You can get either death or disability insurance on your mortgage, or both. There's about four times the possibility of disability for an extended period that there is of death ... and, while a funeral is expensive, dead people don't eat, but disabled people do ... and may need medical/rehabilitative costs, as well. Some prefer to buy a term policy for one or both, themselves, for if the bank sets it up, they are the payee, not the person(s) purchasing the home, whle if the homeowner purchases it, they are the payee and it will be their responsibility to pay the lender. Some prefer to have coverage at a specific level throughout, rather than the decreasing value as the principal gets paid off, as usually there is little difference in premium, and as the debt is reduced through regular payment down of principal, there is some extra available to support the family in a difficult time. When paying student loan, usually one knows what portion of the payent goes for interest and which goes to pay down principal owing. But the level of mortgage payment remains level throughout, which means that in the early days of the loan, when the balance owing is high, the amount that goes to interest each year must be high, meaning that little of each payment goes to pay off principal. Many people pay little attention to the amount of principal that is paid off annually through the first few years, though many of them received a schedule showing what the ratios were at the time of each payment, throughout. They are greatly surprised when they find out how little of the principal has actually been paid, at the end of each year. They are suprised to learn that, in those early years, if they made an additional payment of an amount equal to one of the month's payment, designating it as to reduce principal only, it would reduce the balance owing by a larger amount than did all of the other 12 monthly payments. With student loans, the amount allocated to principal and to interest is more easily identifiable, I think. Good wishes. ole joyful

If you figure that you're going to need that CDIC back-up, better put your money into a small bank, for several banks have failed and I think that quite a few feel that if a fair-sized bank goes broke, the CDIC till will be bare. Being a gov't. agency, there'd likely be back-up, but that would cause substantial delay, quite likely ... and incur more debt for the U.S. gov't., which has taken on far too much, now. As most of that debt is held abroad, they'll have to start paying higher rates in order to entice lenders to buy their debt instruments ... and have been printing money, with the likelihood that they'll be printing a whole lot more, soon. These mortgage-initiating rascals in recent years sure make a bank robber carrying his loot in a pillowcase look like pretty small potatoes. I remember as a kid, when I learned to ride a bicycle down our country road, wishing that the gravel on the road would become gold ... but it didn't take me long to realize that if it were gold for me, it would be for everyone else, as well ... and that soon it would take more than a pocketful of gold to buy a loaf of bread. How long has it been since the U.S. Dollar was backed by gold? Or silver? Our Dollar - same game. And - when your economy gets a cold ... ours gets pneumonia. What's the expected time-frame when you'll need to use those assets? Almost 10 years ago, when I was 70, I called a financial planner on a phone-in radio show to say that I felt that I should plan to fund my life to age 100, which was six blocks of five years each. Fortunately, I was able to live on somewhat less than my three pensions, and expected to be able to do so for some time - now, 10 years later, same story. But it seemed to me that were I to need some of the assets to live on, I should not eat up all of the first block in the first five years, for it would no longer be there to earn some income for my future needs. In fact, I thought that I should try to avoid using any more than that first block of the six in the first 10 years ... especially considerig that inflation would cause me to need more dollars to live the same lifestyle, a few years down the road. You know - that "inflation" that has shrunk the value of each one of our dollars-in-hand in every year since the late 1930s. And money in the bank is like money-in-hand: each dollar of the principal doesn't grow (but it sure does shrink). Which means that I would not plan to use up 83% of my asset during that first 10 year period, and that a number of financial advisors feel that purchasing stocks for more than a 10-year time horizon makes sense. He said that my plan made a lot of sense, in his view. Short-term, if we fear losing capital, we need to invest in guaranteed dollars ... but long-term, those guaranteed dollar investments, after paying tax, and adding some to principal in order to maintain purchasing power, leave little for the investor. If anything. Now, at 80, I carry about 80% of my assets in equity-based investments. That would make many people have a hairy ... but I feel comfortable with it. Yes, I have some losses, but I have some gains, as well ... and the tax structure here encourages holding equities. A single taxpayer with no income but dividends on Canadian stocks can earn over $46,000. before being required to pay ONE CENT of income tax (and having a low-income spouse with transferrable credits, or gifts to charity or a political campaign, or eligible medical/dental bills over 4.5% [in that case - 3% ordinarily] of net income will push that $46,000.+ tax-free income level even higher). Some time ago, I wrote a thread either here or on "Money Saving Tips", I think, asking which ordinary person gained from inflation, and who loses. When you put your money in the bank, say $10,000., 15 years ago, they guaranteed to pay you back every dollar, in addition to the rent on the money. There's another guarantee, that they never mention - they won't pay you one dollar more, either. And the value of each of those dollars has shrunk, in every one of those 15 years ... as it has every year since the 1930s. That $10,000. would have bought a nice car, 15 years ago ... not now. I figured a while ago, when I could borrow at 6.25%, that most of the time I could come close to breaking even on such a loan, using it to purchase quality stocks. So ... now, when I can borrow for 4.75%, breaking even should be an even greater probability, no? If I'd borrowed your $10,000. from the bank, 15 years ago and paid only the interest in the years since (which I would never recommend, on a consumer loan) .................................................................................................................................................... ................................... when I go into the bank to pay off the loan, now, how much will I need to pay? Yes - $10,000. Which they will give to you, to pay off your CD, if you ask. I gained from inflation, because I paid off the loan in depreciated dollars - you lost, since each of those dollars would buy less than when you loaned it out to the bank, 15 years ago. The only value that your money would ever produce, relative to each of those years, was made right then ... and it was taxed - then ... and, in Canada, it's taxed at top marginal rate. When I used those borrowed dollars to buy quality (retirement type) stocks, and since I came close to breaking even each year on the loan that I made, on average, over the last fifteen years, my investment in stocks grew quite a lot, so now, when I sell them, after paying off the loan, I have quite a lot of money left in my pocket. Which asset was built with your money, not mine. Granted - if the stocks went down in value - I had to find the money somewhere else to pay back to the bank. But, as you know ... they didn't. And, over a time horizon of 10 years or so, they haven't. And a bonus for me - as the value of those quality stocks went up ... so did the annual rate of dividends that they paid. When I bought shares in a Canadian bank 41 years ago for $4.20 or so (also referred to below), they produced annual dividends of about a dime or 12 cents per year: now they pay $3.48. As the number of dollars in a CD doesn't change over the years ... the amount of interest that they produce doesn't change much, either. But - my investment in shares of a Canadian bank have gone from $106. in May, 2007 to just over $62.00 now ... why? They put substantial amounts into those sub-prime U.S. mortgages ... and that "asset-backed commercial paper" ("acid-backed commercial paper"??) that some of the U.S. financial scoundrels were peddling. That now the U.S. government, which can't afford to, is going to partially bail them out of. As some say - socialism for the rich ... private enterprise for the low-level guys who get stuck with the bill ......................... when the rich guys pull a big-time goof (but the rich guys get to keep their previously ill-gotten loot). Remember the savings and loan fiasco of, what, 20 years or so ago? Have you given thought to how much it has cost for the Mccain-Obama campaign over the past couple of years? Where do you figure that money came from? Apart from the costs associated with running for Congress or the Senate, etc. Good wishes for increasing skill in managing your income ... and your assets. ole joyful

You always have the option of pulling back the offer unless it has been accepted. The banks have no idea how to minimize their losses in this market. Many paces are sitting vacant and being damaged while the banks dither. I have retracted offers on short sales only to go back and purchase the place as REO later (with the delays that entails) for a lower price. The bank went from a little trim on the hairline to a full up scalping, all due to their own stumbling around. I should really thank them though. They reduced my risk at their expense. I sold the place for slightly more than they initially wanted after only 13 months (held to move it into long term capital gains). Banks hate losing money so much they are digging deeper holes since no none wants to make a decision. If you pull the note(s) on the house you can sometimes start to see how deep the bank is in. I use an attorney to deal with the banks. I sometimes give him advice on repair costs when he wants to dabble, and he enjoys working over the banks.

Hi jbs, Since that's the case, it seems to me that I'd be safer researching lenders on my own than to put myself in the hands of a stranger whose motives may not be in my best interest. What methods will you use to determine if a retail clerk has your best interests in mind? Why would you trust your ability to suss out retail clerks but not wholesale brokers? Are you aware that retail clerks are fiduciary agents to the BANK (and not to you,) and that ONLY wholesale brokersw have the legal capacity to act in your fiduciary interests (and are actually REQUIRED to do so in many states)? In regards to your comments regarding financial balancing, I'm a little fuzzy as to your meaning. You have assets, liabilities, and defensive instruments (insurance) in your family household portfolio. All of these have an effect on everything else, both individually and jointly in concert. Mortgage financing is usually simultaneously the largest liability in a portfolio, the most powerful aspect of leverage (married to your largest working asset,) with the lowest net interest costs, and the most powerful protection to equity. The amount of unleveraged equity entrapped in your real estate (if unbalanced against other asset classes you may have in retirement accounts, etc.) can have a HUGE effect on delays in retirement, or risks-of-loss created. Trying to structure a mortgage while ignoring how it balances out against the other assets and protective instruments in your overall portfolio can be significantly detrimental. I'm guessing it has to do with my desire to convert to a conventional loan - I know from your past posts that you aren't always a fan of that. Not at all... I have no problems with conventional financing (that being loans that are sold to Fannie & Freddie.) They are just one of many potential ingredients to a portfolio. However, in our current situation of having the best house I can imagine (but still below our means) and steady (as can be in this economy) jobs, locking in a fixed rate while they are as low as they currently are makes a lot of sense to me. We are in our early/mid thirties, so the chances of us staying in our home for another 15-20 years is very high. Sure... in fact, due to the government markets intervention, fixed rate financing not only has no cost premium, it is CHEAPER than virtually all other alternatives. The fixed interest protection is currently basically 'free' relative to alternatives, so no reason not to take the least expensive financing available within your best-fit portfolio structure. If you have a differing viewpoint or that's not what you were alluding to, I'd love to hear what you have to say. As always, thanks for your advice. Hopefully this post explains better. Please feel free to ask more questions if you like though. Cheers, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner