Nobody can be sure, but eventually it will most likely go up. PATurmel123456

Powered by

I have a fluctuating mortgage - not applying for a new one. also, the u.s. have lowered interest rates by 1/2 points. how does that effect our mortgage rates??

Variable mortgage rates in Canada are usually set to adjust up and down with the bank's prime rate. As of today, Oct 16 2008, Scotiabank's Variable Rate Mortgage's interest rate is set to 5.25%. It's Prime Lending Rate is 4.25%, and the Bank of Canada's prime business rate is also 4.25%. If the Bank of Canada rate were to rise to 8.8%, rates on your variable mortgage would certainly rise. Assuming your mortgage rate jumped from 5.25% to 9.8% (1% above prime), your monthly payment on $100,000 would jump from $596 to $881. On the other hand if rates were to drop by 1%, from 5.25% to 4.25% (1% above prime), your monthly payment on $100,000 would drop from $596 to $540. As we've seen in the news, over the last couple weeks, banks do not have to adjust their rates the same amount as the Bank of Canada. Hope that helps! BTW, check out my website for a Canadian Mortgage Payment Calculator http://mortgage-shopper.info/Canada/mortgage_calculators/mortgage_calculator.html

Powered by

The fed cut rates today 1/22/2008 by 75 points, but i checked rates offered on mortgages today and found that they have only dropped slightly. how long does it take before mortgage rates change with the fed prime rate cut?

It doesnt change mortgages. Ive answered this question many times today but it doesnt affect mortgages. It wont affect it, sometimes it can make it worse. Mortgages are sold like Oil, or Corn ect. They are sold on the open market. If China, Japan ect decide they dont want to buy mortgages anymore the rates go up. The Fed doesnt control mortgage rates. The people that buy mortgage backed securities do. People that think the Fed controls mortgage rates are wrong. Its like thinking the feds lowered mortgage rates and now the price of corn should go down. Its the same thing. Its purely a market decision not a fed decision. Rates went down today because of what happen to China's market yesterday. It had nothing... absolutely nothing with what the Feds did. Thats how it rolls.

Powered by

Member since: july 05, 2006 total points: 1,047 (level 3) points earned this week: --% best answer apm2006 s is it better to payoff mortgage or keep the money in stocks and cash ? i have 137k in arm mortgage which is presently at 4.375% will go up in august 2008. presently i have $105 k in vanguard prime mm ac earning 5.14%. also approximately $250 k in other stock funds. and 15 k in bank checking. i am 40 years old, two small kids . both wife and i work in mid-range jobs and bring about 240k a year together. don't have expensive hobbies, however do take vacations once a year and live under our means. combined retirement accounts are over $600k. the assets listed above are non retirements accounts. kids education accounts & special needs trust have over 50k

I would not pay off a 4.375% mortgage. I suggest waiting until the rate goes up, and then pay it off. Some will suggest investing the money even then....but I've been in your position, and I can tell you that it feels wonderful to be completely debt free. And...as for the tax deduction.....keep in mind that you will always get the standard deduction even if you have no others. Again, I like paying off the mortgage...it is just not logical at the present low interest rate. Congratulations on being a saver, and living below your means. Keep it up; you will enjoy life now...and even more so in retirement!

Powered by

1) iraq war 2) hurricane katrina 3) conspiracy that the bush administration may have been behind september 11 4) sub prime mortgage 5) never, people still support him 6)other

1) Iraq War beginning 2) Hurricane Katrina not his fault 3) Conspiracy that The Bush Administration may have been behind September 11 crazy talk 4) Sub Prime Mortgage not his fault 5) Never, people still support him 6)other mark k

Powered by

Http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa ge.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac 0a96f958260&sec=&spon=& pagewanted=all think perhaps this is the reason for the sub prime mortgage mess? or is it all bush's fault? key points in article include: 1) clinton administration pressuring fannie may to lower minimum credit requirements to increase minority home ownership 2) this coincided with hud investigating fannie may for racial discrimination in the systems used to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants. still wanna blame this whole mess on bush? just read the article. its from the new york times for crying out loud!

Whatever the Democrats did it did not spin out of control as it has under Bush. Bush has made it more than clear that the markets can do as they wish and Cheney has pronounced that "deficits don't matter." With this kind of mentality in the White House and throughout the country due to the brainwashing Rush Limbaugh and ilk have done over the years about the invincible nature of US capitalism, the US set itself up for failure. Whatever Clinton, and even Carter, have proposed to make ownership easier it was done under a plan that required the careful regulation of it. That was never the case with Jr & Co. who let greed run wild like someone driving drunk after gulping down a six pack.

Powered by

Could someone give me some mortgage advice? i bought my condo four years ago with a 5/1 arm because i thought i'd be moving by now...and i am--except, the value of my house has dropped so low it doesn't make sense to sell it. so, i'm renting it out. that's kind of beside the point. i have no problem with my payments at 5.125% and my bank will renew my 5/1 arm next year in june at whatever rate they've got. they're offering a 5.5 right now. i can't refinance w/ a fixed as the value of the property is too low in comparison w/how much i owe on it. should i get the 5.5 now, or is there a chance arms may fall within the next year or so? any advice would be greatly appreciated. thanks. p.s. i would appreciate it if i didn't hear the old "it's your fault we're in this mess" stuff. this was not a sub prime mortgage--the bank was very thorough in asking for credit rating, bank account info, salary, etc. i have a full-time job and job security so i won't be defaulting anytime soon.

Also if it is now a rent house then the mortgage companies will not give you a good rate at all on a new loan. I am being told they won't give better than a 7% loan on investment houses now and you would need to show an 80% loan to value. I would guess that means you will pretty much have to stick to the current loan. Most loans that are called 5/1 ARMs remain fixed for the first 5 years then adjust every year after that- so I would just live with whatever this loan does- each June it will adjust to whatever the current level is (you may have some limits in your adjustments).

Powered by

I bought my condo four years ago with a 5/1 arm because i thought i'd be moving by now...and i am--except, the value of my house has dropped so low it doesn't make sense to sell it. so, i'm renting it out. that's kind of beside the point. i have no problem with my payments at 5.125% and my bank will renew my 5/1 arm next year in june at whatever rate they've got. they're offering a 5.5 right now. i can't refinance w/ a fixed as the value of the property is too low in comparison w/how much i owe on it. should i get the 5.5 now, or is there a chance arms may fall within the next year or so? any advice would be greatly appreciated. thanks. p.s. i would appreciate it if i didn't hear the old "it's your fault we're in this mess" stuff. this was not a sub prime mortgage--the bank was very thorough in asking for credit rating, bank account info, salary, etc. i have a full-time job and job security so i won't be defaulting anytime soon.

Even if the rate falls, you can't afford NOT to get a fixed rate loan. Rate WILL increase significantly as soon as the MASSIVE debt the US government just created begins effecting the market. A fixed rate sub-prime loan is better than an adjustable rate loan. Also, at least TRY to refinance with another lender. The worst they can do is say no.

Powered by

I have awful credit (long story), but have someone willing to buy a house for me. is it possible for them to turn around & sell it to me for a minimal price ($1.00) & then i go & refinance the house? making it possible for me to pay that person back & hold my own mortgage at that point? the house is obviously worth more than $1.00 & in great condition. it would appraise for over $150,000. is it possible to get a refinance when you have really bad credit, especially now that the sub prime market has gone belly up?

If you do not qualify to buy it you will not qualify to refinance it. He can not legally sell the house without competely paying off the loan in the first place. He can not sell it to you for $1 if he owes more then that on it.

Powered by

. washington’s ‘war against winners’ a cap-gains assault on private partnerships would strike a dagger into the heart of u.s. capital formation. last friday’s precipitous stock-market plunge, with the dow jones dropping 185 points, is all about washington’s continued war on prosperity. the latest assault comes courtesy of house democrat sander levin. late last week, he introduced a bill that essentially would abolish the 15 percent capital-gains tax preference for risk investing, and raise it by 20 percentage points to the 35 percent corporate and personal rate. this goes beyond an earlier tax attack on a public offering by the blackstone group, and would slam into all private partnerships, including buyout funds, hedge funds, venture-capital firms, real estate partnerships, and oil-and-gas deals. incidentally, while attacking capital gains, the congressional democrats are killing initiatives for across-the-board cuts on wasteful appropriation bills. according to the club for growth, house democrats defeated separate measures that would cut spending by 4 percent, 1 percent, and 0.5 percent. does this mean the democrats favor tax hikes over real spending control? it appears so. washington economist kevin hassett says this is part of the democrats’ “war against winners,” and he’s right on the money. in particular, these willy-nilly changes of the tax rules would have a chilling effect on capital formation, and could constitute the biggest attack on capital since the 1930s. as mentioned, the lightning rod in this tax-hike endeavor was the blackstone group, the private-equity giant that went public last week. blackstone’s investment-fund profits are taxed at the 15 percent cap-gains rate, and since these profits come from high-risk investments, that’s how it should be. but democrats in congress view these profits as plain income, and greedily want a higher take. but plain ol’ income this is not. the recent crack up of two bear stearns sub-prime-mortgage hedge funds shows just how risky these ventures can be. yes, there’s big money to be made when these private partnerships click. but the economy at large also is a beneficiary. private buyout funds often save highly troubled companies from bankruptcy. they insert skilled managers who streamline operations and make businesses more efficient, a process that can ultimately lead to greater profits and business expansion. you know a lot of these companies: chrysler, staples, sears, domino’s, dunkin’ donuts, toys“r”us, clear channel communications, hospital corporation of america. all of these firms were brought back from the dead thanks to private partnerships. nobody knows for sure whether congress will green-light the democrats’ anti-growth agenda. the hope is that president bush will veto any tax hike that lands on his desk. but the mere threat that congress would embark on such a program of wealth destruction and economic impoverishment — all in the name of taxing “rich people” — has investors reeling. ironically, a lot of today’s anti-cap-gains momentum is the handiwork of former clinton treasury secretary robert rubin. he actually believes a low cap-gains tax has no economic growth impact at all. however, back when clinton and rubin were running things, the personal income-tax rate was lifted from 31 to 40 percent, while the cap-gains tax was reduced from 28 to 20 percent, making for a 20 percentage point tax advantage for cap-gains over regular income. flashing forward, the current bush administration lowered the income-tax rate to 35 percent and the cap-gains rate to 15 percent, preserving that 20 percent differential. hmm . . . is rubin saying the cap-gains tax advantage was good for the clinton boom, but not the bush boom? truth is, that differential provides a strong incentive for entrepreneurial risk taking and higher-risk, cutting-edge investment — both of which lend real torque to the economy. another unfortunate irony is that while democrats think they’re striking out at the rich, they’re actually jeopardizing the retirement portfolios of millions of middle-income americans. firemen, police officers, and teachers, to name a few, are all represented by the big state and city pension funds. and these funds are heavily invested in the hedge and private-equity funds that the democratic tax machine is targeting. is this fact lost on the democrats? and don’t they realize that two out of every three voters in recent elections owned stocks — either directly or indirectly? are they attempting to commit political suicide? if the democrats get their way, job creation will be adversely affected, too. clearly, you can’t create new jobs in the private sector unless there’s a new or expanding business to create those jobs. and since new and expanding businesses require capital for investment funding, if you tax that capital more, you get less investment and fewer jobs. in short, you can’t have capitalism without capital. the process works for “rich people” and the middle class. whenever democrats wage war against the rich, the middle class becomes the collateral damage. this may be the law of unintended consequences, but it is something this congress fails to understand. . ___________________________________ _____

I think you might have already answered your own question, so why are you asking us? Do you want to know if we agree with you? I personally do not exactly agree. The greatest growth occurred in the U S during a time when taxes on the rich were relatively high, about 90% if I recall correctly. There was a time when the tax code was used to redistribute the wealth of the nation more or less. With 1% of the population owning 90% of the wealth, there is not a lot of potential for continued growth, only potential for a society of very rich and very poor. It is more of a society associated with those of the middle east rather than the democrocies that GWB is trying to pedal on the world. As an example for the world the U S currently is falling short in more categories than this one.