Posts by Daniel Perez13

Michelle James10 said:Alright, so let me ask you this—is it actually possible for me to just claw back my principal investment without touching any of the returns? That’s what my broker was telling me, though she did drop a hint that there might be some profit involved here, even if it’s pretty negligible.
Or am I really stuck with no other choice but to just pull the plug and look into an early surrender of the policy?

It's basically the same thing I said earlier. It seems unlikely you'll get all your money back after 6 years if the original contract was set for 30.
You can shorten the term, but in these situations, it's pretty much the same as surrendering the policy. Different companies have different rules about when you need to give notice to reduce the term, but usually, there isn't much difference between that and a full surrender. Just a rough guess, but if you surrender after 6 years, you can probably expect to see around 60-70% of your premiums back.

Michelle James10 said:So, just to clarify—does this "insured sum" refer to the initial contribution, everything the policyholder has paid in up to that point, or the final maturity value? And if this sum is paid to the bank in the event of death or illness, what happens if the coverage amount exceeds the remaining balance of the mortgage? Does the bank simply take what they are owed and leave the rest?

I’m also a bit tripped up by this idea that you can’t touch the cash until the term expires—which, in my situation, isn't for another 25 years. I currently hold a similar policy through Mercury tied to a general-purpose loan at JPMorgan Chase. My agent over at Mercury explicitly told me that after five years, I could give notice to terminate the policy and withdraw the funds (the premiums paid plus a tiny bit of interest) after one additional year. She was incredibly insistent on this point, so now I’m sitting here wondering if I was sold a complete lie.

If you signed up for a 30-year term, it'll be tough to get your cash plus any profit after only 6 years. By choosing a 30-year plan, you basically had massive coverage for a tiny premium during those first five years. Imagine paying $1,000 a year for a 10-year deal—your coverage after 6 years would be around $10,000. But if you pay that same $1,000 for a 30-year deal, your coverage after 6 years would be closer to $30,000. That's triple the protection. If something happens in those first 6 years, the insurer is on the hook for a much larger payout because you chose a longer term.
That’s why, even if you have a 30-year contract, you might be able to surrender it after 6 years, but you won't get your money back plus profit because the actuaries have to account for the risk they took over those 6 years.
I guess you could always just call Mercury and ask them for a surrender value calculation. It doesn't force you to actually cancel anything.

ironsurfer8 said:It feels like this thread is ancient history, but then again, some things never change...

I recently sat down for a consultation at Bank of America. I ended up picking up a life insurance policy through them simply because it was already part of my plan—so I figured, why not just handle it there? (Though, naturally, the actual provider was Allianz)
The problem was, once that was done, I couldn't get that woman to stop calling me for ages...

Now, a friend has been nudging me to check out BlackRock (she’s actually trying to land a job there). It was that classic American approach: heavy on the slide decks, endless graphs, and spreadsheets filled with calculations that conveniently omit which specific fund or insurer is actually behind the product. A few pieces of info were actually helpful since I haven't been keeping up with the latest market shifts, but I also found myself getting frustrated. She spent so much time lecturing me on concepts I already understood, acting as if she needed to explain the basics to me, and I ended up wasting far more time than I intended listening to her.

So, here is my question:
Does anyone here have experience dealing with BlackRock? If so, what was it like? 😁
And if I do decide to sign something with them, how persistent are they once you've already closed the deal?

I guess they should be consistent, since they represent financial institutions. What really matters is whether the actual firms behind the products you buy through Wells Fargo or Charles Schwab are reliable. They're just intermediaries; if they disappear, your assets stay with the underlying institution.
If you want actual advice and someone to actually watch your back, you're going to have to pay for it.
Free stuff is usually worth exactly nothing. Basically, the advice isn't worth a dime, but the sales pitch is—because that's how they make their money. Since you need certain products anyway, why wouldn't you buy them there? You just have to realize this is sales, not consulting, because you haven't paid for any real advice.

casualtrucker7 said:I mean, the second pillar is actually worse—you’re stuck saving until you hit 65 if you're a man or 60 if you're a woman before you even see a cent of that pension, and you don't get those 30% boosts like you do in the third pillar. That’s why they call it a pension; otherwise, most people would probably just blow through all that cash during a recession.

The whole second pillar situation seems pretty questionable to me. In America, only about 10% of people actually reach full retirement age. If you want to access your capitalized funds from the second pillar, the law basically requires you to hit full retirement age first. If you opt for early retirement or disability, the money from that second pillar gets rolled back into the federal budget, leaving you with only the first pillar—that generational solidarity fund, which is really just the government's pocket today. So, based on the stats, does that mean only 10% of people will ever actually see their second pillar funds as a separate payout?

Timothy Anderson18 said:I don't quite understand why there is this constant emphasis on the negative aspects of the third pillar, specifically the idea that you can't access your money immediately... just as a little reminder, we are talking about a "retirement" fund here... which means you are saving so that, in addition to a meager first and second tier pension, you might receive something extra every month during your later years...
That being said, there is also the option where, besides the initial 30%, you could receive the remainder within five years... which seems perfectly fine to me.

However... one thing I am wondering is whether it would be possible, say, at age 49, to cancel everything, pay the 5% exit fee, and just collect the rest of the balance right away? Or am I perhaps mistaken about how that works...

Best,

You can't just withdraw your entire 401(k) balance by paying an exit fee; you're stuck waiting until you're 50. So, if you're 30 and save for 10 years, you might want that money at 40, but that isn't an option. That cash is locked up until you hit 50, and even then, you can only pull out 30% in cash.

Ashley Phillips98 said:Look, guys—honestly, anything you see being blasted in big advertisements isn't going to make you much money (in fact, you'll probably just be lagging behind everyone else). Real, actionable intel always moves through quiet channels. For instance, someone knew the West Gate development was happening near Newark—they kept their mouth shut, bought up the land beforehand, and didn't advertise a single thing about it.
(I'm just using that as a bit of an exaggerated example—there are thousands of cases like it)

You won't find that kind of inside track from places like State Farm or JP Morgan Chase. They aren't going to say, "Hey there, lovely people, come grab a loan at a 6% interest rate, buy some land, and wait a few years for West to arrive or for a Formula 1 owner to build a racetrack nearby."

It’s always been this way; a small group of insiders holds all the privileged information. In the US, if you could actually prove you used inside info like that (which wouldn't be hard, since nobody is stupid enough not to see I just took out a loan to buy worthless dirt only to flip it for a massive profit in five years), you'd go to prison and they'd seize everything you made from it.

casualtrucker7 said:Maybe casualtrucker7 gets it, but maybe pomoć1 doesn't quite grasp that using a deduction now means getting a refund now and paying later—tomorrow or the day after. Basically, the government lets you skip the deduction if you decide it's not worth it.

To me, getting a tax refund of $X twenty years from now just means paying that same $X back later (minus interest), whereas as an entrepreneur, I could have invested that money and turned it into ($X + N) by then. You didn't mention that—though you probably could have—but I think we both get what I mean.

The same logic applies to fertility treatment refunds; you could honestly call that interest-free financing.
Even if we aren't actively chasing a refund, we might end up paying it back anyway. It mostly depends on how much income we're making when the payout happens, so it’s possible we could end up stuck with a 45% tax rate.

driftingviper12 said:MOD is handling the payouts, and that transfer from column III directly into MOD—which we should basically view as two branches of the same parent company—is going to cost you 5% of whatever total amount you have sitting in your savings account!!!!!

I guess there isn't actually any contract that defines a transaction fee between the DMF and the MOD, nor was it specified when the DMF agreement was signed. I don't know where you're getting that number, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything real. Besides, the actual fee charged as an entry cost to the MOD isn't the only issue; there’s no guarantee regarding interest rates on those funds, and since you're committing to receiving 70% of the money as rental income, that might actually be where the biggest loss happens.
Maybe the idea of them being two companies under one owner is debatable, too, since every legal entity is its own thing and ownership structures can vary.
For instance, Raiffeisen Bank and Raiffeisen don't have identical ownership, and there's no reason they should.

Lisa Grant6 said:This is absolute perfection. I’m expected to pay for them moving money from one pocket to another. Paying a fee just to access my own cash. Brilliant.
For the most part, I actually agree with what help1 is saying.
My only question is regarding the tax implications upon withdrawal, considering we use the DMF as a tax deduction while saving.
Are we essentially back at "zero"—meaning whatever we deduct now as a benefit will just be clawed back as income tax when we withdraw?

I guess you already answered your own question. As casualtrucker7 pointed out, a withdrawal counts as income. If I get a tax break today but it becomes taxable income tomorrow, then yeah, I'll probably be paying tax on that income down the road.

Andrew Gomez8 said:I guess I put way too much faith in Charles Schwab and have been saving with them for 7 years now, spread across two accounts... to this day, I haven't even hit the max, maybe around $5,500 total across both.

My place was supposed to be ready by January 1st, 2009, but... predictably, it was late.
Trying to stay ahead of things, I started gathering paperwork on January 17th, 2009. I managed to get everything except the Title Deed, which kept getting delayed—tomorrow, the day after—and so on, all the way until September 15th, 2009.

I moved into the apartment in mid-June 2009, even though the whole house wasn't actually finished. I had already sold my old place on February 15th, a deal I made before the New Year (because I’m a man of my word, or rather, a fool).

So, I’m living in the apartment, waiting for that day, September 15th, 2009, to hand over the Title Deed to Charles Schwab. I finally turn it in, but it contains that infamous sentence: "Pursuant to Section 187 of the Land Registry Act, all entries in the land registry are not considered true or complete until the period for corrective proceedings has expired."
That’s just a standard disclaimer added by the District Court—basically the government—because they're busy updating the books and all that... so...
Charles Schwab's legal department rejects the Title Deed because of that specific sentence. I go to the District Court to get a document proving it’s standard procedure since they are currently reconciling the records... I send that over to Charles Schwab...

An email from Charles Schwab dated October 15th, 2009.

Dear Mr. xxxx,

I would like to inform you that the Credit Committee will re-examine your request at its next meeting scheduled for next week, taking into account the new documents you provided. I expect to have the Credit Committee's position by the middle of next week, at which point I will notify you via email.

Sincerely,

Charles Schwab Savings
Margareta Maričić Mišić
Account Manager

And they reject it anyway... here is the email from October 20th, 2009....

Dear Mr. xxxxx,

At today's meeting, the Credit Committee re-evaluated the possibility of recording a lien on the property, given that the land registry for this property is currently undergoing corrective proceedings. Regrettably, I must inform you that the Credit Committee's position is that the Savings Bank cannot accept the subject property as collateral until these proceedings are finalized.

If you are able to provide an alternative property as collateral, we can waive the costs associated with changing the insurance instruments and drafting a Contract Amendment ($250) when we eventually record the lien on your property and release the mortgage from the substitute property.

If this proposal is not acceptable to you and you decide to terminate your housing savings agreement, you may sign the Request at our branch in Chicago.

We remain at your disposal for any further questions or clarifications!

Sincerely,

Charles Schwab Savings
Margareta Maričić Mišić
Account Manager

I went to go inspect the terms at ZABA for their housing program... it's 12 years, though it could be 15. Fixed interest is around 6%, but the down payment is 30% of the loan amount (whereas Charles Schwab was 15%). So, on a $60,000 loan, instead of $6,000, I’d need a $18,000 deposit.

To try and complicate things, I suggested to my seller that since he's late with the paperwork and causing all this trouble, he should drop the price by $10,000. He's late, his garage isn't even done, it's a mess... but he just replied, "I won't comment on that."

Now I'm in a real bind. I could move out, but I've already put down $25,000 in deposits, so the question is when I'll ever see that money. The seller is also in a bind, and even if I pay him what he wants, who knows when he'll finish the garage or address my complaints!

I also heard from that same seller that Charles Schwab hasn't been issuing loans for months now. I asked the lady at Charles Schwab about it, and she just said, "No, that's not true, who told you that?"

What do you suggest? An alternative property that doesn't have that famous disclaimer, or moving to ZABA? ... I need a maximum of $60,000, maybe less.

Thanks for the advice. 🙏

Since your seller didn't keep their word, it’s probably no surprise this guy is talking nonsense about Vienna.
As for ZABA, who’s to say they won't demand a different property? If some salesperson told you otherwise, I wouldn't take their word for it—they'll just end up saying the Credit Committee rejected it.
Usually, the committee is right; they can't approve a property unless everything is perfectly clear, and they aren't allowed to. You have to remember that the money they lend you actually belongs to other savers. If they aren't careful about lending conditions, they risk hurting other depositors, which is why the Federal Reserve keeps such a tight leash on them since they aren't a standard commercial bank. If they issued a loan without a clean mortgage and Title Deed situation, the Fed could flag those as problematic loans.
A Savings Bank has to act as a responsible steward because that money belongs to everyone else. Similarly, they took your savings to lend to someone else, so they have to be certain that the loan will be repaid with solid collateral, which protects all the savers. In a Savings Bank, the pool for new loans comes from current depositors and repayments, rather than the institution borrowing at 3% to lend at 6% like a regular bank might.
I hope that helps explain why they have to be so cautious, especially with the Fed watching them closely since DAB guarantees roles up to $133 and DPS is involved too.
If you have an alternative property, that’s probably your best bet. But personally, I’d look into getting a lawyer to deal with the seller. You likely weren't aware that the paperwork was being sorted out or that the title couldn't be recorded yet, and if anything pops up—which it always does—it won't be accepted. It sounds like the seller might have misled you.

casualtrucker7 said:We’re heading down the same path through the woods—but let's look at both sides of things. I’ll push the optimistic view, you can stick to your more skeptical take, and I guess we'll eventually meet up, if not sooner, then at the end of the road.

Who’s guaranteeing it? Nobody—just like nobody can give you a hard guarantee on returns with any other fund out there. I guess that's just how it works.
There are no guarantees in life—not even that we’ll still be around tomorrow—so I guess we just keep hoping for the next day.

But you’ve got those perks and benefits—let me list a few of them—there are about ten:
Conservative investing offers a few perks—gives you that sense of security, I guess. Then there’s the oversight from Hanfe ensuring everything stays strictly by the book—and don't forget those 25% government incentives. Plus, you get insurance on your savings up to... $133 Fourth—your heirs actually inherit the funds in the account. Fifth—you can't have your account seized in the third tier if you owe money to, say, big banks like JPMorgan Chase. Sixth—you’re entitled to pension payouts even if you aren't currently employed. Seventh—there's no requirement to make regular deposits while you're in the saving phase. Eighth—you can start those lifetime pension payouts early—maybe as young as 50. Ninth—you get to take advantage of tax breaks up to $12,000 annually. Tenth...

Go ahead—compare that kind of savings to investing in any mutual fund and then come back to me asking about guarantees. I guess we can go down that road if you really want to.

I guess we aren't actually on the same page, even if it looks that way sometimes. What I was trying to get across more aggressively is that you can't really look at any single financial product in a vacuum; it only makes sense when you view it within the context of an entire life plan.
Regarding the DMF benefits, I think some things are actually the exact opposite, but that's just my take. First off, money put into a DMF isn't covered by the FDIC at all since it's a fund. The FDIC only covers savings accounts at banks.
Look, any savings you have can basically act as your own private pension. I don't see what being employed has to do with it—that sounds like typical sales fluff used to bait people. It’s nonsense. I mean, I can draw from my own money as an annuity regardless of whether I have a job or not. Obviously.
I guess saying you can access a life annuity at age 50 is just complete nonsense. I could probably negotiate a life annuity with any insurance company when I'm 30, provided I actually have the capital to back it up—which, let's face it, requires having savings ready to go. But if I end up on disability retirement at 45—something that happens to maybe 10% of the population—I’d still be stuck waiting five years just to see a single cent. As for the other 70% of that money, who even knows under what conditions they'd actually pay it out?

Let's recap this. When we put money into a DMF, the management company isn't actually the one paying out the funds once we hit retirement age—they aren't even set up for that. Instead, the total accumulated amount, or basically my own savings, gets transferred into a MOD, which is responsible for handling pension payouts from the DMF. Since 70% of that represents the vast majority of my life savings, I'd be forced to follow whatever rules the MOD decides to impose on me. That seems like a disaster, honestly. If the MOD suddenly claims they have massive administrative overhead and tells me they need to take 50% of my money just to cover those costs, I'm pretty much stuck.
If I had gone with an annuity, I guess I’d be the one deciding what to do with 100% of the cash when it comes time to collect. It's my money—unless, of course, I don't actually have control over it, in which case it clearly isn't mine. I could opt for the lifetime payout, but if I'm unhappy with the interest rates on the remaining balance, I'd probably just withdraw everything and move it somewhere with better terms.
The MOD basically doesn't even exist in America yet. Even though Raiffeisen already registered them, they aren't formally doing anything. I guess nobody actually knows what the overhead will be for an institution whose sole job is just paying out accumulated money in the DMF. We might be in for a shock, and I don't think we'll have much of a choice in the matter.
Why would anyone spend years saving up their hard-earned cash, only to miss out on the whole point of compound interest right when they actually need to use it? I guess you’re basically guaranteed to lose money that way. To me, it means I have to plan not just for how much I'll save over the next 20 years, but what kind of moves I can actually make once I get there. You want to be in a position where you finally have the capital to take advantage of the fact that everyone else is short on cash and needs yours.

casualtrucker7 said:Everything seems fine, I guess, but when the government is cutting you a 25% annual tax incentive, it honestly makes sense to save through this kind of third-pillar setup. My logic—and maybe I’m overthinking this—is that if you trigger your retirement at 50 while you're still actually capable of doing things and opt for life-long payouts: say you start at 40 and set aside $133 monthly, then draw $133 in monthly benefits for the rest of your life (check out the projection tables over at ), well, I'd love for someone to tell me why that wouldn't be worth it. With a bit of luck and a long life—say reaching 85 or 90—you could come out ahead three or four times over.

We’re clearly looking at this from totally different angles. I mean, who actually guarantees anything in these contracts? I'll say it again: who is guaranteeing any specific payout? All we know for sure is that you can't even touch 70% of the cash, and all those other projections are just "what-if" scenarios!
CAPISH... it's a contract where I have no clue what I'm actually getting, yet I spend years saving my own money. Then, at the end, someone might just tell me my lifetime annuity is going to be $17, and by then, I'll be too old to start saving again.

casualtrucker7 said:Everything you said holds up, but since we’re weighing the pros and cons of this kind of saving, we should probably mention the whole point of the third pillar. It’s designed to work alongside the first two to build a solid retirement foundation. This model has been working globally for decades—it's basically your own private reserve for when you're no longer earning a paycheck. The idea isn't to dip into it at 50, but rather to wait until you're 60 or 65, and instead of pulling it out over five years, you take it as a lifelong payout. That’s where it actually makes sense.

One more thing—that third-pillar income is treated just like any other non-independent income, like a regular salary. It can even serve as collateral for loans, which gives people who might otherwise struggle—like those between jobs or stay-at-home parents—a much better shot at accessing standard banking products.

I think there was a misunderstanding. Charles Ramos7 made a good point that having rental savings later on is better, but you need the cash to make that happen. That's exactly my issue: after putting away money for years, I now have no idea what the payout terms will actually be, yet I'm forced to take 70% of it as an annuity.
I guess who would ever sign a contract today agreeing to save a huge sum of money only to find out later they might not even get their principal back because nobody wants to guarantee anything? And on top of that, the contract forces you to use the money exactly how they dictate instead of how you actually want.

This specific setup for the second and third pillars doesn't really exist in the developed world; it's more like a pilot project. You only see models like this in transition economies, and we basically just copied some South American model and debated whether it was better than the ones used in Eastern Europe. No country in the Western EU uses a system like this.
I'm not saying these terms aren't acceptable for everyone, but maybe we should look at alternatives and consider what each product allows us to do long-term. The choices we make today carry consequences, and those consequences eventually force our hand on future options.

casualtrucker7 said:Taking it easy regarding the third pillar—here’s a look at last year's returns for all the funds (via HR Portfolio):

Charles Schwab — 8.70
Stock market index fluctuations—Profit 11.89%
Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund performance data—4.30.
Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund performance data—looks like it hit 14.72.
Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund performance data—looks like 8.19.
Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund performance data—looks like it hit 5.45. I guess that's where we're at.

If you factor in that 25% tax credit for this kind of savings—aside from the 2008 crash when everything was tanking—it’s probably one of the best ways to save. The only real catch is that you can't touch the money until you hit 50, and even then, you only get 30% in cash—the rest stays locked away for retirement. I guess if you've already got a 401(k) set up, you made the right call.

I don't really agree that these funds are the absolute best way to save, mostly because "good" is subjective. What works for one person might not work for another depending on their specific goals and how much time they have left. There are a lot of variables, but here are the big ones.
The issue with the DFM is that you're locked in until you hit 50. But even after that, you can't take more than 30% in cash. This is the crucial part: you have to take the remaining 70% in installments over at least five years. Basically, you spend years accumulating a massive pile of money, only to have the Social Security Administration pay it out to you in dribs and drabs. The terms for those payouts are terrible, which makes sense since you have no choice. You should check what kind of interest they actually offer on that huge accumulated sum—say $50,000—that they "hold" for you. It's probably next to nothing, but look for yourself. They won't even guarantee you 1% on such a large amount, yet you signed a contract agreeing to let them pay out 70% of your savings over several years. To me, it's a poorly designed contract. It doesn't allow you to, say, put that $50,000 in a high-yield bank account to earn 5-6% interest or just move the whole lump sum elsewhere if the bank's rates suck. Instead, you've signed away control over 70% of your hard-earned money, and they aren't even willing to guarantee an interest rate on the balance once it moves from the fund to the Social Security administration for your private pension. Could they end up paying 0% interest on your final capital in the future? Maybe.

On the other hand, looking at annual returns for these funds is pretty misleading. Since we're talking about share values, if a fund drops 50% one year, it needs to grow by 100% the next just to break even, not 100% in profit. Take the biggest player, Raiffeisen; they had an 8.7% return this year, but they were down 12.23% over the last two years. That means someone who's been in for three years still has a long way to go just to get back to zero.

Thirdly, if the Democratic Party ever gets dismantled due to changes requested by the EU, this entire setup becomes a disaster because you wouldn't be able to pull your investment out and move it somewhere better.

Pay close attention to that 70% chunk of money. It's a huge amount that you can't walk away with; you have to use it under conditions that are currently unknown.

Before buying any financial product, you really need to dig into the fine print and see how it fits your current and future goals within your overall financial plan. When you do that, things often look a lot different.

Dana Stewart3 said:I might have misunderstood my aunt, but from what she told me, I’ll be paying into this Cosmopolitan Life plan until I retire. Once I hit retirement age, I can either take out a lump sum or just have them send me monthly payments like a little pension. Apparently, if I don't touch the insured amount, it stays put and goes straight to my heirs.
I'll be the first to admit, I am absolutely clueless when it comes to this finance stuff.😢

Like Nicholas Turner pointed out, an annuity—which is basically what you're describing—is meant to last for the rest of your life, just like the name implies. I'd personally stick to standard life insurance because, as the name suggests, you can actually get value from it while you're still alive.
Buying out an annuity right when you retire is usually a disaster; it’s incredibly expensive and barely worth it, though I suppose it's possible. You should probably think long and hard about what you actually want and check with a few different sources.
One quick tip: always ask a financial agent for what is guaranteed, not just what they say is "possible," because those guys tend to exaggerate big time.
For example, if you retire at 55—which is roughly the average retirement age here in the US—how much is the actual guaranteed amount you could get from your Cosmopolitan Life payments? If you look at how much you've actually put in by then, you might be pretty surprised.

Ronald Allen said:What kind of commission are you even talking about...?
If someone actually started paying your salary in cash, it would probably just mess up your relationship with the bank even more, because we all know what happens when you stop having regular deposits hitting your checking account.
It's not like banks are forcing people into overdrafts; people just choose to screw up their own finances, and the banks just sit there rubbing their hands together—it's a little bit of sweet satisfaction for them. It’s not that the banks bought us, it’s that we sold ourselves.

Chris Stewart3, man, this isn't Looney Tunes, so don't start trolling here too.

Seriously, give me a break... 🙂

I don't get why you're getting so worked up. The idea of paying wages in cash envelopes instead of through banks is probably just a way to pressure banks into actually considering their impact on society and the economy.
It's a radical suggestion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a union eventually brought it up, mostly because banks aren't listening to anything right now.
I won't go into detail about why it's in the bank's interest to handle the payments, but they'd likely cave on several issues if they were actually threatened by an option like this.

Gerald Thomas11 said:Just take out a loan through Hypo.
Hit up Walmart. Make sure you hold that savings steady for at least five years, then pull your cash out and dump it into an index fund.
In about ten years, grab the money from the fund and pay off the mortgage in one shot.

Bridge financing is a total scam.

I really hope you're just playing advisor on a forum. Because honestly, anyone actually listening to you would be in trouble. Most would lose everything, and even those who might actually make a buck are taking a massive gamble.
Your advice is incredibly risky, even for people with nothing to lose.
First, taking out a variable-rate loan is way more dangerous than locking in a fixed rate. Then, after taking that risk for potentially lower interest, you're doubling down by throwing money into funds. The odds of this working perfectly seem slim to me, even if it sounds good on paper. What's the backup plan for when things go south? We're seeing debates right now in the USA about how to handle mutual funds, mostly because of the moral hazard involved.

Brenda Rogers41 said:That’s exactly why I phrased the title the way I did. It’s the core of the issue. Honestly, this is news to me too. The real headache with most banks around here is my current employer—my boss mentioned we have some pretty mediocre credit ratings, though I can't remember if it was a Tier 1 or Tier 2 issue. On top of that, there are only three of us officially on the payroll for this company. Then there’s the fact that a few years back, I co-signed an auto loan for a buddy—monthly payments were around $300, which eats directly into my debt-to-income ratio. They see all of that, along with everything else on my FICO score. These days, you can't get anything done without a rock-solid guarantor. At this point, you'd probably have better luck hitting the jackpot in Vegas than finding someone willing to co-sign for you. It's a grim reality. I've hit up just about every major player—Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo—I even tried Wells Fargo because a friend of mine has a car loan through them, but they shut me down immediately. Every single one of them gave me the same runaround. If you happen to have a bright idea, please, let me know. I'm completely tapped out...

It’s possible some people are offering loans from the USA, and if they are, they probably won't care about your local credit report as long as you have collateral. If you have an unencumbered property, that might be your way in. There are plenty of scammers and predatory lenders out there, but there are also legitimate people working through actual lawyers and notaries. Just be careful; if you don't have equity in a house, you probably aren't getting a loan anywhere.
Just make sure you don't fall for any predatory schemes or pay anyone upfront for things like life insurance or "processing fees." You should only ever pay costs once the loan actually clears.
Good luck!

Joseph Ramos11 said:I was in a car accident about three months ago, and the guy who hit me is actually a client of State Farm. I was supposed to have my claim settled by the 16th of this month, but every single time I call their office, it’s either someone is out on vacation or they just give me the runaround saying I'll be paid "next week"... I'm wondering if these thieves pull this same stalling tactic on everyone else, and how it's even possible for this to happen in what we call a "rule of law" country?

Maybe you should contact the National Association of Insurance Commissioners if you can't settle this dispute and ask them for advice.
Address:

National Association of Insurance Commissioners

Mr. Frank Lloyd Wright, Ombudsman

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, New York City

Tel. + 1 212 555 0199

Fax + 1 212 555 0188

E-mail ombudsman@naic.org

Sam Garcia10 said:Here is the reality—leftist parties just can't seem to win in major urban hubs like San Francisco, Charleston, San Diego, Indianapolis, Columbus, or Pittsburgh... those areas are essentially strongholds for the American right. Meanwhile, cities like Seattle and Washington, D.C. remain firmly under Democratic control.

One of the most prominent leftist politicians in America is also arguably the biggest populist in the country—and he frequently leans into chauvinism—Damir Kajin. Populism is defined by building a cult around "the people" while hunting for enemies to blame, which is exactly how Kajin operates. Between his rhetoric regarding "New York City" and his comments about how certain regions aren't quite like California, Sinji, or Canada—it borders on chauvinism.

And this is how the Democrats search for enemies too—by targeting "corrupt Republican strongholds," their "200 families," or their "fake defenders." Here is an excellent example of populist rhetoric. Their arguments against political rivals usually boil down to phrases like "200 families," "gerrymandered districts," "a stolen nation," "orchestrated wars," or "international isolation"—all empty slogans. They conveniently—whether by design or accident—ignore the corruption within the leftist parties themselves. Why is that?

I guess if you just look at the GDP per capita in conservative cities versus the Leftist ones, it’ll be pretty obvious who’s actually more advanced. If you add Savannah, Burlington, and Annapolis to the Leftist or center-left list, you’ll see they’re more than twice as developed. Or maybe I'm wrong.