Parasitic Banking Industry

Parasitic Banking Industry – Why Wouldn’t They Want Property foreclosures?

Though I was out running this weekend, it was challenging not to notice all the new houses for sale in the location, along with all of the old houses that have yet to be sold after nearly a year. I’ve small doubt why these properties have not but found buyers, as banks are just not lending to new loan applicants unless they’ve wonderful credit and plenty of money. In a community built on manufacturing jobs, those two circumstances aren’t most likely to be met.

Locate Investment Properties with Freedom$oft

However it was also not surprising to notice that gas is now properly more than $3.00 a gallon in the middle of the winter. Needless to say, the truth that Americans are spending more of their shrinking supply of dollars on transportation costs just to obtain to their increasingly insecure job contributes to the dilemma of not having enough dollars to pay the bills, let alone save up for a down payment or overcome a financial hardship.

Why is it that the price of practically every little thing crucial, such as food and oil, has been going up, even as customers are saving less cash and the economy is slowing down?

Trying to the government, the issue really should develop into obvious. As the banks realized just how much bad mortgage debt they held, panic set in. The Federal Reserve bailed out the banks with newly-created income, attempting to inject liquidity into the system. But the banks did not use that money to keep operating and lending, rather utilizing it to bail out underperforming hedge funds or to serve as a reserve for future losses.

In essence, the banks got free cash which will assist them ride through the economic slowdown with no getting to make wiser financial decisions to make back their losses. So they’ll not have to offer mortgages to home buyers and create profits from offering a service which will benefit customers. They can just use the inflated money to stop from getting to create good lending choices.

Now the homeowners who are facing foreclosure are basically getting shut out by significant lenders, who refuse to lend them money to refinance or work with them to put together a loan modification or repayment strategy. With the banking market bailout, the banks have no incentive to do anything but foreclose on the houses and let them sit until the genuine estate market recovers and they can make a bigger profit. Soon after all, the cash they would have received from collecting payments on superior loans has been provided free of any threat by the Federal Reserve.

Why not just do away using the entire lending approach altogether? Banks can now start giving out loans to people who can not afford properties at all, then get the money they would have made on a great loan as a gift from the Fed, and wind up with the real estate, as well.

If this sounds like several mortgage lenders are parasites using homeowners as their hosts, sucking away as considerably money as possible and then leaving the house an empty shell after the foreclosure victims are evicted, this analogy may not miss the mark by considerably. It’s just more evidence of the “Tapeworm Economy” in action.

Not surprisingly, not every homeowner will expertise this in action, but many will find out just how little their bank cares about them when they begin missing payments. We get emails each day from homeowners trying to stop foreclosure, asking why the bank just isn’t accepting their payment any longer, or why they are able to not get a call back from the bank, even when they want to work out a remedy.

In an economy exactly where the banking industry can do as it pleases, producing loans it knows will by no means be paid by the homeowners, but realizing they’ll make their money back through inflating the money supply, and wind up with the underlying asset, is it any wonder banks would rather make new loans as opposed to supply service to their existing shoppers?

It could be intriguing to examine how banks would act if they were not certain that poor choices would lead to a central government bailout.

Subscribe in a reader

You are a homeowner considering the short sale process, owning more than the worth of the house, but there are many questions that are bugging in your mind for many times now. With many circumstances that you have to go through, it is very likely that the whole purchase will get complicated, thus blocking you from getting action. Taking necessary steps on how to make a successful short sale transaction will definitely help you achieve the best results. But before getting to one more selections, and the go forward, it is necessary to comprehend the two most essential conditions and aspects that will impact your decisions on short sales and foreclosure.

Short Sale Investing

Locate Investment Properties with Freedom$oft

Some households are suffering from financial problems, and thus having mortgage non-payments, let us say, for about three to six missed payments, the credit company or or the credit company will have the begin the procedure your home in a foreclosure process. Foreclosure is a legal process in which the lender will have a termination proceeding issued and court-ordered to its equitable right of the mortagegor. In a clear sense, foreclosure is a procedure in which the lending company will have the right to take again the home had, having not fulfilled the conditions given by the lender to the homeowner. But there are ways in which the lender can have the option to liquidate the mortgage is to approve the request of the homeowner to short sale process.

Short sale in the other hand, is a procedure by which the lending company needs the buy or the quantity established in the buy by the home owner, usually lesser in value than the value or the pay off security of the mortgage. In order to get a short sale, in which the conditions are followed, with regards to the lender. But usually most of the lender will consider a house for short sale if the homeowner is suffering from a reasonable issues financially. Example of which are divorce, loss of job, death in the family or relocation, that he or she can no longer sustain his or her monthly mortgage payment.

In order to have a smooth run to the short sale process, it is important to take note of the essential tips in making the transaction successful. Understanding the most basic concepts in foreclosure and short sale would be helpful in your part. Having an orange county short sale expert that will help you in the negotiations to help you all throughout the process, and will make your road to recovery. For more information, visit the home orange county website to find the advantage of having the best orange county short sale specialist in Orange County area.

Subscribe in a reader

Home warranties serve as protection to potential home buyers against unforeseen costly home repairs related to home ownership.

Freedom$oft

Learn To Wholesale

Home warranties generally last for one year and can offer financial assistance from home defects such as broken furnaces, electrical issues, plumbing problems, or even failure of air conditioning units or refrigerators. Home warranties are purchased from Home Warranty companies whose entire business is providing home warranties for home buyers and occasional sellers like that of homes listed in the Boston MA MLS Listings.

Basically, A standard one year home warranty costs between $270-$350 dollars. A standard warranty will typically cover heating systems, pipe links, water heaters, toilets, dishwashers, ovens, built in microwaves, and ovens. Al-a-cart items can be added for things like refrigerators, swimming pools, and septic systems for “upgraded” home warranty plans.

If a covered item breaks down during the warranty period, home owners simply call the home warranty company, pay a service call (usually around $60), and the home warranty company will arrange repairing or replacing the problem.

Potential homeowners really have no way of knowing if part of a house really works until after closing. If the temperature outside is 110 degrees, a home inspector will have a hard time knowing if the furnace would really give out heat. The advantage of home warranties is that they offer home buyers protection to a home they just bought who particularly don’t know if the house need more repairs.

Is the Cost of Home Warranties Worth It?

If a problem happens during that first year of home ownership, people are almost always glad they have the home warranty. They usually forget they ever purchased it if there are no repairs needed in the house.

Knowing whether or not you need to buy a home warranty is a matter of personal choice and preference. Home warranties are highly recommended for people who live paycheck to paycheck because they might be surprised with the costly repairs.

Homeowners are better off without home warranties if they have a healthy savings account or a rainy day fund. Think about how home warranty companies make their money, it’s not by servicing Homes for Sale in Crofton MD that need repairs, and it’s by having a higher percentage of warranties issued that require no service. Actually, home warranties are playing the chance that the warranty won’t actually have to be used.

In addition, if a repair is needed, there is a good chance that the cost of the repair will be less than the cost of home warranty plus the service call fee.

A home warranty can be a great protection for Boise ID Homes, but in most cases, it will never actually be used.

Subscribe in a reader

For a leader, honesty and integrity are absolutely essential to survival. A lot of business people don’t realize how closely their subordinates are watching them. Remember when you were a kid in grammar school, how you used to sit there staring at your teacher all day? By the end of the school year, you could do a perfect imitation of all your teacher’s mannerisms. You were aware of the slightest nuances in your teacher’s voice – all the little clues that distinguished levels of meaning, that told you the difference between bluff and “now I mean business”.

And you were able to do that after eight or nine months of observation. Suppose you had five or 10 years of observation? Do you think there would have been anything about your teacher you didn’t know?

Now fast forward and use that analogy as a manager. Do you think there’s anything your people don’t know about you right this minute? If you haven’t been totally aboveboard and honest with them, do you really think you’ve gotten away with it? Not too likely. But if you’ve been led to believe that you’ve gotten away with it, there might be a good probability that people are afraid of you, and that’s a problem in its own right.

But there is another side of this coin. In any organization, people want to believe in their leaders. If you give them reason to trust you, they’re not going to go looking for reasons to think otherwise, and they’ll be just as perceptive about your positive qualities as they are about the negative ones.

A situation that happened some years ago at a company in the Midwest illustrates this perfectly. The wife of a new employee experienced complications in the delivery of a baby. There was a medical bill of more than $10,000, and the health insurance company didn’t want to cover it. The employee hadn’t been on the payroll long enough, the pregnancy was a preexisting condition, etc, etc,..

In any case, the employee was desperate. He approached the company CEO and asked him to talk to the insurance people. The CEO agreed, and the next thing the employee knew, the bill was gone and the charges were rescinded. Then he told some colleagues about the way the CEO had so readily used his influence with the insurance company, they just shook their heads and smiled. The CEO had paid the bill out of his own pocket, and everybody knew it, no matter how quietly it had been done.

Now an act of dishonesty can’t be hidden either, and it will instantly undermine the authority of a leader. But an act of integrity and kindness like the example above is just as obvious to all concerned. When you’re in a leadership position, you have the choice of how you will be seen, but you will be seen one way or the other, make no mistake about it.

One of the most challenging areas of leadership is your family. Leadership of a family demands even higher standards of honesty and integrity, and the stakes are higher too. You can replace disgruntled employees and start over. You can even get a new job for yourself, if it comes to that. But your family can’t be shuffled like a deck of cards. If you haven’t noticed, kids are great moral philosophers, especially as they get into adolescence. They’re determined to discover and expose any kind of hypocrisy, phoniness, or lack of integrity on the part of authority figures, and if we’re parents, that means us. It’s frightening how unforgiving kids can be about this, but it really isn’t a conscious decision on their part; it’s just a necessary phase of growing up.

They’re testing everything, especially their parents.

As a person of integrity yourself, you’ll find it easy to teach integrity to your kids, and they in turn will find it easy to accept you as a teacher. This is a great opportunity and also a supreme responsibility, because kids simply must be taught to tell the truth: to mean what they say and to say what they mean.

“Praise is one the world’s most effective teaching and leadership tools. Criticism and blame, even if deserved, are counter productive unless all other approaches have failed.”

Now for the other side of the equation, we all know people who have gotten ahead as a result of dishonest or unethical behavior. When you’re a kid, you might naively think that never happens, but when you get older, you realize that it does. Then you think you’ve really wised up. But that’s not the real end of it. When you get older, you see the long-term consequences of dishonest gain, and you realize that in the end it doesn’t pay.

“Hope of dishonest gain is the beginning of loss”. I don’t think that old saying refers to loss of money. I think it actually means loss of self-respect. You can have all the material things in the world, but if you’ve lost respect for yourself, what do you really have? The only way to ever attain success and enjoy it is to achieve it honestly with pride in what you’ve done.

This isn’t just a sermon; it’s very practical advice. Not only can you take it to heart – you can take it to the bank.

To Your Success,
Jim Rohn

Subscribe in a reader

If Your Household Worker or Contractor is Injured, Will You Be Liable? (Part II of Two Parts).

Last month (See Related Links), we reviewed a case in which a worker for an unlicensed and uninsured contractor sued the contractor’s customer after he was injured on the job. The case stirred anew the question of liability on the part of the property owner. Here, attorney Peter N. Brewer examines the legal background against which the case was cast.

THE HISTORY: Until the aberrant decision in Fernandez v. Lawson that we discussed last month, this area of the law was fairly settled. To understand it we briefly explore two statutes:

Labor Code § 2750.5

Labor Code § 2750.5 says that anyone performing work for which a contractor’s license is required, or working for someone who is required to be licensed, is presumed to be an employee of the hirer unless certain criteria for independent contractor status are met. The first criteria for being deemed a independent contractor instead of an employee is that the contractor must hold a valid contractor’s license. Thus a worker without a contractor’s license, or working for someone without a contractor’s license, cannot by law be an independent contractor, and must be presumed to be an employee. Thus Labor Code § 2750.5 creates a rebut table presumption that an unlicensed contractor and his or her employees are employees of the homeowner, and the presumption cannot be rebutted if the contractor doesn’t have a valid license because he doesn’t meet the first criteria for being an independent contractor.

Labor Code § 3352

Labor Code § 3352 lists some exceptions to the definition of an employee, thus exempting the hirer from liability to provide worker’s compensation benefits if the worker or contractor fits one of the exceptions. Subsection (h) excludes “casual residential employees” from the requirements. A casual residential employee is anyone who worked or contracted to work less than fifty-two (52) hours in the ninety (90) days preceding the injury, or anyone who earned less than $100 from the hirer in the preceding ninety days.

A brief look at four cases will illustrate these two statutes, the interaction between them, and how the courts have reconciled them with one another in the past.

Furtado vs. Schriefer

In 1991 a case called Furtado vs. Schriefer, was brought by a house painter, Furtado, who was injured while painting Schriefer’s house. Furtado was not licensed, and so he contended that under Labor Code § 2750.5 he could not qualify as an independent contractor and was therefore necessarily Schriefer’s employee. Schriefer contended that the Lab.C. § 3352(h) exclusion from employee status applied to unlicensed contractors. The trial court held that Lab.C. § 2750.5 preempted Lab.C. § 3352(h), and therefore Furtado was Schriefer’s employee and not an independent contractor. The Court of Appeal stated that no previous court had considered the interaction between Lab.C. § 2750.5 and Lab.C. § 3352(h), but stated that the California Supreme Court had indirectly suggested that the § 3352(h) exclusion applied to the § 2750.5 presumption of employee status, and so sent the case back to the trial court for a determination on the issue of whether Furtado is excluded from status as an employee by § 3352(h). Since there was no further appeal it is unknown what the result of the further trial proceedings were. [Only appellate decisions are published, not trial court decisions].

Mischler v. WCAB, Gary Chagnon

In 1994 there was a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Mischler v. WCAB, Gary Chagnon. Chagnon had been working on a remodeling project at homeowner Mischler’s house for more than a month at the time of his injury. He had first worked under James Miller d.b.a. Miller Contracting, a licensed contractor. Homeowner Mischler grew impatient with Miller’s job progress, terminated him, and contracted with Robert Kissel d.b.a. Rob’s Carpentry, an unlicensed and uninsured contractor, to complete the job. Kissel retained Chagnon to continue working on the job and Chagnon was immediately injured. The Worker’s Compensation Judge found that Chagnon was an employee of both Kissel and Mischler (which leaves Mischler on the hook because Kissel was uninsured).

Mischler appealed on the basis that Chagnon had worked less than fifty-two (52) hours under the new contract with Kissel. The appeal was denied. Labor Code § 2750.5 provides that a worker performing work for which a license is required is presumably an employee. Chagnon met that criteria. Labor Code § 3352(h) excludes from “employees” those workers who have not worked fifty-two (52) hours in the last 90 days. Chagnon was injured on his first day under the new contract with Kissel, but the contract was for the same work that Chagnon had been doing under the contract with Miller for more than a month. Because it was a continuation of the same work, he was deemed to have worked more than 52 hours within the preceding 90 days. Therefore he was an employee, and not within the § 3352(h) exemption.

Sepanshirabad vs. WCAB, Bet’Poulos

Then in 1995 injured worker Sepanshirabad brought suit against homeowner Bet’Poulos for injuries Sepanshirabad received while trimming trees at Bet’Poulos’s residence. Sepanshirabad did not have a contractor’s license. So by the statutory presumption he was an employee of Bet’Poulos and was entitled to worker’s compensation benefits. However, he had neither worked, nor contracted to work, for fifty-two (52) hours at the time of his injury or within the 90 days before the injury.

Injured worker Sepanshirabad urged that under Lab.C. § 2750.5 he could not be found to be an independent contractor (and thus liable for his own insurance benefits) because he was unlicensed and thus necessarily an employee of Bet’Poulos. The Court found that Lab.C. § 3352(h) is the threshold that must be met before the rebuttable presumption of Lab.C. § 2750.5 comes into play. Therefore Sepanshirabad was excluded from the definition of employee and Bet’Poulos was not his employer and not responsible for his compensation insurance.

Duncan vs. WCAB, Sheehan

Then in 1998 the case of Duncan vs. WCAB, Sheehan was decided. Decedent Pastor Fariar fell out of a tree and died while working as a tree trimmer for William Sheehan, d.b.a. Reliance Tree Service, an unlicensed and illegally uninsured tree trimming business. The decedent’s widow sought worker’s compensation benefits, and included the insured homeowner and the Uninsured Employer’s Fund as defendants. The Worker’s Compensation Judge found the defendant homeowner and Sheehan were employers of decedent Fariar, but the homeowner was excluded from liability because the decedent’s employment was casual residential employment under Lab.C. § 3352(h).

The Uninsured Employer’s Fund filed a writ urging the Court of Appeal to overturn the Worker’s Compensation Judge. The writ was denied, and so the Lab.C. § 3352(h) exemption from the definition of employee overrode the Lab.C. § 2750.5 presumption of employee status. This remained essentially the settled state of the law until the 2002 decision in Fernandez v. Lawson, the first case discussed above.

THE IMPLICATIONS: When you hire a worker at your house for a one-time job of casual domestic work lasting less than fifty two (52) hours they are excluded from the Labor Code definition of employee. However, if they are unlicensed and performing work for which a license is required, the status becomes less clear, although several cases suggest that the Labor Code § 3352(h) exception prevails over the Labor Code § 2750.5 presumption.

As to longer term workers, such as a cook, housekeeper, child care worker, or gardener, the Labor Code definition of “Employee” includes any person employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant, unless that person is excluded under the “52 hours in 90 days” exclusion of Lab.C. § 3352(h).

Insurance Code § 11590 provides that every homeowner’s comprehensive personal liability insurance policy issued or renewed in California after 1977 is required to have, or will be imputed to have, coverage for worker’s compensation benefits for “Employees” as defined in the Labor Code, if they are not covered by other compensation insurance.

However, when you hire someone for a longer-term project, such as a home remodel, pool construction, or any job not “incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling” you must ensure that such persons are properly licensed and insured. If they are not, you could become their employer and be responsible for the equivalent of worker’s compensation benefits in the event anyone is injured.

OUR SUGGESTION: You absolutely must check on the license status of any contractor you hire before they commence work, and insist on proof of current and valid worker’s compensation insurance. Keep a photocopy of the insurance certificate and a printout of the contractor’s license status. The license status of a contractor can be checked on the website of the State Contractor’s Licensing Board

Virtual Short Sales Investing

Seven-Steps to Mastering Foreclosures

Build an insane buyers or sellers list List Building webinar.

Foreclosure Investing

Copyright © 2011 Foreclosures.com.
This article is available for free distribution under the following terms:
a) You may not edit, delete or add any content to this article.
b) You must maintain all links to Foreclosures.com.
c) This article must be distributed free of charge.
d) This Resource Box must stay intact.

Subscribe in a reader