Jump to content

dandoman66

Members
  • Content Count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Florida
  1. There is a master early deletion thread in this forum. The gist of it is for Transunion, if you use the online dispute system, they will typically delete in a day (or less) if the item is scheduled to drop off within 6 months. Very reliable. Very low risk, as they don't even contact the creditor, they just delete it. Give it a try.
  2. I would find out when the SOL for legal action to collect these debts expires and lay low until then. If they haven't sued you yet, I wouldn't poke the sleeping bear. Depending on the state, you may be at or near the SOL for these debts. There is a master SOL by state thread on here somewhere. Good luck.
  3. They updated the account to show paid, never late. Therefore, it is no longer a derogatory item and does not have to be removed in 7 years. Since it is now a "goodie", not a "baddie", it will stay on the report longer. This is good, because it shows you took out a loan and paid it off. Congrats.
  4. Nobody seems to be saying it out loud, but the entire banking system is insolvent. Their heavy bets and investments in mortgage backed securities and Credit Default Swaps on same using $30 borrowed dollars for every $1 of their own capital has left them well below the minimum capital requirements required by banking laws. If they honestly valued their toxic assets and off balance sheet assets, they would all be taken over by the regulators. This is why they are begging for another injection of hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpaying Americans. It is also why they are cutting credit card limits even on good customers. IT IS TO SHORE UP THEIR PATHETIC BALANCE SHEET. It has nothing to do with good business practices or customer relations. The number one priority of banking executives is to find a way to keep their banks from being taken over, thus losing the huge compensation packages their incompetent azzes have become accustomed to. Too bad for the customers and the economy.
  5. Here is how this works: You roll an IRA or 401(k) account into a "self directed" IRA that this company administers. As the administrator, you can direct them to invest the money in anything you want. This company (I know nothing about this specific company) apparently specializes in investing in real estate. You can now use your retirement funds to invest in real estate. Your IRA can buy and sell properties and any profits you make go back into your IRA and are tax-deferred. I imagine the administration and legal costs would be significant. The properties have to be titled properly and any financial transactions have to be done in a manner that they are not interpreted as distributions (i.e. repairs, improvements, rent collections). During the easy money lax underwriting inflated appreciation market from 2002-2006, you could make a lot of money fast and tax free this way. Now, I would only suggest it to someone who is experienced in real estate investing. It is a lot more risky when you can't cash out of a property by selling it to anyone with a pulse at 100% financing. The key point is that your "self directed" IRA is investing in the property, not you personally. If you want to invest in real estate and devote the proceeds to your retirement this is a good way to do it. You can buy a property and sell it the next week without the profits being taxed as ordinary income. If you hold the property for a year and sell it, you would be able to defer the capital gains taxes. I know a guy that invested in foreclosures during the boom. In 2006 he bought my neighbor's house at a foreclosure auction at the courthouse for 124K. He sold it 2 weeks later for 199K. I don't think he ever set foot in the place. If he used this "self-directed" IRA strategy, he would avoid taxes on his 70K profit of about 39%--a cool 28K.
  6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews The Internal Revenue Service expects to lose more than $37 million by using private debt collectors to pursue tax scofflaws through a program that has outraged consumers and led to charges on Capitol Hill that the agency is wasting money for work that IRS agents could do more effectively Since 2006, the agency has used three companies to go after a $1 billion slice of the nation's unpaid taxes. Despite aggressive collection tactics, the companies have rounded up only $49 million, little more than half of what it has cost the IRS to implement the program. The debt collectors have pocketed commissions of up to 24 percent. Now, as Americans file their 2007 taxes, Democratic leaders want to end the effort. "This program is the hood ornament for incompetence," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a leading critic who has introduced a bill to stop the program. The measure has 23 cosponsors, all but one of them Democrats. "It makes no sense at all to be turning over these tax accounts to private tax collectors that end up costing the taxpayers money." (more in link to article)
  7. make sure you send your disputes CMRRR. If you were to apply for credit, and be denied with BK listed as one of the reasons, that would be actual damages for the CRA's error in reporting. This is one of the types of cases that naca lawyers will take on contingency since it is easy to prove the CRA's are reporting inaccurately (as no BK ever filed). Good luck.
  8. First, IMHO UF is a much better school than FSU based on my observations of graduates of both schools over the years. Second, I do apologize for the specific references to you in my posts, was not meant personally and was inappropriate in this forum. I am just growing tired of people insisting that the government take money from the millions of people that didn't get caught up in the housing hype and give it to banks and investors and speculators and homeowners who made bad decisions and want someone else to pay for them. Third, a bailout is never inevitable. The world is not going to end if Goldman Sachs and BOA suck up monstrous losses or even fail. The government doesn't give a chocolate when millions of Americans go bankrupt, but if their precious high rollers stand to lose a dime they are Johnny-on-the-spot with hard working Americans money to bail them out. Screw em. They weren't complaining when they were raking in billions selling this toxic crap. Corporate America is carrying $1.6 TRILLION dollars in cash, largely accumulated by squeezing middle class working people. We need to stop rewarding the management and investors that create these economic clusters. All a taxpayer funded bailout is is a transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to wealthy investors. And finally, i really dont think a bailout is going to help much. The fact is that a lot of people borrowed a lot of money against houses that simply werent worth what they borrowed. This system was pumping staggering amounts of money into the economy that bought a lot of cars, boats, motorcycles, houses, furniture and home improvements. It also paid off a lot of credit card debt. The spigot has been turned off, and the economy is going to decline from 05-06 levels. Housing prices will continue to drop until they are in line with household incomes. TRILLIONS of dollars worth of home equity is being wiped out. It is going to suck, but that is where we are. Clearly I also think UF is a better school, since I chose to go there there instead of FSU. My point was that FSU is hardly an embarrassment, which was your implication. Also, I disagree with your contention that a bailout is inevitable. Ever heard of the FDIC? If a bank fails, the government can proactively move to minimize losses or they can wait until it gets to the point where the FDIC has to pay off all depositors and liquidate the assets for pennies on the dollar. Same net result either way: Bailout. One just costs more. Also, we are talking about some rather large banks...this isn't NetBank here....if Washington Mutual or Countrywide went under, you really need to consider the size of their <$100k deposit liabilities. Either of those two institutions' liquidation would probably ultimately cost more than the entire housing bailout Bernanke proposed. If this was still 1925 and we didn't have a financial system based on government guaranteed deposits, then you might have half a point. That's not reality though. It is not the school, it is the ever lowering standards. Of course I wasn't talking about FDIC insured deposits. That is why it is called the Federal Deposit INSURANCE Corporation. I believe CountryWide had about 35 Billion in uninsured deposits. And the banks SHOULD be allowed to fail. The world would not come to an end. If the banks had kept to their knitting--paying interest on deposits and making properly underwritten loans--then guess what--they wouldn't be at risk of failing. If they sufffer the consequences of their bad decision making, it will be a lot less likely that they will act so recklessly in the future. No wonder the country is going to hell in a handbasket if this is what our schools are turning out.
  9. FIA manages credit cards for big banks, including Bank of America and US bank.
  10. Were you on the mortgage? Mortgages are recorded in the public records in the county in which the property is located. In some counties, you can access a scan of the actual mortgage online. Go to the courthouse, or online, and get a copy of the mortgage. Send the nasty CU a CMRR letter demanding removal of the derogatory credit reporting, since you weren't on the mortgage. If they don't, look for a lawyer on the NACA web site.
  11. First, IMHO UF is a much better school than FSU based on my observations of graduates of both schools over the years. Second, I do apologize for the specific references to you in my posts, was not meant personally and was inappropriate in this forum. I am just growing tired of people insisting that the government take money from the millions of people that didn't get caught up in the housing hype and give it to banks and investors and speculators and homeowners who made bad decisions and want someone else to pay for them. Third, a bailout is never inevitable. The world is not going to end if Goldman Sachs and BOA suck up monstrous losses or even fail. The government doesn't give a chocolate when millions of Americans go bankrupt, but if their precious high rollers stand to lose a dime they are Johnny-on-the-spot with hard working Americans money to bail them out. Screw em. They weren't complaining when they were raking in billions selling this toxic crap. Corporate America is carrying $1.6 TRILLION dollars in cash, largely accumulated by squeezing middle class working people. We need to stop rewarding the management and investors that create these economic clusters. All a taxpayer funded bailout is is a transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to wealthy investors. And finally, i really dont think a bailout is going to help much. The fact is that a lot of people borrowed a lot of money against houses that simply werent worth what they borrowed. This system was pumping staggering amounts of money into the economy that bought a lot of cars, boats, motorcycles, houses, furniture and home improvements. It also paid off a lot of credit card debt. The spigot has been turned off, and the economy is going to decline from 05-06 levels. Housing prices will continue to drop until they are in line with household incomes. TRILLIONS of dollars worth of home equity is being wiped out. It is going to suck, but that is where we are.
  12. As applied to economics, a Moral Hazard exists when participants in the market take a higher degree of risk than they normally would because someone else (gov't, taxpayers) is going to suck up some of the losses if they make a bad investment. (With all due respect to chriswufgator, are you sure you didn't go to Florida State?) The concern is that if the marketplace expects a bail out whenever things go south, they will assume more risk than is prudent in the future. The vast majority of people who got into these loans knew what they were getting into. Here in Florida, speculation was rampant, with "investors" buying new homes in subdivisions with the intention of selling them at a profit by the time they were actually built. They lied to get occupant rates on investment houses. Underwriting was so lax by 2005-2006 and so called stated income loans so common that it can only be described as rampant fraud. Many people bought larger houses than their income could support with the expectation that they could re-finance or sell at a profit. Sub-prime lending gave a lot of people the opportunity to buy a house with no money down, increasing the demand for houses. In hot markets like Florida and California, houses appreciated at annual rates that were unbelievable, and not supported by a rise in family incomes. During the 6 years or so of the real-estate frenzy, every time a house sold: 1. The real estate agents got paid. 2. The title company got paid. 3. The builder or seller of the home/condo got paid. 4. The Mortgage Broker got paid. 5. The Mortgage Lender got paid. 6. The investment bankers got paid, for creating mortgage-backed securities based on the loans. 7. The rating companies got paid, (S & P, Fitch, Moody's) for rating the bonds 8. Banks and investment houses got paid again, selling derivative products of these loans. 9. Investors bought the mortgage-backed securities. In the end, the only people on the hook (assuming any risk) for these loans were the home buyer and the investors in the mortgage-backed securities. So the broker, lender, and bankers could and did do everything they could to close the deal and get paid. A lot of investors made bad investments. They should suck it up and take their losses, without any help from people who did NOT make bad decisions. If Chriswufgator wants to stroke a check to his neighbor because he can't afford his mortgage, that is fine by me--just don't ask me to. I agree that a lot of people were misled by brokers and loan reps, flat out lied to and Pearl-Harbored at the closing table. I have sympathy for those people, and don't have a problem with them having their loan amounts reduced or terms adjusted, at the expense of their lender. A lot of homeowners made bad financial decisions. They bought houses they couldn't afford, PAID TOO MUCH for them, and now they can't make their payments. Many of those people made no down payments, and are abandoning the homes they simply can't afford. That is what happens when you make bad financial decisions. A lot of lenders made loans with very low underwriting standards. They made bad business decisions, and many went bankrupt--good riddance. The investors who bought these loans have a lot of bad investments on their hands. They should suck it up and take their losses. They should try to recover what they can from the ratings agencies and the investment banks to the extent there was misrepresentation. I don't buy the ratings agencies "golly gee, who would've thunk it? Market conditions deteriorated so fast" argument. Predicting market conditions is presumably what they were charging billions for. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see this coming. Paul Krugman, an economist who writes for the NY times, has pointed out that housing prices marched more or less in lock step with incomes for over a century. When these adjustable rate mortgages extended to a larger group of people by the advent of subrime lending, housing prices skyrocketed as incomes did not. Also, the premium (cost of owning) to own a house compared to the cost of renting a similar house got way out of wack also. People are generally willing to pay some premium to own instead of rent (we used to call it a down payment), but are only willing to pay a large premium if they expect to recover it in appreciation over time. Housing values have fallen, and they will continue to fall until they are more in line with household incomes (what people can afford to pay). In addition, there is a large existing inventory of unsold and empty houses that needs to be worked through. If anyone thinks the housing market is going to recover before 2010, they are deluding themselves. It could be much longer. The banks probably would be better off to adjust the terms of some loans, even the principal balance. But "the bank" doesn't own a particular mortgage, and investors don't either. They buy slices called "tranches" that supposedly have varying levels of risk and different rates of returns. The investors are paid their returns out of the payments made into the mortgage pool. Investors in higher risk tranches take losses before investors in lower risk tranches. So there is a whole group of investors to fight over what should be done about delinquent mortgages. If Chriswufgator were an investor in a high risk tranch, he would want to avoid losses much more eagerly than if he was in the safest tranch. This makes it difficult for loan servicers to do any kind of loan modification or short sale. Housing counselors around the country say they are getting no co-operation from banks when they try to help people negotiate a short sale. Ditto for loan modifications. The banks don't want to do it.
  13. If it was properly included in the BK, and they were notified by the court, they have no business attempting to get a judgement on this. It is a violation of the permanent injunction issued by the BK court. I would call around and get an atty that does BK work to deal with them. At a minimum you should notify the court that this obligation was discharged, and move for dismissal.
  14. If they are collection agency accounts on your report, I would DV them as unknown debt. Don't worry that it is past the 30 days. I have had success DVing accounts that were years old. These JDB type companies rarely to never have documentation, so when confronted with someone who appears to have some knowledge of the law, they will delete. You should also read up on SOL for legal actions in your state. SOL information, as well as an excellent unknown debt DV sample letter, can be found on WhyChat's site linked in my siggy. Good Luck.
  15. Even if some scoring models ding you for having a consumer finance company on your report, I think any small negative would be outweighed by the good, paid trade lines plus they are adding to your average age of accounts and your account mix. I actually had myfico tell me that having a consumer finance company (Prosper.com, btw) was a negative, so apparently the evil bastards at equifax count that against you, but I wouldn't think it would count for much. I think EQ is just more aggressive about giving their customers (lenders) reasons to overcharge consumers--er, I mean EQ has a more "conservative" risk model.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines