quote: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Homeowners with subprime mortgages struggling under payments need federal government help to ease them through the crisis, a leading consumer advocacy group said on Wednesday.
Fresh data on increased mortgage delinquencies and the collapse of several mortgage lenders have increased attention on subprime loans offered to borrowers with damaged or sketchy credit histories.
As many as 1.5 million Americans could lose their homes as the subprime market shakes out, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) said, and so Congress should step in to protect those troubled homeowners.
The group, which represents hundreds of low-income housing advocates across the country, said Congress should immediately step in to aid subprime borrowers.
This is insane to me. I didn't buy a house until I knew I could afford a fixed 30 year loan. Why should my tax dollars be spent on bailing people out who took these sub prime loans? I could MAYBE understand suing the mortgage companies and brokers that recommended such loans, but I don't think a single federal penny should be spent.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll make it unanimous so far - no, don't bail them out. Whatever happened to personal financial responsibility? Like Dag said, we already have bankruptcy available for those who need relief from their creditors, if things become truly desperate.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read this article on CNN Money. Call me heartless, but I felt no sympathy for the family. They knew beforehand that if their rates went up, they wouldn't be able to afford their mortgage. Guess what happened? Maybe the government should enact regulations on subprime mortgage companies to decrease the chance that this sort of thing will happen, but I also think that when you're making the biggest purchase of your life, you need to be absolutely certain you can afford it. Just because a mortgage company—or anyone else—gives you credit doesn't mean you should use it. After all, you should know your own finances, including your ability to repay a loan, better than anyone else.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The governmentalready aids everybody with a mortgage on their primary residence by giving tax deductions on all interest payments.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll add in another "no". That said, I would love to see a basic financial literacy class become a high school requisite. Things like this happen more often because of ignorance than because of stupidity.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I'll add in another "no". That said, I would love to see a basic financial literacy class become a high school requisite. Things like this happen more often because of ignorance than because of stupidity.
Isn't allowing oneself to make one of, if not the biggest financial decision of one's life in ignorance a big, neon sign of stupidity?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I'll add in another "no". That said, I would love to see a basic financial literacy class become a high school requisite.
AMEN! I took a personal finance course by choice in high school, and it was the most valuable course I have ever taken. He taught me everything from doing my own taxes to balancing my check book.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In general, I'm very much a no. However, if the number of people who have to sell is sufficient, I could see this having problems for the economy as a whole if it hurts the housing market too much. If that is so (which, IMO, doesn't seem to be the case for this). If it did seem like it would be bad enough for the economy, then I could see arguing that the government should step in, even though I am against it in principle.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything in my opnion, if too many homes go on the market it just means prices could go down, making them more affordable for the middle and lower classes.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that turning up our noses at these folks and telling them to lie in the bed they made is exactly helping anyone. The government has the resources and responsibility to aid them-- and it should do so.
That aid should include educational resources for new home buyers; it may also include financial assistance. Federal support for lenders who specialize in refi's for this category of homeowner is also a good step.
Aid doesn't necessarily mean handing over taxpayer money directly to people who have demonstrated a capacicty for not using money wisely, you know.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree about the educational resources, or maybe go so far as to offer tax benefits to mortgage companies who refinance these people into better loans. But not direct financial assitance to the homeowners.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Many people would be stuck with high mortgages on houses with deflated values, unable to sell because they couldn't get enough from the sale to pay off the mortgage. They'd be stuck where they are, unable to take better jobs in another state, unable to move to help out family members...
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whether or not I would support bailing someone out would depend on the circumstances of the person and the rules surrounding the help. The magnitude of the problem would probably also weigh into my decision of support.
Someone got into a bad patch and just needs uncle sugar to step in until they get back on their feet with strict accountability of need and whatnot? Fine.
Just letting the cash cow run rampant? No.
There are also social factors that influence my decision in this. I think security is important to the functioning of people and societies. I think it's axiomatic that the more security there is for children, the better off they are.
That said, I recognize that there are other issues at stake. While I am not exactly for or against it outright, I do lean towards being open to having it happen.
quote:I don't think that turning up our noses at these folks and telling them to lie in the bed they made is exactly helping anyone. The government has the resources and responsibility to aid them-- and it should do so.
It's highly debatable whether the government has the resources to help them.
quote:Many people would be stuck with high mortgages on houses with deflated values, unable to sell because they couldn't get enough from the sale to pay off the mortgage. They'd be stuck where they are, unable to take better jobs in another state, unable to move to help out family members...
Not true. They allow the lender to foreclose and declare bankruptcy.
My whole contention here is that no special aid is needed. If the social net is adequate for someone who is evicted from their apartment, then it's adequate for someone in over their head with a mortgage. If it's not, then the problem to examine is our social net.
What I object to is using government money to assist them in keeping the house. That horribly penalizes those who didn't buy because the prices were too high - prices that got that high, at least in part, because of the lax credit standards that allowed people to bid them up.
Any aid that's not aimed at them keeping them house is not what I consider "aid to those with rising mortgage rates" but rather "aid to those who have, whatever the reason, hit upon hard economic times."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Helping people stay in their current housing situation (rental or owned) is a heck of a lot easier than helping them once they're homeless.
I would support incentives or insurance to banks that are willing to re-fianance these loans. I'd also make those new loans contingent on the homeowner completing a basic personal finance course that covered these types of senarios.
1.5 million people is at least partially a systemic failure, not a collection of personal failures.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See I'm right with you Dag. When my mother left her marriage to my step-dad, two months later the house was terribly damaged in a storm. Turns out my step-dad had taken the money supposed to go toward homeowner's insurance and spent it on other things, and they were uninsured.
My mother's name was still on the mortgage, of course, because the divorce had not been finalized, and while she had been planning on letting him have the house, now she was stuck paying for a house that was uninhabitable. She declared bankruptcy, allowed the lender to foreclose and walked away.
Now she didn't do it glibly, or anything, it really upset her to have to do it, but she was grateful that safety net was there for her. That safety net is also there for people who cannot pay their mortgages for any reason, including rising interest rates. Do I like that my mom had to declare bankruptcy? Of course not, but I'm glad she had the chance.
I took the article in the OP as saying we should give people money to help them keep their homes that they cannot afford. I do not agree with that. They can downsize and move to more affordable housing. If that's not possible, if they cannot stay in the house and cannot sell it, then the bankruptcy option is available for them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Helping people stay in their current housing situation (rental or owned) is a heck of a lot easier than helping them once they're homeless.
I would support incentives or insurance to banks that are willing to re-fianance these loans. I'd also make those new loans contingent on the homeowner completing a basic personal finance course that covered these types of senarios.
1.5 million people is at least partially a systemic failure, not a collection of personal failures.
I agree with you.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Helping people stay in their current housing situation (rental or owned) is a heck of a lot easier than helping them once they're homeless.
Then our safety net should have a way to make it easier to get people into alternative housing. The choice isn't "help them keep a home they can't afford or make them homeless." There's another choice: help them find housing they can afford and, for those who can't afford adequate (which is a LOT less than most of the homes being foreclosed on around here) housing, subsidizing their adequate housing.
quote:1.5 million people is at least partially a systemic failure, not a collection of personal failures.
A systemic failure which should not be perpetuated. Locking up 1.5 million homes by rewarding imprudent credit - and using taxpayer funds to do it - will keep 1.5 million people who could afford to buy a house and keep it from moving into those homes.
When the systemic problem was caused by people who can't afford their homes, fixing the problem requires making sure the people in those homes can afford them.
And there's little that can be done to ensure these people can afford their houses. At 6%, a $250k loan has a monthly payment of $1426 at 30 years, $1340 at 45 years, $1285 at 60 years, $1255 at 90 years, and $1250 at 215 years. In other words, past 60 years, they're essentially renting, not buying.
Without subsidies, very few of those in this mess will be actually be able to afford the time-value of the money in their house.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rotar Mode: I agree with you.
Times two.
Although I'm perfectly happy to let this remain at the incentives level. I agree as well with Dagonee, in that if the current social net (with bankruptcy included) isn't up to the load that wouldn't be addressed by such incentives, then we need to focus the fix on that.
---
Edited to add: For what it's worth, my spouse and I haven't bought a home because teh numbers didn't crunch right within sufficient range of possible future changes. We may in the future, but we won't unless it's prudent. Nonetheless, I agree with dkw that it is a systemic problem that needs some systemic address, even though that does not preclude individual consequences.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:1.5 million people is at least partially a systemic failure, not a collection of personal failures.
I don't see how you can conclude this. Sure, it's an impressive figure, but are you really saying that we cannot possibly have 1 in 200 people who don't think very far ahead? Come, now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing is for certain, this has just begun. I am waiting for the first law suit against a mortgage broker, the first real estate investor suicide (corporation heads, not individual homeowners), or for candidates to make this a campaign issue next year. This is going to be big, potentially a history making economic crisis.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1.5 million people is at least partially a systemic failure, not a collection of personal failures.
I don't see how you can conclude this. Sure, it's an impressive figure, but are you really saying that we cannot possibly have 1 in 200 people who don't think very far ahead? Come, now.
What's your denominator for that figure, KoM?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Dag said, the choice isn't between helping them stay in homes they can't afford and making them homeless. After all, the issue seems to be simply that mortgage rates are going up, not that people are losing their jobs and thus can't afford any housing.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with dkw that it is a systemic problem that needs some systemic address
To summarize my above post, I agree that it is a systemic problem that needs some systemic address, and I think most kinds of bailouts would tend to contribute to the systemic problem.
Edit: in fact, it's the systemic nature of the problem that speaks most loudly to me against helping keep people in the houses being foreclosed on. If it weren't systemic, we could help a few unlucky individuals.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: given that you just advocated aid for the people giving out sub-prime loans, you just advocated the government "handing over taxpayer money directly to people who have demonstrated a capacicty for not using money wisely" .
In fact, you'd not even be doing what you aim for. Sub-prime lenders are only in danger now due to lack of new business; they're not the ones holding the loans. Mortgages are packaged into securities, which are then sold off, and frequently held by investment funds.
In particular, monetary aid provides an incentive to continue to provide loans to people who will not, in the long run, be able to service them.
With the value dropping out of securities backed by sub-prime loans, people will be purchasing them much more cheaply. As they purchase them more cheaply, they'll be able to continue to make money by relaxing conditions on the loans (ensuring that they receive some payment, as opposed to no payment). This will provide relief to those holding the loans who do not declare bankruptcy (and reduce the number of bankruptcy claimants).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: you're thinking too much of the borrower side of the equation. That figure represents a large number of businesses, mostly incorporated, undertaking too risky business practices.
People can't take out too risky loans unless a lender allows them to; this will happen sometimes due to the nature of the thing, but happening at this rate likely hides a perverse incentive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think a large number of the people in trouble *could* afford their house at the regular market interest rate. They either didn't qualify for that rate because of bad credit history or they were tricked into a variable rate by predatory lending companies. (I'm not saying all lending companies are predatory, but there are some that use extremely deceptive advertising and try to get customers into sub-prime loans even if they would qualify for prime rates.) Those are the situations where I'd like to see incentives/insurance for reputable banks to refinance the loans. I'd also like to see penalties for pre-payment of sub-prime loans eliminated.
For people who truly can't afford the houses they're in, certainly they need to find more affordable housing. (The serious shortage of affordable housing in many areas of the country is another issue.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems pretty clear that the Mortgage companies that we engaged in these subprime adjustable rate mortgages were engage in what I consider fraud. They would loan people money if they had a pulse, that was the only requirement. In some cases, they refinanced homes to monthly payments that were double the monthly income of the person receiving the loan. So, I have absolutely no sympathy for the mortgage companies.
Second, these people with adjustable rate loans live the 'good times' when interest rates were low, why should the not have to endure the 'not so good times' now that interest rates are moving up?
They persumably knew what they were getting into when they took out the loan. They knew with absolute certainty that over 30 years the interest rates absolutely would fluctuate. So, in my view, no excuses.
Most, or many of these people bought houses far beyond what was reasonable to assume they could pay for, and far beyond what any responsible mortage company would loaned them.
Also note that even with the higher interest rates, their interest rates are substantially lower than the standard interest rate in the late 80's and very early 90's.
Both the lenders and borrowers made irresponsible choices and I see no reason why my tax dollar should bail them out beyond the system that is already in place to help them.
So, absolutely NO SPECIAL ACTION should be take to assist these people. I say let them learn to live within their means or suffer the consequences. I totally reject the idea that it is the governments job to protect it's citizens from their own clear stupidity. If the government will bail every idiot out of whatever mess he has gotten himself into, then what is the point of personal responsibility? Why should we all just run wild and leave the government to come in and clean up the mess?
Of course, the government isn't THEM as we would like to delude ourselves into believing. The government isn't some abstract magical entity endowed with an infinite supply of money. The government is US and that is OUR money they are spending and wasting.
Time for both the government and the individual citizens to take responsibility for their finances.
quote:They either didn't qualify for that rate because of bad credit history or they were tricked into a variable rate by predatory lending companies.
I don't think those who can't qualify because of bad credit can afford the house at the "regular" rate, because the "regular" rate takes credit risk into account - and it should. And those who are in the second category now can refinance, unless they've let their problem go too long. Rates are still extremely low from a historical perspective.
quote:Those are the situations where I'd like to see incentives/insurance for reputable banks to refinance the loans.
Some form of subsidized PMI might be a good idea, but it's still extending the problem and will cover a very small number of the foreclosures.
quote:The serious shortage of affordable housing in many areas of the country is another issue.
Yes, indeed it is. The large number of these loans is a significant contributing factor to this in general, especially as regards middle class and upper middle class affordability.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. If credit wasn't so easy to get, then housing prices wouldn't be driven so high. The solution is NOT to subsidize the false high prices with taxes.
ESPECIALLY since those who pay a mortgage actually pay LESS in taxes. So, those who rent because they will not make a foolish financial decision are made even less able to save for a home because of subsidizing those who did make a foolish decision.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They either didn't qualify for that rate because of bad credit history or they were tricked into a variable rate by predatory lending companies.
And those who are in the second category now can refinance, unless they've let their problem go too long. Rates are still extremely low from a historical perspective.
The majority of sub-prime loans have massive pre-payment penalties.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One other area that lending agencies have misled people in the past: In how much house a person can afford. Go ahead, ask your bank to run the numbers for you. Find out what obscene percentage of your monthly income they say you can spend on a house and how big a house you can buy. Real estate agents are in on it too -- I was told in no uncertain terms that I should buy "as much house as I can afford." The trouble was, her idea of what I could afford and mine were two different things.
I don't see how it would help any of the current problems with the lending industry or the housing market to help bail these people out. I wouldn't mind some regulation on those misleading loans, especially the ones targeting people with bad credit, but that's about it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just floored that anyone would buy a home with an adjustable rate and a pre-payment penalty. Honestly, who does this? It's so obvious why those are two very bad ideas.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I'm just floored that anyone would buy a home with an adjustable rate and a pre-payment penalty. Honestly, who does this? It's so obvious why those are two very bad ideas.
Ever heard the phrase, "keeping up with the jones'"?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Long answer: There is, however, something terribly wrong with an economy that is so out of control that purchasing a house is out of the question for so many people without taking out a stupidly outrageous loan, especially in a culture that values owning over renting as ours does. And, there is a problem when companies are allowed to - and will - lend to people who clearly cannot afford the loans, or clearly won't be able to if interest rates rise.
But people are encouraged by the culture to buy rather than rent, and so far it isn't illegal to offer those kinds of loans (although I'd be willing to bet that not so many companies will be letting clearly unqualified people take them out in future, even if the regulations don't change, which I suspect they might). So, it comes down to the fact that those folks were stupid enough/too easily led by societal expectations and took out loans that they knew they couldn't repay, so it was their choice. I'm fairly sure that no one held a gun to their head and forced them to sign the loan papers.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying hard to be sympathetic, I really am. I used to be very anti-bankruptcy, but when my mother had her experience and we went through a catastrophic illness, I understood why we have such systems in place to help those who find themselves in desperate situations. But this is not about bailing out people who've had a cancer diagnosis and mounting medical bills and can't afford their house anymore. It's about people who made very poor decisions, when the information was out there. There's so many places you can get advice about lending, and I'm pretty sure none of them will advise you to take out an adjustable rate mortgage with a pre-payment penalty if you can only afford the payment if rates don't rise.
My father in-law used to get angry any time there was a hurricane (he lived on the Mississippi gulf coast) and they'd talk about all the government aid going out to help people who didn't have flood insurance. His opinion was that if you live in a hurricane-prone area and don't have flood insurance, then you shouldn't expect tax dollars to bail you out when your house floods. At some point, people have to be responsible. They bought those houses knowing they were at the limit of what they could afford. They shouldn't have bought them under those terms. While I certainly think they shouldn't be thrown in jail or treated badly - they should have access to bankruptcy options and other safety nets - I don't think taxpayer money should help them stay in their house.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is, however, something terribly wrong with an economy that is so out of control that purchasing a house is out of the question for so many people without taking out a stupidly outrageous loan, especially in a culture that values owning over renting as ours does.
I don't think that's really true. As DKW said, some unscrupulous companies tend to push the sub-prime mortgages even when people could qualify for a better one. Further it does not take much to qualify for owning a house- especially your first house. If you pay your bills and have a steady job for two years, you can get a mortgage.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "general public" has an 8th grade reading level and probably lower than that in math skills. And there are people like this guy convincing them that the reason they'r in financial trouble is that "the system" is out to get them, but he's their buddy and will make it happen.
It's not a gun to the head, but it's not upright and honest either.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The "general public" has an 8th grade reading level . . .
Are you sure about that? I've heard that newspapers are generally written on an eighth-grade level, but I've never personally seen a reputable source that says that American adults have only an eighth-grade reading level.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:They either didn't qualify for that rate because of bad credit history or they were tricked into a variable rate by predatory lending companies.
I don't think those who can't qualify because of bad credit can afford the house at the "regular" rate, because the "regular" rate takes credit risk into account - and it should. And those who are in the second category now can refinance, unless they've let their problem go too long. Rates are still extremely low from a historical perspective.
quote:The serious shortage of affordable housing in many areas of the country is another issue.
Yes, indeed it is. The large number of these loans is a significant contributing factor to this in general, especially as regards middle class and upper middle class affordability.
I agree with this, and with almost everything else Dags has said in this thread. (But I still plan to continue to register as a Democrat, and you can't stop me.)
This has been coming for a while. I've been hearing predictions of something along these lines for at least 2 years, and I think longer. A tremendous part of why housing prices in Southern California (and other areas) have risen so obscenely high in the past decade is because people are taking out mortgages that they CANNOT pay long-term. Not just adjustable rates, but balloon payments and all kind of other big no-nos -- but people are taking out these loans anyway. And often paying 50% or more of their monthly income, which is part of why they're not qualifying for regular loans.
As Katie said, why should I be punished for the lack of foresight of those who didn't do their homework? I researched and realized that even though I might be able to get some lender to give me a mortgage, I really would not be able to afford it. And I hate, loathe, and detest dealing with large amounts of money (even theoretical money). It gives me panic attacks, quite literally. And yet I managed to use some of the hundreds of free online calculators, managed to consult with legitimate lenders (like my bank), managed to do research, both online and off-.
Maybe, just maybe, this crash will not only bring down housing prices, but drive home the point to those who so drastically overextended themselves, and drove up the market by doing so. Probably only for 20-25 years -- the last time we had this kind of crash was the early 80s.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Twenty-one to 23 percent -- or some 40 to 44 million of the 191 million adults in this country -- demonstrated skills in the lowest level of prose, document, and quantitative proficiencies (Level 1). Though all adults in this level displayed limited skills, their characteristics are diverse. Many adults in this level performed simple, routine tasks involving brief and uncomplicated texts and documents. For example, they were able to total an entry on a deposit slip, locate the time or place of a meeting on a form, and identify a piece of specific information in a brief news article. Others were unable to perform these types of tasks, and some had such limited skills that they were unable to respond to much of the survey.
Some 25 to 28 percent of the respondents, representing about 50 million adults nationwide, demonstrated skills in the next higher level of proficiency (Level 2) on each of the literacy scales. While their skills were more varied than those of individuals performing in Level 1, their repertoire was still quite limited. They were generally able to locate information in text, to make low-level inferences using printed materials, and to integrate easily identifiable pieces of information. Further, they demonstrated the ability to perform quantitative tasks that involve a single operation where the numbers are either stated or can be easily found in text. For example, adults in this level were able to calculate the total cost of a purchase or determine the difference in price between two items. They could also locate a particular intersection on a street map and enter background information on a simple form.
Individuals in Levels 1 and 2 were much less likely to respond correctly to the more challenging literacy tasks in the assessment -- those requiring higher level reading and problem-solving skills. In particular, they were apt to experience considerable difficulty in performing tasks that required them to integrate or synthesize information from complex or lengthy texts or to perform quantitative tasks that involved two or more sequential operations and in which the individual had to set up the problem.
Nearly one-third of the survey participants, or about 61 million adults nationwide, demonstrated performance in Level 3 on each of the literacy scales. Respondents performing in this level on the prose and document scales were able to integrate information from relatively long or dense text or from documents. Those in the third level on the quantitative scale were able to determine the appropriate arithmetic operation based on information contained in the directive, and to identify the quantities needed to perform that operation.
Eighteen to 21 percent of the respondents, or 34 to 40 million adults, performed in the two highest levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy (Levels 4 and 5). These adults demonstrated proficiencies associated with the most challenging tasks in this assessment, many of which involved long and complex documents and text passages.
Judging by this study, only about 20% of adults in the US are capable of reading and understanding their mortgage agreements or researching things like variable interest rates, balloon payments, etc. for themselves.
It isn't lack of foresight, it's lack of knowledge and lack of understanding that's the problem. And unscrupulous lenders who take advantage of the same.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
