Mortgage brokers, like independent insurance agents, generally have a wider network of resources available to them. When we bought our house, we used a broker and he shopped various mortgages for us, and we were able to chose the best fit for us. When we re-financed we went thru an on-line broker and that was even cheaper than the first broker. We had to pay a commission fee, but the interest & fees savings more than offset what we had to pay. And they handled EVERYTHING for us. We originally had a realtor looking for a house for us, but we hadn't signed a contract with her. We were not happy with her...she just didn't listen, and we ended up finding our house on our own, as a FSBO. We mentioned it to her and she called the sellers to work a deal with them...she wanted them to pay her a commission, but they refused, that was why there were selling FSBO. In the end, this realtor ended up lying to us by saying the taxes were almost double the actual rate, that the house had unpermitted work done on it, and other bogus things...she was trying to sell us a house she was the listing agent on. Needless to say, we ended our relationship with her. Just my advice, when you go to chose a realtor...stand up for yourself! My experience is that they're not like the ones on TV. Remember, they work on commission, so when you buy, they earn a paycheck, but YOU are the one having to live in the place.

Thank you all for responding to my post. All of you were correct in your comments. First, the reputable company that I was told was reputable turned out not to be so reputable afterall once I did my own Private Eye Work :-) on the internet (Can I mentioned the company name on this site?) Plus this type of loan is considered a negative amortization as stated in the comments which mean instead of your balance decreasing it increases...who in their right mind would assume a loan of this type? Anyway, the gentleman called me at work today and I was very nice but I did not give him any impression that I knew what type of loan this was. He goes on to tell me how much money I would save with this 1.95%, 5-year fix but left out the most important info but being me I let him continue with the lies he were telling. I think it bothered me more because if I had not made myself familiar with this type of loan after reading all of your responses, I would have been one of those SUCKER!!!! that he would have licked all the way to the bank. I think at one time he felt as though he had sold the info to me and I was going to accept but that's when I asked him...WHAT IS THE REAL PERCENTAGE????? I further explained to him that I read a 1.95% loan could actually be a lot higher (i.e., 7.15%) but of that 7.15% you only pay 1.95% for the 1st 5 years...so say for instant the figures comes out to be 5000.00 a month for the mortgage based on the principle balance of the house....you take 1.95% of that then deduct that figure from the 5000.00 original mortgage...BUT THIS IS THE KICKER....whatever the difference...it is added to your principle balance for the next 5 years....so say it was 1/2 of 5000.00, $2500.00 would be added to your principle balance for the next five years. The gentleman also stated...oh by the way your mortgage will go up slightly each year during those five year in the amount of around 200.00. ARE YOU CRAZY FOR EVEN TELLING ME THAT :-) I then asked him, so a person getting this type of loan will put them right back in the same status when they initially applied. Sounds to me this type of loan is for someone who is HOUSE POOR or about to lose their home which I neither of the two. I politely told him NO and I am just fine with the current loan I have. There is an article on www.money.cnn.com that talks about these types of loans and how dangerous they can be. Thank you guys so much. Without your responses I would not have dug so deep into the internet for info regarding this subject. Who wouldn't want a 1.95% loan...I DEFINITELY WOULD but only if it was legitimate. Once again, thanks.

Thank you for using President's Choice Financial, Jasdip. Their program is operated by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) ... in which I bought shares, back in '67. I'd registered them in my name, with part of the reason being that I planned to use some of them as collateral so I could make a loan for investment, at a lower rate of interest if it was fully secured by assets that I owned. This was partly due to our not buying a home, with attendant mortgage, as we lived in an employer-owned home ... but would likely need to buy one, later (even if not till retirement)(1). Some time later, when my ex- indicated some displeasure with our relationship, part of the reason given was that all of the assets were in my name ... which I'd done partly due to her reluctance to signing papers to make those investment loans. So - I transferred some of the certificates into her name ... ... which made her rather angry, due to my reluctance to have done so before she made noises about being so substantialy upset with the relationship that she was considering leaving. My reply that many husbands, after having heard their wife mention the possibility of leaving, wouldn't have been willing to transfer something worth a nickel into her name after that ... ... didn't seem to cut much ice with her! Did someone say that sometimes one can't win, whatever one does! The original price had been something over $16.00 per share, paying about 10 - 12 cents annual dividend (taxed at a lower rate than interest and other usual types of income). They've split 2 for 1 twice, since, meaning that, as I then had 4 times the original number of shares, the purchase price per share had now become about $4.16. As the price per share advanced, over the years, the dividend increased, as well ... and in 2006 a different rate of calculation meant that the tax rate was even lower ... and, as the government was busy cutting corporate tax rates, and the original reason for the lower tax rate on the dividends was given as an offset for taxes that the corporations had (supposedly) paid on their profits, one would have expected the tax rate on private dividends to have risen. But sometimes one gets the feeling that the governemnt likes to help out their rich friends. Anyway - I could have sold the shares for $107. each in the spring of '07, and they were paying $3.08 per share dividend (at the even lower tax rate, begun in '06), which they increased to $3.48 in the fall of '07. Unfortunately, they were involved in the U.S. financial fiasco/(fiascoes?) in the fall of '07 ... ... and the price per share slid slowly down to about $40.00. Some said that they would cut the dividend rate, but others said that they wouldn't, for that would result in a further lowering of the price of the shares: they didn't. Which meant that $3.48 per annum return on a share whose original price had been $4.16 or so, was about 8 - 9% rate of return: not too shabby! Share price has recovered to $75. - 80.00, these days (dividend now $3.60). So - thanks for using President's Choice Financial! Hope you're having a good week. ole joyful 1. As I've lived in 22 places during my 83 years ... having bought a home would not have been such a good idea, I think! o j

I agree with you Tricia on running credit reports. I won't allow it unless absolutely necessary. I have to pull credit reports on potential tenants and will not pay the extra $2 to pull their scores because I don't believe in them. Here's an ironic thing...people worry about identity theft and so subscribe to a service to check their credit report once per month. All the checks show up and the score goes down. Here's another...get a credit card with a limit of $10,000 and have $7,000 in debt on it. Another person has a $4,000 limit with $3,000 debt on it. The first person, even though they are more in debt, will get a higher score because they have only used 70% of their limit while the 2nd person has used 75% of their limit. There are too many screwy things that go into the credit score to make me believe in them. Of course all insitutions use them because they are supposedly very objective, so we in society are stuck with them. I know of a friend who last year had perfect credit and a score of 750. She financed a new car at a good rate. 3 months later she was filing for bankruptcy. She had been paying her debt but just squeaking by. It all caught up with her. But, she had a good credit score:-))