FHA Reduction Notices From Third-Party Companies - Scam? Or Something To Consider?
"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."
A trust is a financial arrangement to put aside money over a period of time (typically years), for a specific purpose to benefit someone. Two purposes of trusts are 1) providing for retirement and 2) providing for a child or minor. There are three parties to a trust: 1) A grantor, the person who establishes and funds a trust. 2) A beneficiary, a person who receives the benefits. 3) a trustee, someone who acts in a fiduciary capacity between the grantor and beneficiary. No one person can be all three parties. A single person can be two of out those three parties. A RETIREMENT trust is something like an IRA (individual retirement account). Here, a person can be both the grantor (contributor) to the IRA, and the beneficiary (a withdrawer after retirement). But you need a bank or a broker to act as a fiduciary, and to handle the reporting to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). Pension plans have employers as grantors, employees as beneficiaries, and (usually) a third party as trustee. A MINORS' trust can be established under a Gift to the Minors' Act, or other trust mechanisms, such as a Generation Skipping Trust. Here, a parent may be both grantor and trustee (although usually a third party is a trustee). A sum of money is put aside over a period of years for the benefit of a minor, for a college education, or for the minor's attaining a certain age: a minimum of 18, sometimes 21, possibly 25 or even older, depending on when the grantor feels that the minor is responsible enough to handle the money. "Generally, yes.  Rather than ask, ""why are these guys so cheap?"", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. ""Safeness"" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under ""Security"". Funds in ""cash"" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist." There are more than a few ideas here. Assuming you are in the U.S., here are a few approaches: First, DRIPs: Dividend Reinvestment Plans. DRIP Investing: How To Actually Invest Only A Hundred Dollars Per Month notes:  I have received many requests from readers that want to invest in   individual stocks, but only have the available funds to put aside $50   to $100 into a particular company. For these investors, keeping costs   to a minimum is absolutely crucial. I have often made allusions and   references to DRIP Investing, but I have never offered an explanation   as to how to logistically set up DRIP accounts. Today, I will attempt   to do that. A second option, Sharebuilder, is a broker that will allow for fractional shares. A third option are mutual funds. Though, these often will have minimums but may be waived in some cases if you sign up with an automatic investment plan.  List of mutual fund companies to research. Something else to consider here is what kind of account do you want to have?  There can be accounts for specific purposes like education, e.g. a college or university fund, or a retirement plan. 529 Plans exist for college savings that may be worth noting so be aware of which kinds of accounts may make sense for what you want here. "I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes...  There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT...  **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive ""payoff"" balance to instantly settle the account:**  It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on.   - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday.   - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift.   - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever.   - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security).   So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance).   What happens when you ""close an account"" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they ""turn off"" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes:  - You notify them to ""close"" the account. They stop authorizing new charges.   - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to ""closing"" the account.   - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired,  - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as ""paid"".   So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons.  Hope that helps." "Your post has some assumptions that are not, or may not be true. For one the assumption is that you have to wait 7 years after you settle your debts to buy a home.  That is not the case.  For some people (me included) settling an charged off debt was part of my mortgage application process.  It was a small debt that a doctor's office claimed I owed, but I didn't.  The mortgage company told me, settling the debt was ""the cost of doing business"".  Settling your debts can be looked as favorable. Option 1, in my opinion is akin to stealing.  You borrowed the money and you are seeking to game the system by not paying your debts.  Would you want someone to do that to you?  IIRC the debt can be sold to another company, and the time period is refreshed and can stay on your credit report for beyond the 7 years.  I could be wrong, but I feel like there is a way for potential lenders to see unresolved accounts well beyond specified time periods.  After all, the lenders are the credit reporting agencies customers and they seek to provide the most accurate view of a potential lender.  With 20K of unresolved CC debt they should point that out to their customers. Option 2:  Do you have 20K?  I'd still seek to settle, you do not have to wait 7 years.   Your home may not appreciate in 2 years.  In my own case my home has appricated very little in the 11 years that I have owned it.  Many people have learned the hard way that homes do not necessarily increase in value.   It is very possible that you may have a net loss in equity in two years.  Repairs or improvements can evaporate the small amount of equity that is achieved over two years with a 30 year mortgage.   I would hope that you pause a bit at the fact that you defaulted on 20K in debt.  That is a lot of money.  Although it is a lot, it is a small amount in comparison to the cost and maintenance of a home.  Are you prepared to handle such a responsibility?  What has changed in your personality since the 20K default?  The tone of your posts suggests you are headed for the same sort of calamity. This is far more than a numbers game it is behavioral." Some builders -- if given the first chance to deal with the problem, instead of being presented with a bill after the fact -- will fix the problem at no charge to the homeowner.  Good faith matters. My house was built by such a builder.  If I have a problem that I am competent enough to diagnose and fix, I fix it myself, at my cost.  If I have a problem that that I cannot diagnose and fix myself, but that I think the builder (or his subcontractor) is competent enough to diagnose and/or fix, I contact the builder (or subcontractor directly).  I am willing to pay for the diagnosis and/or fix, especially if it is an aging or wear-and-tear issue, or the logical consequence of a cost-saving measure that I voluntarily chose when the house was being designed. If the problem is a plumbing problem, I contact my preferred plumber for a diagnosis and/or repair.  I pay for my preferred plumber's work.  On two occasions, my preferred plumber was unable to fix the problem.  Both problems turned out to be installation (or testing) errors related to work done specifically for building inspections.  In both cases, I paid for my preferred plumber's diagnosis, and the builder (and/or his subcontractor) fixed the problem at no additional cost to me. The diagnosis and repair work that you describe seems like a similar situation to me.  (In fact, I had my builder's subcontractor replace a few prematurely damaged shingles on my roof.  This repair prevented a roof leak.  I noticed the problem while trimming a tree back from the roof.  The shingles were damaged because the building permit implied that the tree could not be trimmed back.  I'm spotting a pattern with these problems…) In my opinion, the alleged problem with the roof pitch seems like a design flaw that should have been obvious at the time you chose the house design.  I expect that any corrections of this design flaw will need to come out of your remodelling budget.  In the absence of further details, I doubt that either the builder or the homeowners' insurance company is responsible for it. Some builders make a point of minimizing the warranty work they pay for, regardless of its effect on the builder's reputation.  I do not know which kind of builder you have. The lawyer has probably told you whether the relevant statutes of limitations have lapsed.  (The statutes of limitations vary from state-to-state, and vary depending on the alleged tort.)  Starting a lawsuit is likely to further damage your relationship with your builder. Homeowners' insurance companies now share the number of claims that have been made historically at each property address.  Most insurance companies now use this cumulative number of claims when setting rates, even if the claim(s) were made against a different insurance company, or by a different homeowner.  I do not know whether any insurance companies ignore claims older than a certain number of years, or ignore the first claim. "I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money.  There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do.  So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service.  This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask?  ""The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States."" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the ""all securities firms"" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as ""Active"" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm.  For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): ""Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC.  Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares.  SEC 606 Info [...]"" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence.  An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds." "The answer depend nearly 100% on how the offer and contingency read. When I have a client make an offer, the contingency includes an inspection, but the buyer would have no obligation to accept a counter offer. i.e. the offer can be withdrawn due to ""I didn't like the inspection report, and do not wish to negotiate any repairs."" In fact, the buyer need not disclose which fault was the cause. The buyer pays for the inspection and the report is his property.  On the other hand, I agree, if it's only radon, the venting fix is common, and you may be paying for many inspections only to find one house after another with this issue."