I am trying to break into the commercial real estate and I have a change to assume a note but I need 000 to take over the note I will be able to pay this amount back in 1 year or less depending on the terms.

So I have applied to about 20 scholarships already and plan to continue…but I’ve already been denied by 7 and it’s getting very discouraging. I’ve gotten Trustees Merit Scholarships from three of my schools, but of course…they’re private and the rest is still a bit of a challenge to pay for. My family makes about 90-100,000 a year…and I understand that that might be the biggest problem for me in receiving the scholarships…but my family went from literally rags to riches. When my parents had my brother in 1982, when they were still in Vietnam, my dad couldn’t even eat because he had to feed my mom and my brother. My mom even told me that she went as far as stealing yams from somebody’s field and my brother almost died because of malnutrition. So, our family has come a very, very long way.

Another adversity is that my mom experienced a lot of domestic abuse and we all know it’s because my dad at least got a high school education and she didn’t…so he discriminates her. These reasons are why I want to go to college so bad but I don’t want to have to have my family pay for my education. Majority of my financial aid are loans.

My question is why is it so hard for me to get scholarships otherwise? I have a background a showcase a true desire for a good future, I have a 3.96, did both honors, IB, and Running Start (dual credits), been involved in four school activities and held two leadership positions in them, interned at a commercial real estate firm for 17 months, helped with my family business since I was in 8th grade, and have had my share doing work in the community.

Most of the scholarships I apply for factor in "financial need" in their considerations…but I find it so unfair that a person who tries so hard might walk into college empty handed. I also hate that the adults are always telling me "oh, there’s so much money that goes unwanted every year" or "oh, there are millions of scholarships out there, even scholarships where you’ll be awarded for liking purple" or something which is ridiculous because those statements aren’t true at all. I don’t know anyone my year that has even applied for half as much as I did…seriously.

The t-bill bond market is starting to falter, so we are looking at maybe failure by May, 2010.

Second wave of bad commercial real estate loans due in 2011.

No jobs, unless we continue to hire census employees for the next few years.

Several hundred, perhaps thousands of commercial banks will fail in the next 2 years.

The fed will be unable to sell bonds, and will resort to printing money to pay bills.

By 2012, we are looking at 18% unemployment, negative GDP, double digit inflation, gasoline at 12 a gallon, and fury in the streets.

What price range of commercial property can I realistically apply for a loan on if I make ,000 a year and good credit but have less then ,000 in liquid assets. Assuming I am able to come up with 20% down on the property. I have found plenty of promising properties for cash flow with cap rates around 13%. I just don’t know what range is too high or low for me.

Opening a tanning salon(something neat and sophisticated looking.) has been in my plans since I was about 14. All during high school I was home schooled and I worked for my dad cleaning newly constructed houses/businesses before they were put on the market for sale or lease. That is until things went under and he had to file for bankruptcy on all of the residential and commercial real estate that he developed. The I went to Costco for 2 years. From the 4 or so years I worked during school, I hoarded nearly every penny I made so I could fulfill my dream as an entrepreneur when I graduated from high school.

Right after graduating from the Fulton County Public School System, I was set and went out looking for SOMETHING else to do to start my career in a self-owned business. Everything exceeded what my budget was set on until my dads good friends’ dad was retiring and selling his repo company. So, I knew then at that time that was my opportunity. Luckily he allowed me to finance everything since he owned the stuff and he also let me walk in his lot that he’s now leasing to me.

So I’ve been in the repossession/recovery business for over a year now and with the economy HOPEFULLY shaping up, I’ve really been thinking about getting rid of my trucks & selling everything(of course after I have another main source of income coming in). The main reason is because I fear in about 2-3 years from now, this economy will have improved greatly and there won’t be as much recovery work to cover all of my expenses associated with my company.

—OK so now my story about my young life is over, I’ll get to my main concern-

Although I’m only 19 now, I’ve had credit since I was 15(I lied about my DOB on credit card apps which has now been corrected with all 3 credit bureaus). Every since then I ALWAYS did right and kept my credit immaculate as it still is. My Transunion FICO through MyFico is at 738 and is slowly rising as my accounts grow older and as my personal vehicle is on its way to being fully paid off. I do have credit cards, but have {content} in credit card debt.

Since Mar. 8th 2009 to Dec. 31st 2009, my company has grossed approx. 0K. That number may be fairly large, but considering I have 3 other drivers/employees I pay commission to, repo insurance(nearly K for not even the full year), rent on my ex-car lot(just over K for not even the full year), tax, all utilities, and after going ahead and paying my "agent" off for financing the PC’s, software, trucks etc., that number was lowered significantly. Fortunately, 2010 so far is just as busy as it has been for the past 10 months and I’m even having to send repo orders back to finance companies from not having enough time to do them all(I’m not buying another truck).

Like I said, I’m really thinking about going into the tanning business and it’s a decision I’ll have to make between now and the next 2-3 years.

Would someone like me at my age(I will be 21-22yo then) have a hard time being approved for a 0K+ loan with the following factors:

Company grossed 0K.(Honestly I want to leave this out of the app.)
I netted about 0K during the last 3 quarters of ’09.(before all of my personal bills/expenses.)
I have roughly K in assets(2 recovery trucks, a money market account, and other misc. things).
I have 3 checking accounts(2 personal, 1 business)
I have 2 savings accounts.
I have tax forms that have been filed and I also have bank and broker statements to prove my income.
I have above average+ personal credit but no business credit.(no debt besides personal vehicle which will be paid off in 2 years or sooner)
I have the knowledge, skill and common sense to know how to properly run a business.
I can produce a legitimate business proposal.
Hopefully within the next 2 or so years all of my assets and everything else will have grown.(if it doesn’t there’s a problem. lol)

I know this is a lot of info, but my life ahead is really sticking to my nerves and I need support. I saw how my dad went from one minute having a lot of real estate to the next minute having to dig into his retirement money, and I want to avoid this by all means possible.

I could be making a mistake by wanting to stop repossessing vehicles but as I said, I feel when this economy shapes up I won’t even be grossing enough to cover everything and I don’t want to lose my ***.

The big question, how will banks view my status when attempting to obtain a commercial loan for roughly 0K? Would it be best if I go through the SBA? Could I get the loan w/o having to include my total grossed income? I’m literally fretting over these things.

Thank all of you guys for your support.

I’m talking about commercial real estate? Forgot about that one did you DEMS? And you want to know why I think Stock Markets are going to crash? Look no further than commercial real estate loans going bad….The housing crises is small potatoes compared to this….Comments?

Seems the trend commercial real estate loss could reach 40-50% this year, so commercial loans could default, not to mention consumer Option-ARMs and Alt-A loans resetting , which is more likely than not to plunge the US economy back into a another recession or worse depression. I don’t see inflation as a problem now but more deflation. I would like to hear other opinions and please pass this question on. So … how would you counter invest this possibility? Diversity seems obvious, but in what categories?
Basics such as agriculture may become a prime opportunity, perhaps even more than precious metals?

First wave of sub-prime mortgage defaults over.

Second wave of mortgage defaults coming now to higher quality credit risks. These are people who have bought homes in the last five years and who have taken out home equity loans. Mortgages now going under water owe more than house is worth. This wave of defaults will take upwards of 10 to 12 months to clear.

Third wave of mortgage defaults due to begin this year and continue through 2011 are Option Arms and Altay; as payments are automatically resetting to higher rates. We saw some fail last month because of a 3% rate hike, next month is the beginning of the end as rates start to climb even higher.
Estimated – 8 million defaults in next four years.

As if this is not enough we have the next huge failure to come in the commercial real estate market, that will make the sub-prime fiasco look like kids play!

Then comes credit cards and auto loans in the end.

I would like to broker a loan for a small business, but I’d like to have a contract in place before I make the connection, just to be safe. I have no idea where to look for a sample contract. Everything I find is for real estate loans, not business loans.

ALL voters (of any political party) how much does high interest rates, failure to regulate – banks as in excessive approval for blind speculation on trends in growth such as real estate, wall street trends and commercial development & especially failure to regulate against fraud from happening on Wall Street – how much does this bankrupt who countries’ economies?
I mention this especially because of "Laissez Faire" economic policies that are foolishly thought of as "practical", "what works" & is even endorsed by the libertarians & is usually endorsed as a economic policy & for business practices and application on wall street, banks & a lot of business in general by the conservatives in power (especially the republicans). To make it worse is even a lot of non conservatives (yes this means the democrats & possible other non conservatives in other nations/countries) have endorsed and adapted this as an economic policy and way of doing business as well. The thing is though, while not going overboard on regulations is one thing, but it’s an entirely different matter than having too much regulations by going to extremes and having none. It’s an entirely different matter altogether, because to have policies of encouraging by deliberately ignoring financially destructive recklessness with an abundance of approvals of extremely risky bank loans & ignoring fraud ahead of time altogether by not allowing preventive measures & restrictions with laws & regulations to stop fraud & minimize, if not entirely stop extreme risks with bank loans – to have such policies brings on the risks of needing loans from international banks for economies. With the recent extremely high amount with trillions of dollars for an economic bailout for the economy – that’s an obvious example of such things happening. What if someday the the banks of the world refuse to take risks of loaning money if it’s needed anytime soon? What will the economy do then? Collapse?
Case in point even libertarian U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted he was wrong with his economic policies/philosophies all those years of non government involvement (avoiding regulations) in business. Yes, I’m talking about the same Alan Greenspan who was head of that office from August 11, 1987 – January 31, 2006 (which was while the US had mostly conservative presidents as well as a conservative majority on capitol hill in Washington most of the time).
Doubt Alan Greenspan would admit to being wrong? Well then have a look at this documentary – towards the end of this documentary (right at around the last 5 minutes) – yes, HE ADMITS TO HAVING BEEN WRONG WITH HIS ATTITUDE ABOUT LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMICS BEING "RIGHT" IN FRONT OF THE U.S. CONGRESS AND SENATE -

http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/

SO – is it worth bringing the ruining and collapse of the U.S.’s economy along with the economy of the world’s other countries and plunge the world into such deep economic depression and ruin that no country recovers and brings the entire world into world wars including worse world wars again?
In other words, like I asked at the top and beginning of this question, which pertains to what I’ve mentioned – how much does high interest rates, failure to regulate – banks as in excessive approval for blind speculation on trends in growth such as real estate, wall street trends and commercial development & especially failure to regulate against fraud from happening on Wall Street – how much does this bankrupt who countries’ economies?
"Bill Clinton’s creation ( The Subprime Mortgage) from his "Partners in America: National Homeownership Strategy" – Forced lenders to lend in markets and to borrowers who could never before quality. This created a Housing boom built on bad credit.
Fannie Mae ( Staffed by Clinton) Buying, packaging and selling those bad loans to Wall Street and our 401k’s.
Democrats who Blocked all 12 attempts by Bush to regulate Fannie Mae"
IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY WILL WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY THEY WILL SEE IT WAS GREENSPAN’S GANG WHO TOLD CLINTON (WHO NAIVELY TRUSTED GREENSPAN’S JUDGEMENT) – IT WAS GREENSPAN WHO ADVICED CLINTON TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH REGULATIONS.
"This mess is the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes !" -Again- NO IT WAS GOVERNMENT’S LACK OF INTERVENTION in the free market THAT CAUSED "this mess"- EVEN GREENSPAN ADMITTED THIS – WATCH WHAT GREENSPAN SAID AND THEN COMMENT IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME.
Les S – I like your Gandhi avatar –
I hope you’re wrong about regulations not being allowed to work. The possible repercussions & scary future of regulations of the marketplace is very frightening to even consider the possibilities of, because economic collapse & poverty contributed to madmen such as adolf hitler rising to power & creating nazi Germany.
"Democrats who Blocked all 12 attempts by bush to regulate Fannie Mae" – "This mess is the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes!" -
First of all HOW does that make any sense??? –
If someone like bush (supposedly) wasn’t allowed to intervene with regulations to regulate Fannie Mae – how was that the direct result of Government intervention into the free market for the goal of getting more votes!"??? because how is NOT regulating doing any regulating?
Granted there were some democrats who were just as guilty of not wanting regulations because of listening to Greenspan, but nobody told any of them to blindly listen to Greenspan who later admitted he was wrong and Greenspan was going by a Laissez Faire a Laissez Faire philosophy because he blindly thought ayn rand couldn’t be anything but right and ayn rand blindly followed nietzsche who blindly followed machiavelli.
"Proof? 2008 a very heated Election Year Both Houses controlled by Democrats. Yet.. incredibly there was NO Investigation as to why." -

No I realize it’s not hard for people to figure out that the democrats didn’t want there to be ANY question of using "fixed" voting machines & rigged/phony votes UNLIKE bush’s camp who used "whatever means necessary" to win their elections.
However- That’s besides the point because I don’t trust the democrats blindly as I don’t trust the conservatives or libertarians either – If I trusted any existing party in the U.S. more for honesty’s or reliability with their policies’ sake, it would be the Green Party, but they’re a bit too pacifist for me, because in the real world defense IS needed. However there’s a huge difference in the reasons about why the Iraq war went down as opposed to why it’s necessary for taking out the al qaeda for good. Stopping the terrorists and nutty taliban is more important than making money for bush & oil company CEOs.
Edit – Perhaps maybe it’s worse than a Plutocracy – maybe it’s a Kleptocracy.
So also if that’s the case – I hope not about that either.
Perhaps campaign finance reform would actually help to correct that, but considering that Capitol hill & especially their supporters probably would never let a bill like that go through – maybe some wealthy guys who didn’t like the other wealthy guys and their system that gives unfair & uncalled for advantages for the wealthy & corporations, might have to start sending lots in campaign money for a lot of independents who aren’t republicans, democrats or liberatarians and then imagine if those independents flooded out the others and not care about their system that makes paupers out the working class while the wealthy stays wealthy.
It sounds far fetched to think that wealthy people might get aggressive against other wealthy people & their whole system such as in like a Zorro or Robin Hood, but I’ve seen odd things happen before.

According to the nations largest commercial real estate firm, Marcus and Millichap, lenders are not liquidating distressed properties. Instead they are holding them and collecting the income until the market changes by paying management companies to run and improve the cash flow of the foreclosed businesses, shopping centers, apartments, etc.

All of a sudden banks are seriously in the commercial real estate business! They are not making new loans. Commercial loans and SBA loans are down somewhere like 95 percent this year!

Since banks made bad decisions to begin with why are they allowed to hold these assets instead of liquidate them like they should? A troubled bank should not be able to afford to hold these assets, let alone hire a management company. Are they able to afford it because of the bailout?

I am real estate salesperson for the commercial real estate industry and I’m upset because without loans, I have no business. Commercial sales in my office is down like 90 percent this year, and I work in an office with like 250 agents!

You are analyzing a commercial real estate investment that generates a net operating income of ,000,000 which increases by 3.5 percent per year. The purchase price is million, the land value is 20 percent of the total property value, the holding period is 10 years, the nominal income tax rate is 28 percent, the recapture tax rate is 25 percent and the long-term capital gain tax rate is 15 percent. A lender is willing to provide financing for the 10 year holding period with a 25 year amortization period for a fixed rate of 7 percent based on a loan to value ratio of 75 percent (25 percent equity). Calculate the before and after tax IRR and NPV based on a discount rate of 400 basis points above the going in cap rate and a terminal cap rate of 100 basis points over the going in cap rate. The cost of sale is three percent. What is the debt coverage ratio in year five?
I don’t expect anyone to do the math and answer this for me, but steps to solving it would be beneficial. I do not want the answer and I don’t want anyone to "do my homework" for me. It’s not homework either. I am just having a hard time figuring it out, especially the NPV and IRR. Any steps or comments would be much appreciated. Thanks

MIAMI – Like many home owners, hotels are starting to drown in debt.

They have been enticing travelers all year with sweet deals: credits for in-house spas and restaurants, up to 50 percent off five-star rooms, even free nights.

But all that discounting hasn’t stopped occupancy from dropping an average of 10 percent. The result? Hotel loans have begun falling into delinquency faster than any other kind of commercial real estate debt.

The rising defaults paint a grim picture for an industry with increasingly more rooms than guests, and more hotels still opening every day. It’s a problem that could get worse before it gets better, with demand expected to remain weak and ambitious new projects planned before the meltdown worsening the room glut.

The oversupply means room rates should stay low for at least another year, good news for consumers but not so great for hotel owners and the banks that lent them the cash to build or buy.

The rise in delinquencies is sharp. Five times more hotel loans are behind on payments this year than in 2008, according to mortgage data firm Trepp LLC, which tracks those traded by investors. In October, 8.7 percent were distressed, compared with 1.5 percent last year.

That’s almost double the 4.8 percent rate for commercial property and the 4.5 percent rate for stores.

Let’s start with the facts

(1) I have about 120k in student loan debt from law school and undergrad. I am only paying what I can on this right now, which is about per month, which is only paying off the interest on one of the loans. Please no lectures on the magic/horror of compounding interest.

(2) I graduated from a respectable law school in May of 2008 and passed two state bar exams on the first try.

(3) I applied to hundreds of attorney jobs every year through out law school and after graduation. There really aren’t any jobs out there.

(4) I did get a job though, but it’s probably the lowest paying attorney job in the world at k per year at the least respected firm in the county. It’s sort of out in the sticks, but still close enough for me to drive to everyday. The guy is a terrible lawyer and a werido, but whatever, I need a job. There was supposed to be a bonus every 10 weeks involved, but I figured out on the first day that there will never be a bonus because the bonus is based on collecting payments from the clients, who never pay their bill. The work is family and criminal law, which is not what I set out to do, but it’s ok I guess. I took this job only about 2 months ago and the firm is apparently financially insolvent and can’t always pay all the employees on time, but so far I’ve always been paid.

(5) I’m taking an accounting course at the local community college with an eye toward applying to a business program, maybe an mba.

My question is, should I apply to an mba program? I have little or no business experience because I applied to law school right out of college and I’m worried that even after graduating with an MBA I still won’t be able to find a job and will just be in more student loan debt.

Should I quit working at this firm because it has such a terrible reputation? My current plan is to quit as soon as he can’t pay me, but my alternative to working there would probably be document review, which is a career-killer from what I’ve heard but pays more (/hr or something). Should I keep working at this firm even if he can’t pay me? Jobs are so very scare these days, especially for attorneys in my region.

Should I register, study for, and take another state’s bar exam in the hope that passing that will finally make me attractive enough to another law firm and they will pay me a real salary?

I also have my real estate license. If this joker can’t pay me, should I quit and start selling condos and homes and leasing commercial spaces?

Keep in mind that I’m actively applying for jobs elsewhere. Feel free to ask additional questions.

I would prefer it if someone with a few years of business or legal experience would answer this question.

regarding the end of the recession that the government says is happening:

‘Be Prepared for the Worst’
Ron Paul, 10.29.09,

The large-scale government intervention in the economy is going to end badly.

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset

Anytime the central bank intervenes to pump trillions of dollars into the financial system, a bubble is created that must eventually deflate. We have seen the results of Alan Greenspan’s excessively low interest rates: the housing bubble, the explosion of subprime loans and the subsequent collapse of the bubble, which took down numerous financial institutions. Rather than allow the market to correct itself and clear away the worst excesses of the boom period, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury colluded to put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars. Those banks and financial institutions that took on the largest risks and performed worst were rewarded with billions in taxpayer dollars, allowing them to survive and compete with their better-managed peers.

This is nothing less than the creation of another bubble. By attempting to cushion the economy from the worst shocks of the housing bubble’s collapse, the Federal Reserve has ensured that the ultimate correction of its flawed economic policies will be more severe than it otherwise would have been. Even with the massive interventions, unemployment is near 10% and likely to increase, foreigners are cutting back on purchases of Treasury debt and the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet remains bloated at an unprecedented trillion. Can anyone realistically argue that a few small upticks in a handful of economic indicators are a sign that the recession is over?

What is more likely happening is a repeat of the Great Depression. We might have up to a year or so of an economy growing just slightly above stagnation, followed by a drop in growth worse than anything we have seen in the past two years. As the housing market fails to return to any sense of normalcy, commercial real estate begins to collapse and manufacturers produce goods that cannot be purchased by debt-strapped consumers, the economy will falter. That will go on until we come to our senses and end this wasteful government spending.

Government intervention cannot lead to economic growth. Where does the money come from for Tarp (Treasury’s program to buy bad bank paper), the stimulus handouts and the cash for clunkers? It can come only from taxpayers, from sales of Treasury debt or through the printing of new money. Paying for these programs out of tax revenues is pure redistribution; it takes money out of one person’s pocket and gives it to someone else without creating any new wealth. Besides, tax revenues have fallen drastically as unemployment has risen, yet government spending continues to increase. As for Treasury debt, the Chinese and other foreign investors are more and more reluctant to buy it, denominated as it is in depreciating dollars

The only remaining option is to have the Fed create new money out of thin air. This is inflation. Higher prices lead to a devalued dollar and a lower standard of living for Americans. The Fed has already overseen a 95% loss in the dollar’s purchasing power since 1913. If we do not stop this profligate spending soon, we risk hyperinflation and seeing a 95% devaluation every year.

What is the difference between, Commercial/Consumer/Real Estate officers? what do they do? n how much do they get paid?

In order to reduce risk and increase the safety of financial institutions, commercial banks and other financial institutions are prohibited from:

A. owning municipal bonds.

B. making personal loans.

C. owning common stock.

D. making real estate loans.

I think the answer is B am I right?

Seems like people would be extremely concerned about a bankrupt govt. who can’t cover money they’ve already insured spending trillions more.

I understand FDIC could borrow money to cover any shorfalls (like the post office and a number of other debt creating federal agencies) but how long can this possibly last??

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_bi_ge/us_banks_fdic_bailout

Regulators have approached big banks about borrowing billions to shore up the dwindling fund that insures regular deposit accounts.

The loans would go to the fund maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that insure depositors when banks fail, said two industry officials familiar with the conversations, who requested anonymity because the plans are still evolving.

Regulators also are considering levying a special emergency fee on all banks, charging regular fees early or tapping a 0 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury, the officials said.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said that while borrowing from the banks "is an option, it’s not being given serious consideration." The board meeting where the plans will be discussed is scheduled for next week.

But a government official familiar with the FDIC board’s thinking said earlier Tuesday that the plan was being considered. He requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

The fund, which insures deposit accounts up to 0,000, is at its lowest point since 1992, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. Ongoing losses on commercial real estate and other loans continue to cause multiple bank failures each week.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair wants to avoid tapping the Treasury credit line, and Treasury officials insist that the strongest big banks have enough extra capital to operate, the officials said. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, who is a voting member of the FDIC board, has said he doesn’t want to levy another fee on banks while the industry is still recovering.

FDIC is going to BORROW money in order to insure accounts. Well if the people that INSURE THE BANK ACCOUNTS don’t have any money, isn’t the whole system on the verge of collapse??

And in retrospect, isn’t the REAL reason the banks got bailed out because FDIC would have taken down the federal govt. with the TRILLIONS it is currently insuring?? (TRILLIONS it doesn’t have)

Too big to fail = if you fail, the govt.fails too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_bi_ge/us_banks_fdic_bailout

Regulators have approached big banks about borrowing billions to shore up the dwindling fund that insures regular deposit accounts.

The loans would go to the fund maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that insure depositors when banks fail, said two industry officials familiar with the conversations, who requested anonymity because the plans are still evolving.

Regulators also are considering levying a special emergency fee on all banks, charging regular fees early or tapping a 0 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury, the officials said.

FDIC spokesman Andrew Gray said that while borrowing from the banks "is an option, it’s not being given serious consideration." The board meeting where the plans will be discussed is scheduled for next week.

But a government official familiar with the FDIC board’s thinking said earlier Tuesday that the plan was being considered. He requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

The fund, which insures deposit accounts up to 0,000, is at its lowest point since 1992, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis. Ongoing losses on commercial real estate and other loans continue to cause multiple bank failures each week.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair wants to avoid tapping the Treasury credit line, and Treasury officials insist that the strongest big banks have enough extra capital to operate, the officials said. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, who is a voting member of the FDIC board, has said he doesn’t want to levy another fee on banks while the industry is still recovering.
brown………and?

We (thought) purchased a home in 2007. Our credit was a not bad but not enough to qualify for a home loan. The realtor agent offered to take the ,000.00 down payment, apply it to the purchase and keep the mortgage papers in her name until we qualified and could put the mortgage in our names. Until then she we were to have, papers signed and notarized giving us legal rights. There was always an excuse to not to sign and notarize any paperwork showing us having any legal right. She never authorized us at the bank to have any contact with them for any reason allowing us access or communication with the lender. Even if we wanted to make a payment online or by phone, we could not due to not being authorized.

Now two years later after paying the mortgage she told us she gave the house back to the bank and bank will no longer accept a check from us to pay the mortgage. Tomorrow it goes up for a trustee sale the only proof we have is the $ 21,000.00 payment made to the mortgage co. in the form of a money order. And cancelled checks and debits out of the bank account for the monthly mtg. There was no rental contract or lease agreement because of course we thought it was our home.

What if anything can, we do and what happens to us after the auction sale tomorrow? How long do we have to vacate?

She also has all our escrow paperwork from the sale of a piece of commercial property we sold in October of 2007, which gave her a very large commission, and will not give it to us. This keeps us from filing our 2007 tax return because we do not have the information of the sale. In correspondence the IRS sent us, it shows that for the sale of our commercial property, the escrow company listed her home address with our name as our mailing address to send correspondences and/or paperwork .

When we call her, she just hangs up on us.

Please advice.

There is a " Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility " whichi is supposed to " get credit flowing more normally again," It is for a trillion in lending for households and businesses, especially commercial real estate which is not doing so well lately

"Under the program, which got off to a slow start in March, the Fed provides loans to investors. They use the money to buy newly issued securities backed by auto and student loans, credit cards, business equipment, commercial real estate and loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration."

Do you think this will get us out of the recession, or do you think it will get us into deeper trouble?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bernanke

A trillion dollar commercial real estate crisis will begin to unfold in 2010, when short term loans must be refinanced, yet commercial property values have plummeted.

As many as 500 regional banks may fail as commercial loans default, and the FDIC only has 10 billion left to cover insolvent banks. Compounding this Deuthsche Bank forecasts that 48% of home mortgages will owe more than the home is worth by the end of 2011.

Commercial real estate loans? How do they work
How do developers get money to build huge skyscrapers?
How do they pay these loans back?
I need details.

hey all,

i’m a 21 year old college student majoring in music (production/recording). i just purchased my 1st home cash/outright.
i lost my mom in 2001 when i was 13 and used the modest life insurance policy she left for me to purchase the home. after losing my mom i moved in with my grandmother and lost her in 2004 after a year long battle with cancer. she left me a 1400/mo inheritance which i have been using for my education and related expenses. this $ is from her interest in a family business and will continue uninterrupted until her siblings sell the 2 commercial buildings they own and rent out. unfortunately i am a silent partner with no voting power and/or the ability to borrow and/or cash out of my interest in the co.

i have 100% equity in this property and its TAX ACCESSED value is 200k. just before i purchased the property i bought (cash/outright) 50k of landscape equipment and will be self employed/full time in the spring of 09. my education is almost complete…1 more semester and will continue on a part time basis. at this moment i have 10 weekly customers (800/wk or 3200/mo) and am looking to increase that # to 20-25 by spring. my property will also generate income…it consists of a 4br house, 2 br cottage, 2 car garage and is zoned "village commercial". with this zoning, there is an option to rent part or all of the property to certain types of business… pottery shop, general store, real estate office, bar/restaurant, etc. i have a couple ready to sign a contract for the cottage (1200/mo) and 2 roommates to share the house with me (600ea/mo). i also have the option to rent out a small commercial suite on the 1st floor of the house (1000/mo). my long term plan is to use this (comm) space for my professional recording studios… not ready ($).

although i do not "technically" have a declared income (yet), can i get a 100k loan using my property as collateral? moreover, can i use the rental, inheritance and landscape as income NOW, or how long do i have to wait to "technically" be considered a landlord and/or small business owner? i know i can handle this loan without any problem just with what i make right now. sad thing is… had i closed just a few months prior, it would have been "rubber stamped" by any bank and/or mortgage co. the way i found the property right up to the closing was done unconventionally… i am UNAFRAID to think and/or act out "outside of the box". any information and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. hope all is well. have a good one.

My Partners and I are providing capital investments needed for operating capital, décor and design, however, our corporation needs 0,000 financing to procure the building and existing equipment for the restaurant location selected. The financing is required to begin work on kitchen design, architectural plans, manuals and recipe books, additional equipment purchases, and to cover expenses in the first year of business. We are getting this building for a steal. Does anyone have recommendations on which company (no banks) I can work with? I live in Florida but willing to work with companies anywhere in the USA.

Already conducted due diligence. Business plan including performa available.
I am looking for advice or recommendations from those who may be familiar with commercial financing (either as a borrower or a lender). I know there will be some who just can’t resist being smart asses (but feel they HAVE to answer). I wish those nay sayers would pass on by and let those who have something intelligent/positive to say respond. I’ll appreciate that.

To those who have responded intelligently, thank you so much!

Commercial real estate loans? How do they work
How do developers get money to build huge skyscrapers?
How do they pay these loans back?
I need details.

President Bush will speak at 10am today [Friday]. What program will fix the financial mess the government has gotten us into?

[If he's already spoken when you respond -- feel free to shoot at his program, if there is one, and propose something better.]

*** here’s mine: ***

Housing isn’t the issue causing the continuing selloff in the financial markets.

It’s the Risk, Stupid.

***
Half of all Americans work for some firm whose payroll totals more or much more than FDIC insurance covers. All of those firms have treasurers who are trying to protect their money from a surprise failed bank. Dead bank => failed paychecks and maybe failed company.

So all those treasurers are scrambling to remove their money from both the banking system and the commercial paper market.

They have no confidence that their money is safe. Too much risk.

***
You fight no confidence by telling the truth and/or guaranteeing their outcome.

Here’s how:

For those firms [banks and borrowers] that choose to participate, the government guarantees their deposits and short term borrowings for a maximum of 364 days, or until exit conditions [below] are met.

During the period of the guarantee, the protected firm must: [summary: it must act as if it is in receivership in bankruptcy court].

1. ask that all trading in shares, capital debt, and derivatives be suspended.

2. cease all leakages of capital [dividends, repurchases, option issues, capital debt repayment, etc.]

3. refrain from expanding more than 5% or into new businesses,

4. limit executive and managerial pay to not more than ,500 per month.

5. begin to publish, monthly, in both the newspapers and via the Internet, their best picture of both their actual and potential credit loss situation, including the assumption that real estate prices in their markets will crash back to January 2003 levels for "move in condition" properties. {Why January 2003? My macro level estimate is that the housing markets will clear at that price level. Details on request.}

To exit the program, the protected firm must publish it’s loss information weekly for at least four weeks AND notify the public of its intended exit date.

During the exit period, the government repays all the firm’s deposits and borrowings if necessary.

If, at the end of the exit period, the firm is unable to finance itself without government help, it immediately enters bankruptcy and is liquidated.

***
This will restore confidence. Company treasurers with funds that need to be deposited will not worry about whether the bank will be there tomorrow.

And Americans will KNOW that their paychecks are good. [Consumers are pulling back on spending because they're scared for their jobs and paychecks -- not because their credit cards were canceled -- they weren't.]

Further, it lets the banks return to making ordinary loans to borrowers with good credit in the ordinary course of business — which they aren’t doing now.

AND, it forces the banks and companies to come clean with their losses — thus permitting the marketplace to decide which companies should die and which can continue.

***
Give it some thought — bloviating in front of the TV cameras and asking the markets to be patient hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work.

What the markets want is the TRUTH.

Are the banks insolvent? Which ones? How do we find out? What do we do until we can find out?

The meltdown continues this morning [Friday the 10th].

Is your job at risk because of a bunch of stupidity by bankers you’ve never met?

What can you do about it?

******** Here’s my proposal. *******

Housing isn’t the issue causing the continuing selloff in the financial markets.

It’s the Risk, Stupid.

***
Half of all Americans work for some firm whose payroll totals more or much more than FDIC insurance covers. All of those firms have treasurers who are trying to protect their money from a surprise failed bank. Dead bank => failed paychecks and maybe failed company.

So all those treasurers are scrambling to remove their money from both the banking system and the commercial paper market.

They have no confidence that their money is safe. Too much risk.

***
You fight no confidence by telling the truth and/or guaranteeing their outcome.

Here’s how:

For those firms [banks and borrowers] that choose to participate, the government guarantees their deposits and short term borrowings for a maximum of 364 days, or until exit conditions [below] are met.

During the period of the guarantee, the protected firm must: [summary: it must act as if it is in receivership in bankruptcy court].

1. ask that all trading in shares, capital debt, and derivatives be suspended.

2. cease all leakages of capital [dividends, repurchases, option issues, capital debt repayment, etc.]

3. refrain from expanding more than 5% or into new businesses,

4. limit executive and managerial pay to not more than ,500 per month.

5. begin to publish, monthly, in both the newspapers and via the Internet, their best picture of both their actual and potential credit loss situation, including the assumption that real estate prices in their markets will crash back to January 2003 levels for "move in condition" properties. {Why January 2003? My macro level estimate is that the housing markets will clear at that price level. Details on request.}

To exit the program, the protected firm must publish it’s loss information weekly for at least four weeks AND notify the public of its intended exit date.

During the exit period, the government repays all the firm’s deposits and borrowings if necessary.

If, at the end of the exit period, the firm is unable to finance itself without government help, it immediately enters bankruptcy and is liquidated.

***
This will restore confidence. Company treasurers with funds that need to be deposited will not worry about whether the bank will be there tomorrow.

And Americans will KNOW that their paychecks are good.

Further, it lets the banks return to making ordinary loans to borrowers with good credit in the ordinary course of business — which they aren’t doing now.

AND, it forces the banks and companies to come clean with their losses — thus permitting the marketplace to decide which companies should die and which can continue.

***
Give it some thought — bloviating in front of the TV cameras and asking the markets to be patient hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work.

What the markets want is the TRUTH.

Your improvements to this program are welcome — "saving houses" won’t fix the risks the company treasurers see and thus won’t stop the collapse of credit — and maybe your job, in which case, your house is gone anyway.

Dear Mr. [soMEone]

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

On September 19, 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a plan by the Bush Administration to stabilize the financial services sector of the economy. This plan included broad authority for the Treasury Secretary to purchase troubled financial instruments with very limited oversight and few protections for taxpayers.

In July, I voted against a similar proposed bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because it did not provide taxpayer protection and limits on executive compensation for a government owned entity. For the same reasons, I was not willing to support the Administration’s initial proposal, and I encouraged my colleagues to continue work on a plan that would protect taxpayers, provide strict oversight, and place limits on the benefits to executives who accept taxpayer assistance.

In the days following the Treasury Secretary’s announcement, concerns about the danger to the broader economy deepened. The high-profile failure of numerous financial institutions caused the commercial lending market to accumulate and hold cash. The credit markets effectively froze, making it difficult for consumers to obtain loans for purchases such as homes and automobiles. The lack of lending in these areas began to place further pressure on the troubled housing market and threatened to spread deeper into the economy. Similarly, many small and mid-sized businesses were finding it difficult to obtain financing to meet their payroll obligations and purchase inventory. Many cities were entering the bond market and getting no bids, even with AAA ratings. The current liquidity crisis still poses a real potential for significant job losses. After consulting with numerous financial experts, small businesses, and bankers in Texas, it became clear to me that normal commercial lending activity would not resume without action by Congress.

Despite this realization, I was still not inclined to support the Paulson plan. After weeks of negotiation, however, a bi-partisan compromise was reached. While there are provisions in the bill that I do not favor and would not have drafted, overall the need for action to stabilize the market and to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans weighed heavily on my mind. Ultimately, I supported the Senate bill along with 73 of my colleagues. The bill we passed was a major improvement over the initial plan announced by Secretary Paulson.

We increased the deposit insurance cap from 0,000 to 0,000 so that families will have added protection for savings and retirement accounts. While the initial proposal authorized up to 0 billion to purchase distressed assets, the measure we passed takes a more cautious approach, initially authorizing 0 billion and requiring the approval from Congress and the President for additional funding. Importantly, the bill we passed includes restrictions on the benefits received by executives whose companies are selling some of their distressed assets to the government. In return for purchasing the assets, taxpayers will obtain an ownership stake in the companies. Many leading economists believe that the real estate market will turn around in the foreseeable future and government owned properties and assets will be sold at a profit. A provision in this bill that I supported requires any profits realized to be placed in the nation’s treasury to reduce the deficit. If, however, after five years the government is facing a loss in the program, the President must submit a plan to Congress recommending how the money will be recouped from financial services companies. I believe that these protections are a dramatic improvement over the Administration’s initial proposal.

The bill passed by the Senate included an important package of tax policy provisions. One of these provisions is an extension of the state and local sales tax deduction, which is a matter of fairness for states like Texas that do not have a state income tax. The average Texan will save 0 when they file their federal income tax forms next year. We also shielded low and middle-income taxpayers from higher taxes associated with the flawed alternative minimum tax (AMT) and included tax incentives to spur energy production and innovation including the wind energy production tax credit and the research and development tax credit.

As Texans, we have learned to take responsibility for our actions and being asked to pay for the mistakes of others is something many, including myself, find deeply troubling. However, after careful deliberation, I believe that the risks associated with doing nothing outweighed the risk of passing a less than perfect bill that nevertheless includes important protections for taxpayers. Economic evidence clearly suggested the problems were spreading into the broader economy. That i
============
[cont.]

That is why I voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.

I appreciate hearing from you. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)

http://hutchison.senate.gov

==========
Kat: We have no choice but to drive 10 over. Our cows do eighty in their sleep!

Seriously, you’re spot on, as always. Lucky for you your Senators (unlike our Sinners) did it down.

Thanks!

(beware the Texas Cow)

…