause 8. Article 1 covers the legislative branch.  Article 2 section 1 clause 7 is actually tied with a few others as being the most consistently enforced. Because it's the one that establishes how the president gets paid. Every president has been paid in that way.
Then let’s try a stupider argument to get my point across:  Someone points a gun at you and demands money.  Where I oils you draw the financial line?  What amount of money wouldn’t you pay to save your life?
"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks:  Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent   fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term ""nonemployees""."
I made the assumption that someone following the conversation would have understood that when I said is been disproven it was within the context of the minimum wage conversation. If you were unaware of the context of the conversation you ought to have read the post. My point is not 'all over the place'. It is and has only ever been that increasing wages does not increase demand. That's absolutely economics 101.
From an Indian tax point of view, this transaction is not taxable to you or your father.
While I don't disagree that Wells is trash, it may not be intentional reordering on their part. Some merchants don't settle their machines in a timely manner which can delay an item from posting. So while they were run first, and the funds were probably held in the correct order awaiting posting, the last item CAN clear first due to this. I would reach out to the bank for fee reversals, using the receipts as proof of transaction order.
No. $188.23 has $11.76 tax = $199.99 $188.24 has $11.77 tax - $200.01 So, unless the based price contained the half cent for $188.235, the register would never show $200.00 even. How does the receipt to customer look?
not if it's only Bob and a couple others that are having the problem.  The company is spending more money on the wages of the guy helping him out than what Bob brought to the company with his purchase.  There's no sense in paying for a customer.
I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.
"USPS is being raped by two things. Competition is not one of them. 1: They are not allowed to set their own prices. 2: They were mandated to prepay pensions for many years by W.   They would have had a $3 Billion profit, if they did not have to prepay all their pensions, which, coincidentally, none of their ""competition"" has to do."
Wal-mart is not transferring the cost of labor onto the taxpayers. The Government is doing that. If you don't like it you can either vote for representatives that will remove these sorts of welfare payments, or you can supply the workers with better-paying jobs.
I love graphs, but graphs don't tell stories.  Graphs just represent data.  The author of this article is looking at graphs that represent significatly different data sets and saying that the poor jobs data is significatly releated to excessive ceo pay.  The author also fails to prove a correlation between the two (Showing graphs with different axis and different scales doesn't count).  I wish correlation equaled causation, but it doesn't.
I see your remarks regarding Zillow, but would add a question. Why not look only for recent sales? If you find homes similar to yours with recent sales, that's similar to how the appraisers do it. I've refinanced many times and each time, I looked at sales within three miles of my house. I hit the appraised price very close in my estimate, high or low compared to Zillow, but used transaction data from there.just my thought.  I chose a random neighborhood, and this was the first house I clicked. The main view shows last sale date, so I'd obviously suggest the OP look for more recent ones. If turnover is that low in his neighborhood, I understand, but the comment that transactions aren't listed is factually incorrect. I'd like my 2pts back. :)
Just speaking from personal experience, I see this happening.  My wife and I have cut spending basically as much as possible.  We don't go out to eat, we don't go to the movies, we only buy what we absolutely have to and often that is from thrift stores, we make everything we reasonably can home made, etc.  We just don't have the money.  I blame student loans, the fact that in two years of employment here I haven't gotten any raises even though we normally get one every year (from what I'm told), and her super low paying teaching job.
I'm not unsympathetic, but insurance of what kind? I don't know how he'd have owned a restaurant but failed to pay into the social security system. Was he paying taxes at all?  As for the 'why,' there's not enough checks and balances to make sure that nothing is done under the table. I believe 40 quarters of work would have qualified her for a benefit of some kind, but you say she didn't pay in either. Both people didn't pay into the system, either on purpose or by not understanding the need to do so. This is a sad situation.
yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.
Common now, you know that's not the kind of income people are talking about.  It is usefull information for someone that didn't know but the way it is worded it just seems designed to derail the conversation rather than inform it.
"I got the ""yes we will price match"". Get to the register, oh sorry not for amazon. They have to have a store front.   Don't bother pointing out that, ya its on amazon, but its being sold by a company that has an store front."
&gt; You realize that the postal union was in favor of this, right?  I don't think that's true.  From: https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/id/45018432  &gt; The Postal unions are urging Congress to allow the Postal Service to stop making these prefunding payments.  What am I missing?
I just received the following email from Amazon, after my many phone calls of yesterday: So that confirms the accepted answer above.  Unfortunately, no word on why they don't provide it on the online invoices.  If they get back to me again, I will update.
&gt; since it's not their money (it's ours)  What money are you talking about? Taxpayer money? USPS doesn't receive any taxpayer money.  &gt; If they can't even run something simple as the post office without nearly going out of business, healthcare is an impossibility.  So Medicare is impossible?