Advantages/Disadvantages to refinancing online?
If you can deal with phone calls instead of a face to face meeting, for the average person with an average refinance online tools just offer another way to shop for deals. For new mortgages, I think having a person you can meet face to face will avoid problems, but for just a simple refi, online is one of the places you should check. Compete your current mortgage company, your bank (hopefully credit union), a local broker or two and the online places. The more competition you have, the more power you have in making a good choice. For what its worth, I recently closed on a 30 year refinance mortage with an agent I found through Zillow.  The lender has a perfect 5/5 reputation score, whose office was located within 5 miles of my house, and as suggested by justkt on MrChrister's response, I checked out the business on the better business bureau and its online presence prior to going forward with the bank. The process was relatively painless, and the APR and closing costs were less than my previous loan with a federal credit union which I've used in the past.  I can't say if the bank I'll be using going forward is as good as the one I've used in the past, but overall I'm quite happy with it. I never met the individual in person but this saved both of us a fair amount of time honestly. If you've been in your house for a few years (and have built some equity up) and the market is active in your area, online is probably fine. The local banks will be better if it's not obvious to someone in Bangor, ME that your neighborhood in San Diego is worth substantially more than the crappy area 2 miles away. I've had 3 mortgages, one from a regional bank, one from a broker-sourced national mortgage company and another from a local bank. The bigger banks had better statements and were easier to do stuff with online. The smaller bank has been a better overall value, because the closing costs were low and they waived some customary fees.  In my case, the national mortgage company had a better APR, but my time horizon for staying in the house made the smaller bank (which had a competitive APR, about a half point higher than the lowest advertised) a better value due to much lower up-front costs.
For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later. "Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they ""don't know"".  They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything.  Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it.  For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear ""less safe"" than their competitors.  If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague.  None of these institutions wants the ""bad guys"" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other.  I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on.  Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America.  All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security.  I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the ""USA Real ID Act"".  Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data.  Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers.  There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it.  They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the ""bad guys"" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with.  Just look at online viruses and malware.  Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!" The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one.  If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC.  Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC,   is similar to a partnership but has   the legal protections of personal   assets that a corporation offers   without the burdensome formalities,   paperwork and fees.   [...]   Some states charge annual fees and   taxes that can diminish the economic   advantage of choosing to become an   LLC. Among LLC advantages:   pass-through taxation – meaning the   profits and losses “pass through” the   business to the individuals owning the   business who report this information   on their own personal tax returns. The   result can be paying less in taxes,   since profits are not taxed at both   the business level and the personal   level. Another plus: Owners aren’t   usually responsible for the company’s   debts and liabilities.   [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC: "Typical Human Advisor: Advantages: They can recommend funds and allocations that fit to your portfolio. Disadvantages: Those who are just fund salespeople in disguise will usually recommend poor-performing funds for higher commission pay. Their advice will not be much different from random person internet advice. When your portfolio drops, they still get paid, and they don't care because they are not a fiduciary. Robo-Advisor: Advantages: Rules are automated, and typically based on crunched numbers. Somebody else executes the trades, and remembers to rebalance your portfolio when you'd usually forget to. Disadvantages: Not always accurate, usually relies on momentum from popularity. No one at the helm to adjust for risk. If you follow, you'll usually just lag behind. Yet, those with simple, low-cost diversified ETF portfolios can be attractive. Market ETFs: Advantages: Low cost funds that typically match the market. High performance. Easy to sell when you need to, zero decision making required, and you will be sure to nearly match the general market. Disadvantages: Boring. You need to enter your own orders, but you won't be doing that too often. No thrill except counting all the commas in your account. No wacky stories to wow your friends and family about your gambling addiction. Seriously, some people just can't help but take the high risk route. Newsletter / Portfolio / Online ""Expert"": Advantages: They usually have some idea of what indicators to look for and can make predictions about price movements. Disadvantages: Predictions are as frequently wrong as they are right. Good ones won't have much to say, and incompetent ones will write multi-paragraph essays about Fibonacci sequences, resistance levels, trends RSI, ROIT, everything that might show an indicator in some direction maybe... and it's usually forgotten by the next newsletter." "2.5%? Whoa, you are being robbed there.  Straight-up, stripped-down, and bent-over-a-table robbed. Never agree to ""fees"".  If they don't want to do the work to give you a loan, there are other lenders who do. Rarely agree to ""points"".  If you know -- and I don't mean ""think"", I mean ""know"" -- if you know that you are going to hold that loan much longer than it would take to repay those points, then maybe.  For example, if they are charging one point to lower your rate 0.25%, you want to be totally sure you will stay in the house at least four years, and probably more like six or eight years before moving or refinancing. It's more-or-less OK to pay for the appraisal.  If something goes wrong with the loan application, the appraisal will be valid for a few more months, you can try again. I once had 14% cash for a down-payment.  The loan officer said if I could come up with 15%, the rate would be reduced by 0.25%.  To get the money, I took a ""reverse point"", which paid me 1% but raised my the rate by 0.25%. The loan officer, who wasn't too bright, asked, ""Why did you do that?  The two things cancel each other out."" ""I did it,"" I explained, ""because you paid me 1% of the value of my house to sign my name twice.""" I'm not saying it's great, but I have a 705... I think we'll get a second opinion to lower that rate. Also, logically, with a higher down payment, we should be able to reduce the amount we need to borrow. Is that how that would work? For example, if we scrounged up a $7,000 for a down payment and came down on the price say $3,000 "I am a bit confused here as to how a 4K loan will negatively effect your credit score if payments are made on time.  FICO scores are based upon how well you borrow.  If you borrow, pay back on time, your score will not go down.  Perhaps a bit in the short run when you first secure the loan, but that should come back quickly.  In the long run it will help improve your score which seems like it would be more important to you. Having the provider finance your loan will probably not show up on your credit unless you fail to pay and they send to collections. If the score is so important to you, which I think is somewhat unwise, then use a credit card.  With a 750 you should be able to get a pretty good rate, but assume it is 18%.  In less then 9 months you will have it paid off, paying about $293 in interest.  You could consider that a part of the cost of doing business for maintaining a high credit score.  Again not what I would advise, but it might meet your needs. One alternative is go with lending club.  With that kind of score, you are looking at 7% or so.  At $500 a month, you are still looking at just over 8 months and paying about $100 in interest.  Much less money for improving your credit score. Edit based upon the comment: ""My understanding is that using a significant portion of your available credit balance is bad for your credit, even if you pay your bills on time."" Define bad.  As I said it might go down slightly in the short term.  In three months you will have almost 33% of the loan paid off, which is significantly lower then the original balance.  If you go the credit card route, you may be approved for quite a bit more then the 4000, which may not move the needle at all.  Are you planning on buying a home in the next 90 days?  If not, why does a small short term dip matter?  Will your life really be effected if your score goes down to 720 for three months? Keep in mind this is exactly the kind of behavior that the banks want you to engage in.  If you worship your FICO score, which gives no indication of wealth then you should do exactly what I am suggesting." "The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to ""snowball"" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable."