I also heard a piece on the raido yesterday that S&Ls are booming because the funds they loan out for mortgages come mostly from their own depositors. This contrasts with the big national mortgage lenders who typically borrow money to fund the loans they make and so are caught in the credit crunch.

It behooves those seeking a mortgage to go to an S&L or the smaller, more local banks mentioned in the article provided that you have the credit score and downpayment sufficient to meet their generally somewhat tighter requirements. They are the lenders who are currently writing the mortgages.

Kind of ironic that the S&Ls are the shining stars of the day considering what happend during the crisis of the 1980s, when many had to be bailed out by the government to stay in business. You and I are still paying for that debacle.

No one ever said capitalism is easy.

Will someone please help me 'follow the money' here?

Buyer wants a mortgage. Goes to Countrywide or similar. Countrywide does what? Creates a mortgage agreement? And then...

Simple 8th grade explanation please. How is this different from Buyer goes to Bank for mortgage? Bank gets money from...?

In the very simplest follow the money path...
Bank takes deposits. Bank must keep a certain percentage of those deposits as reserves (this requirement goes back many years in case depositors start a run on the bank - bank will have money to return to deposit). Of the amount left after reserves, bank lends money either as personal, commercial or mortgage loans. Borrowers pay back. New loans get made out of paid back proceeds, earnings, and new deposits and these loans are then paid back. The cycle continues.

Countrywide or similar borrows money, sometimes through it's bank subsidiary. The bank issues bonds, commercial paper, takes deposits...whatever. Takes that money and makes mortgage loans. Countrywide or similar then packages like mortgages, turns them into securities and sells the securities to the investing public. Takes the cash proceeds and makes new mortgages. The cycle continues.

There's really no difference between the two. Regulations differ due to bank vs. corporation but the overall process is basically the same.

Hope that helps.

Indeed, regulations do differ. The deposit banks are heavily regulated as a fallout from the infamous bank runs of the Great Depression. Compared to the deposit banks, the big morgage lenders like Countrywide are virtually unregulated.

If you check out what's happened to the big lenders' stocks in the last few weeks and compare them with the S&L and deposit bank stocks, I think you'll see that the investors, anyway, think there's a difference.

To answer Chisue's question, the borrower who goes to Countrywide or the like these days may ot may not get a mortgage commitment, but even if s/he does get that far, there's a real risk that the lender will not have the ability to fund the morgage at closing simply because it is unanble to access the credit sources it usually borrowers from. This has happened to many borrowers in the last month or so as one after another mortgage lenders have gone belly up.

In contrast, a borrower who goes to an S&L or local deposit bank and gets a mortgage commitment won't face that threat This class of lender has reserves to fund the mortgage. However, these lenders typcially have stricter borrowing standards. If a borrower can meet them, that's a much better place to apply for a mortgage these days.

As confirmation, my DH's institution is a federally chartered regional player. They are chugging right along still making jumbos albeit a bit higher rate (just because they can in today's environment). They have zero sub-prime slime. They have zero alt-A questionables. They have never packaged a sub-prime CDO traunch off onto anybody. They make residential agency & portfolio loans as well as business loans, credit cards, personal unsecured, auto/boat, etc. loans. Their underwriting for jumbos was not competitive with Countrywide...until a couple weeks ago. Now, momentum has turned to their favor plus they have no slime to work out of. DH tightened down underwriting 20 months ago in anticipation of the sub-prime's implosion.

They are a depository institution & maintain liquidity in excess of federal requirements. They are safe, sound, in control of their destiny, & there is no risk they won't fund a closing. Not surprisingly, their somewhat sluggish '07 pipeline is now expanding. He manages approximately $2.5B in the institution's residential real estate portfolio.

DH snickers at using the Discount Window. He is one person below the CEO & said he'd plan on being out of the office that day! There really is a stigma attached to using this source of funds. At the end of the day, they are consistently an overnight lender not a borrower. Banks much prefer to lend/borrower between themselves.

Small local commercial banks, regionals, credit unions, & S&Ls are great places to get a mortgage if you can meet their underwriting standards. DH's institution uses the 'Big 3' credit agencies' scores but also has a proprietary credit scoring system that adds a few more criteria.

They are not dependent on anything but their own deposits to fund business activities so all of this talk about the illiquidity of commercial paper has, fortunately, not been relevant to the headaches he's complaining about...they are rather because this is when financial institutions are doing their strategic planning & budgeting for 2008 & it's a nasty time given the best of market conditions! We are planning a November vacation & it can't come too soon...

/Tricia

Assuming you meet their credit standards, is it possible to receive a better interest rate from these smaller institutions?

I am a retired FDIC bank examiner. I did the "compliance side" checking loan documents to make sure the APR was correct and to make sure the Good Faith Estimate was within tolerances. Also checked deposit accounts and various other stuff. I retired 5 years ago.

At that time, in Georgia, most community banks made loans and sold them to investors. They did not carry their loans on the books. If it was a construction loan, it was converted to a long-term mortgage and sold. When I moved to FL, imagine my reaction when I found that many of the FL banks wouldn't make any kind of mortgage loan. The GA banks lived on the mortgage loan fees and the FL banks were not interested. Amazing!

In today's environment, I would start with a credit union, if you belong to one. At one time, we actually did do a mortgage loan from a CU, but I had to help them with the paperwork. Very inexperienced. Not so today. If no credit union, look in the phone book and avoid the big banks. The rates should be competitive. A good place to compare rates on mortgages, CD's, etc., is bankrate.com.

Money is still available. Historically it still is cheap. You just have to qualify for it. That part of the equation should NEVER have been waived.

In fact, the DH and I just closed on a HELOC at our local credit union yesterday. The rate floats at prime minus .50, which is quite competitive. The closing was quick, pleasant and competently handled.

My DD and SIL are buying their first house in Washington, DC through a local savings & loan. The mortgage's been approved and a closing date scheduled. This is a conforming 30-year, 20% down loan, with no points. The rate is 6.5%, again quite competitive.

From our rexperiences, I think borrowers would do well to follow Beachlily's advice.

Thank you all!

Beachlilly, I wonder if the Georgia banks were still interested in competing with brokerages like Countrywide, whereas perhaps five years later, the Florida banks had given up competing. (Perhaps regulations were tighter in Georgia?)

The current mess seems to come down to the lack of govenrmental regulation of the mortgage brokers like Countrywide, and the greed of financial entities to buy up their higher-yielding paper without questioning the quality of it.

Am I allowed some more questions? Pretty Please?

DH and I are retired. We are trying to be defensive in this market, which seems to me to be just starting its dive. We have 16% cash (in money market funds); 13% fixed income (municipal bonds & preferred securities); the rest is in six mutual funds:

1) Capital World Growth & Income

2) Evergreen Asset Allocation

3) Franklin Income

4) Mainstay Floating Rate

5) Nuveen Core Bond

6) Thornburg Limited Term US Gov.

Am I correct in beleiving the bond funds are 'safe'?

Would you move some cash (and/or funds) into Treasuries or CD's, and of what duration?

Sue, first. Immediately order a prospectus on each of your mutual funds. Numbers 1, 2 and possibly 4 could contain mortgage funds. The only way to know is to read. I would encourage everyone to read prospectus annually to find out what you are investing in and why management costs are where they are. I think on most investment companies you can download a summary and then look for the investment distribution of each fund.

Now, on to the other queston. The small banks can't compete with securities. Apples and oranges. They originate a limited number of mortgages but they don't hold investments for 30 years so they don't hold mortgages. They often sell them to independent investors or, in the case of some Georgia community banks, they sell them to the Georgia Community Banker's Association, who in turn will sell them to someone--mortgage brokers or Countrywide or someone else who collects blocks of mortgages with the intention of securitizing them. I will say that none of the community banks would extend sub-prime mortgages because they couldn't sell them.

I, too, am retired but oh momma, its tough being a financial analysist. Always analyzing something! Right now we have more CD's than ever. I've also put a chunk into T-Rowe's Prime Reserve and I'm transfering a fixed amount each month into a specific income fund. The investment will transfer monthly over a period of 3 years so that I take advantage of investment cost averaging (assuming a declining market). The problem with Treasuries is that they aren't yielding much--if you can beat them with CD's go for it. We are using 1 year duration but if you are comfortable with more or less, do it. It all depends on yield.

Sue, look at your Evergreen investment. For a long time First Union sold Evergreen investments that were utter trash. I don't know what you have. I'd recommend looking into T. Rowe and Fidelity because they are recognized as having among the lowest management costs in the business and good customer service. There is one more company that I'm not remembering but certainly these two are strong. Look for mutual funds that have management costs between 0.8 percent and 1.5 percent. Many times these costs go up because of frequent asset trading. Obviously, I invest conservatively because of retirement!

Any more questons????

Chisue, Check to see if the prospectuses are on-line. We use Fidelity and all of their are. I just checked your Nuveen fund (found that it's name changed on 8/1 to Nuveen Multi-Strategy Income Fund. All it's holdings are listed and 7 of the top 10 are mortgage backeds...I'm not saying that's bad...it would depend on the pools of mortgages behind the securities. The other 3 holdings are fixed income - US Treasuries. On the performance tab for the Nuveen fund, I'm seeing some not so great returns. I'd rethink that fund altogether.

Your Franklin Income Fund, by it's website, is 47% fixed income. If your other funds break down this way, you alot have more than 13% fixed income.

I'd really encourage you to get someone to do a composite picture of all your holdings, including their 1,3,5 year returns. Only then could you answer the question about changing your allocations. Digging into the funds makeup just the little that I've done is giving me a different picture than you mention about 16% cash and 13% fixed income.

In the bigger picture, I think US companies are generally in ok shape because the weak dollar is encouraging foreign companies to buy US goods. US companies are still having decent earnings. We're not reducing our stock holdings yet but we are not owners of anything housing related (except Lowe's). That's the one sector that I think still has some downside potential.

Are bond funds "safe"? If you mean that you are guaranteed preservation of capital with a bond fund, the answer is NO. The bonds in those funds go up and down in price/yield just like stocks. The safest, least risky investment are US Treasury bills and they are also the lowest earning because of the low risk; however, they go up and down in value, too.

Morningstar is the company most widely recognized for rating mutual funds and following their performance. Most of what you own should be listed on their website.

I'd really encourage you to have someone look at your overall picture before you make decisions.

I agree with Kec 100%. Talk to the people who are trained. The issue here is that everyone has a different risk factor--the "sleep" factor. If your investments keep you awake at night, they are too risky. If you have substantial investments, it would be wise to discuss these issues with an investment professional. If you have access to USAA, they provide licensed personal investment professionals free. T-Rowe and Fidelity have professionals, but they are careful about advising investment strategies. They are excellent about explaining the differences between investment vehicles.

I AM reading and contemplating, but have our 2-yr-old grandson here for the day, so will not be able to comment until later. (naptime?)

I realize I have left out two other funds:

7) Pimco All Asset

8) Templeton Global Bond

Another question: How are various funds within a "house" of funds (like Thornburg, for instance) separated? Could the XYZ Fund be liable for losses in the ABC Fund?

chisue wrote: "Am I correct in beleiving the bond funds are 'safe'? Would you move some cash (and/or funds) into Treasuries or CD's, and of what duration?

I think moving at least a portion of one's portfolio into treasuries isn't a bad idea.

Martin Weiss, Phd., publisher of the "Safe Money Report" has been warning readers about derivatives since 2004. I think the chickens are finally coming home to roost via the mortgage meltdown.

tricae and/or beachlily. Any comments about derivatives? Thanks.

A link that might be useful:

www.financialsense.com/editorials/weiss/2007/0813.html

Hi Sue!

First, Pimco and Templeton are excellent corporations, but they are not low cost providers. Templeton funds are sold at a premium. That means that cheapskates like us don't hold them!

Are bond funds safe? Well it depends on what the bond holds as investments. Let me give you an example. A number of years ago my husband was researching GNMA funds for his father's investment portfolio. He ordered five prospectuses for GNMA funds. One fund held 60% GNMA's but 40% could be invested in other "stuff". Another fund held 75% GNMA's and 25% other stuff. One fund held 90% GNMA's and 10% cash. All funds had the same name, but different funds, different risks. A true GNMA fund has only FHA mortgages backing it and those loans are effectively guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Although true GNMA's bonds are low risk, the way they are traded cause fluctuations in values and prices. You have have to read the prospectus and the annual reports to have a complete picture of your investment profile.

As you can probably tell, my husband and I direct our own investments, but we feel secure because of our backgrounds. I was trained as a financial analyzist by First Union (after I got my MBA). During the S&L failure my husband worked with the RTC and routinely sold bank holdings: GNMA and FREDDIEMAC participation certificates, junk bonds (really junky ones), and CMO's (collateralized mortgage obligations). He also unwound interest rate swap positions and other hedging instruments. Our table talk could make your eyes glaze over. It's interesting to us, though.

Your Templeton Global Bond fund ain't low risk. I don't think it is anyway. Depends on where the securities are located and how the securities in this funds are underwritten. Now that prospectus would be interesting reading!

Sue it appears that you are in a number of investments that you don't know in detail. Make your broker, or whoever else you purchase them from, do some work. Ask for the last 2-3 years of annual reports; ask for prospectuses. If this doesn't appeal to you, find a Certified Financial Planner (who doesn't sell securities) and who will help your put your financial house in order.

The LA Times has online personal investing courses that could possibly help if you have the interest. It comes highly recommended by Consumer Advocate Clark Howard (in Atlanta). I've provided a link to that service. Its free!

Good luck Sue!

Here is a link that might be useful: Look for investing 101 and 201

Thanks, beachlily -- and ALL! I'm thinking about the time I had a scan to help diagnose the sinus trouble. The MD who read the scan was from a foreign country; English was not his first language. Anyway, the report discussed the sinuses and went on to say that "the remaining brain" looked normal. (He meant that the portion of brain tissue shown at the edge of the scan was fine.)

I feel now as though my "remaining brain" is not up to the task of learning all this in the detail required!

We did employ a certified financial analyst seven years ago (with Mesirow) when we were selling portfolio to finance building a house. (Good timing; at least what we took out didn't suffer the losses of the dot-com mess.) After two years I couldn't justify his 1% fee since our holdings were so conservative and static. Now, however, I think we could use an independent eye on a fee for service basis -- a meeting or two.

I'd like to find someone independent of our current accountant, broker, etc. (Not familiar with the USAA mentioned above.) Short of looking in the Yellow Pages, how would you find someone? I'm in the far north suburbs of Chicago.

DERIVATIVES INDUSTRY LEAVING SOUR TASTE IN BUYERS' MOUTHS

By TERRY KEENAN
August 26, 2007 --

IT'S an export once loved round the globe - coveted for its efficient pricing, good value and perceived quality. But of late. buyers worldwide who have been freaked out about safety concerns have increasingly shunned these products.

Chinese toys? Tainted toothpaste? Poison pajamas?

No, the export in question is manufactured right here in Manhattan, no lead paint involved. Still, the backlash against Wall Street's cash cow export - the multitrillion-dollar, multi-fangled derivatives industry is mounting around the globe. And the outrage is not much different than that of a parent with a toxic Elmo doll.

With Congress on vacation, U.S. lawmakers have only tiptoed around questions surrounding how triple-A rated derivatives could have been packed with chunks of paper backed by subprime, or junky mortgages.

But in Europe, even the continent-wide August hiatus hasn't stopped calls for more regulation of U.S. derivatives.

In the French press, where the whole mortgage mess is dubbed l'affaire subprime, President Nicolas Sarkozy wasted no time in calling on the European Union and the G-7 to look into greater regulation of derivatives and the U.S. ratings agencies.

Indeed, EU representatives are now slated to meet with the ratings agencies later this month.

And no wonder. Experts estimate that European banks hold about one-sixth of all the subprime paper out there. How much the Asian banks were at risk was unclear, that is until Friday when markets across the Pacific were rocked by word that the Bank of China - that country's state-owned bank - was up to its ears with $11.5 billion in messy U.S. mortgages.

Sure, the ratings agencies and Wall Street banks have felt the heat before, especially in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom bankruptcies.

But this time the stakes are much higher. Not only did the ratings agencies work in tandem with big U.S. banks to structure many of these mortgage-backed securities, the derivative business represents a huge chunk of their profits.

To think that the European and the Chinese banks are going to keep on buying our derivatives without serious reforms is not only naive but foolhardy as well.

TERRY KEENAN is anchor of Cashin' In, an investing program that appears on Fox News Channel on Saturday mornings at 11:30. E-mail terry.keenan@foxnews.com.

USAA is familiar to anyone with a military background. Their service is second to none--very good company. However, most of their services are limited to members who have served in the military.

Otherwise, ask friends, look in the yellow pages for fee only CFP (Certified Financial Planners). Many of them advertise that they offer retirement plan advice, but I would avoid those that say "Full range of investments offered" (I just took that out of an ad in our yellow pages). You might ask your attorney--s/he may have a recommendation. There is a direct connection there between wills and financial plans.

Try the financial planning association. You can search for certified financial planners.

Here is a link that might be useful: FPA search

Chisue: You might want to read the first link before you visit the financial planner association link.

How to find a financial planner/Who can you trust?
www.efmoody.com/

"While many households will spend a great deal of time shopping for an automobile, the decision of who to trust with their wealth too is often made without as much thought.-Dr. James Mallett, Stetson University"

How Corrupt Is Wall Street?
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782001.htm

" It was never much of a secret that analysts who work at investment banks often work against investors. Sell ratings now make up less than 2% of analysts' recommendations, up from around 1% during the bull market, according to First Call. Analysts are under pressure from the companies they cover, as well as from big institutional clients who may own the stock, to give positive ratings."

How Analysts' Pay Packets Got So Fat
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_19/b3782005.htm

"Attorney Jacob J. Zamansky, who has already sued two investment banks on behalf of investors, says he has seen employment contracts for analysts that promised specific compensation related to the volume of investment banking deals they pulled in. Research departments once generated enough money to pay for their own bonuses. They earned it from investors willing to pay for objective info. Now that the advice is "free," investors are getting exactly what they pay for."

Banking on Fear
www.truthinjustice.org/bankonfear.htm

Federal banking regulatory agencies have been likened by critics to runaway freight trains--derailing any individuals or financial institutions in their path. But they say they are just doing their job. Who's right?

"The fdic faced even stronger criticism at a conference it sponsored in April 1998. Paul Horvitz, who from 1967-77 was the agency's director of research and later deputy to the chairman, blasted a gathering of top current and former leaders, lawyers and examiners with the fdic, the defunct Resolution Trust Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision by saying he had witnessed fraud by agency employees in pushing cases."

dreamgarden -- Just what I needed: More depressing news! So...who do YOU trust (beside yourself)?

Having worked in the FDIC as an exmainer for 9 years, I've seen so much laziness and lack of interest in doing the work that I believe Mr. Horvitz. It takes an extra effort to document criticism of a bank and many examiners just didn't get it. Oh, well, that's why I got the reputation of being bi*****. I got along with most of the bankers and really thought I was protecting consumers. But when a huge North Carolina bank had their senator standup for them, the FDIC caved and dropped a discrimination/fair lending suit against the bank. I never took the fair lending portion of my exam as seriously after that. I didn't trust upper management to do anything.

Sue, you ask who do you trust? We only trust ourselves to make financial decisions that involve our own money. Period. As I've said before, we do the research, we analyze, we act. I update our financial statement each quarter so that we can easily evaluate results from our investments. If someone else were to make money by investing my money, I wouldn't trust them to be candid. I won't lie--we are too conservative according to most financial planners, but that's our business, not theirs.

Its not rocket science, but it ain't easy either, even though we are well versed in investments. That's why I recommend that interested people take the online financial courses offered by the LA Times.

One more thing ... I forgot.

Here is a website for fee only financial planners: www.napfa.org

Update: I messaged our broker, asking if he was authorized to prescribe Ambien.LOL

The three mutual funds he suggested selling are the same y'all suggested. We dumped #1, #2 and #4 (see above). We'll put proceeds in our money market fund until investing in various CDs. I want to be sure each has full FIDC coverage, and may stagger the maturities.

Yields on CDs seem to be around 5% now. Would you go out farther than 12-18 mos.? I don't see this mess getting sorted before that.

I appreciate all the nice hand-holding here! Thank you all very much.

chisue wrote: "dreamgarden -- Just what I needed: More depressing news! So...who do YOU trust (beside yourself)?"

I trust lots of people, my family, close friends, some neighbors. However, when it comes to financial matters DH and I feel the same way beachlily does, "We only trust ourselves to make financial decisions that involve our own money. Period."

It's what you don't know, that can hurt you. If you are interested in advice about how to pick a planner, you might want to pick up a copy of the following book at your local library or bookstore:

Brokerage Fraud-What Wall Street Doesn't Want You to Know
Tracy Pride Stoneman & Douglas J. Schulz

The authors of the book talk about the most common abuses in brokerage accounts and how to spot them, tricks and defenses investment firms use to immobilize investors who have been wronged, unique conflicts of interest that occur with both online and traditional firms as well as how to evaluate your current broker to determine if you need to make a change.

I highly recommended it for anyone who is considering using a broker or financial planner.

You might also want to ask your broker about the tax differences between CD's and Treasuries.

dreamgarden -- I was looking at the rush to Treasuries (and subsequent decline of yields). Also, one of our remaining mutual funds is Thornburg Limiter Term Government Funds.

Did you mean to look at the CD yields by deducting the percentage of our tax bracket, or something else?

chisue wrote: "Did you mean to look at the CD yields by deducting the percentage of our tax bracket, or something else?"

I'm not a financial planner (and wouldn't want to steer you in the wrong direction) so I would suggest asking your broker or CPA this question.

Martin Weiss (Weiss ratings) talked about treasuries in April 06'. Here is what he had to say.

"I can put my keep-safe money in 3-month Treasury bills or in a Treasury-only money market fund. The advantages are many:

Advantage #1. Safety. As long as I wait the 13 weeks until my T-bills mature, the Treasury Department guarantees zero risk of loss. And even in the very rare event that I sell them on the secondary market at a loss, the loss would be so tiny I'd need a microscope to see it.

Is the U.S. Treasury really a good credit risk? Some people are so concerned about the government's bulging debts and run-away deficits they're beginning to wonder, and I don't blame them. But it's still the highest rated borrower on the planet. So until someone offers me a better alternative, that's where my keep-safe money is staying.

Advantage #2. Rising yield. A couple of years ago, the yield on short-term Treasury bills was hovering so close to the zero line it felt like I was paying the government for the privilege of loaning it my money.

Plus, at that time, there was a big gap between the ultra-low yield on 3-month T-bills and the still-decent yield on 30-year Treasury bonds. But now T-bills yields have mostly caught up, and the gap has narrowed tremendously.

Every time the Fed hikes interest rates by a quarter point, the yield on my T-bills promptly rises by about a quarter point. And every time Wall Street trumpets no more rate hikes coming, the Fed sends not-so-subtle hints that it's going to raise them some more.

That's what happened after the last Fed meeting. And from everything I can see, that's what's going to continue happening after the next Fed meetings for as far as the eye can see. Good. My T-bill yield, although still not high enough to give me any thrills, just keeps moving up and up.

Advantage #3. Liquidity. With a Treasury-only money fund, I can get my money out so quickly it's like having the cold cash in my night table when I wake up every morning.

I can write checks on the fund to immediately pay my bills. Or I can call the fund and have them wire the money to my local bank within 24 hours.

Advantage #4. One Account. Some people have bank accounts coming out of their ears. They've got checking accounts, savings accounts, money market accounts and various CDs under the $100,000 FDIC limit. I don't. Except for a local checking account I use for small monthly bills, I have just one single, multi-purpose Treasury-only money market account that does it all.

It's not FDIC insured. But that doesn't bother me because the U.S. Treasury Department guarantees all the securities that the fund buys on my behalf.

Advantage #5. Exempt from local income taxes. On the surface, the yields on CDs and Treasuries are similar. But there's a significant difference: The Treasuries and Treasury-only money funds are exempt from local and state income taxes. Bank CDs and money funds invested in CDs are not.

This isn't an issue for us now because we live in Florida, and Florida has no state income taxes. But it certainly would have made a difference when we lived in New York. Ditto for states like California or Massachussets.

Advantage #6. Inflation protection. People ask: Suppose inflation surges or the dollar falls in value? What good are your dollar-denominated Treasury bills going to do you then?

Answer: I get most of my protection from the rising yield: The higher inflation goes, the better my yield is going to get.

Will the higher yield always be enough to cover the loss in the dollar's purchasing power? Probably not. But in any case, I can get the rest of my protection elsewhere."

This story is archived at www.moneyandmarkets.com/press.asp?cat_id=25

"The Big Picture" by Martin Weiss-April 17, 2006

He offers a free newsletter as well as other services.

A link that might be useful:
SafeMoney.com