Look, I’m not trying to defend any of them—none of them are innocent here. But this is just one way banks grease the wheels. Essentially, they all push life insurance (and other stuff like home or property coverage) onto people. They don't even bother asking if you actually want it, even though you have every right to say no. Most of the time, it isn't even mandatory. The bank gets a nice little kickback, the insurance company gets their premium, and you... well, you're left "covered." 😁
A coverage amount of $15,000 🤣 is what you get with this.
My mistake—it’s not a Mozart card, it's a high voltage Visa, a standard blue debit card, account number 32xxxxxxx, multi-currency. When I set up my CD last year, they told me 🤷 was mandatory. Unfortunately, it’s not like I’m dealing with enough money to make manual transfers between banks a hassle; I’m not exactly terrified of moving funds around. You work for your money, you carry it wherever you want. Honestly, an average condo in Washington, D.C. could probably fit right in the pocket of a winter jacket 😁 . I’m not saying I’ll go broke because of $17; it’s more about the principle of having a card I have absolutely no use for.
The savings account isn't actually tied to the CD, but Citigroup has this incredibly interesting policy—typical for banks operating here in the States—of being aggressive wherever they can. They’ll try to shove a multi-currency account card down your throat along with your CD, acting like you'll suddenly need a place to park your cash once the term expires. It wouldn't be such a headache if the account were free or at least cheap to maintain. Instead, these academics demand $20-$10 just to issue a Mozart card for the account (essentially just another useless piece of plastic in your wallet that you didn't want in the first place). Then, there's a monthly maintenance fee of about $1.50 for any month where a transaction occurs. To top it all off, they hit you with a $20-$10 closing fee. So, if you decide to open a CD with them,$17 they're guaranteed to collect that fixed amount plus those extra fees during the months you use the account, even if you have absolutely no use for it.
It was probably a "no-brainer" for them to design a CD that automatically renews, where the funds are simply paid out on the spot when a client decides to terminate it.
I think they only recently introduced auto-renewing CDs (yay, welcome to 2012!) but you still have to hold their specific account to get it. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing that they aren't trying to scam you with those fees, especially that $$10 charge for a chip card that you don't even need.
It would be fascinating to see just how much physical cash big banks like JPMorgan Chase actually keep on hand to cover all those savings accounts. I’m not suggesting everyone shows up at once—that's obviously not happening—but if you gave them a week to scramble and pull together enough liquid cash to pay out every single depositor, what would that look like? We also can't forget that savers have every right to pull their money whenever they want; sure, they might take a hit on interest or pay a small penalty for an early withdrawal, but the access is there. Meanwhile, loans are strictly tied to specific maturity dates..
rustywalker82 said:If we actually want to fix the root of this mess, we need massive, deep-seated reforms. Just patching things over with some reprogramming or talking about eventually scrapping the voucher system isn't going to cut it. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg; you aren't actually fixing the bone, you're just hiding the pain for a minute. We need to go much bigger if we want real change.
What’s the actual real-world value of 100k Swiss Francs going to be in 20 years? What about 30? I’m trying to wrap my head around what salaries look like right now versus what they'll actually buy us two or three decades down the road when you factor in all the price hikes. It’s pretty basic math, honestly. It only makes sense to stretch out your loan if you think the Swiss Franc is going to tank compared to what it is right now. You also have to look at whether real interest rates here in the States are going to be lower down the road than they are today. If both those things happen, you're winning.
Give me a break, rustywalker82, what are you even talking about? Where are you going to pay back less?😕 Do you actually realize what extending a loan by 10 years—from 20 to 30—really means? Don't make me sit here and calculate exactly how much extra interest you'll be bleeding at the end... On a $100,000 loan, over 20 years you'd pay back
Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR): 6.39% Monthly payment: $728 Total amount repaid: $174,724 Total interest paid: $74,724
30 years
Effective Annual Interest Rate (APR): 6.39% Monthly payment: $612 Total amount repaid: $220,489 Total interest paid: $120,489
So you save a full hundred bucks a month, but in the end, you're paying $50,000 more in interest. That's roughly 60 percent of the total cost. Compared to a 20-year loan, where interest accounts for about 40 percent.
Where is the benefit for debtors in that? Good grief... Sure, inflation will play its part, but we're talking about the Swiss Franc. If anyone is stable, it's that currency. It will certainly lose less value than others. We won't see a situation where you pay off a loan in three months because inflation hit triple digits.
And that new "problem" could easily lead to private owners of precious metals being targeted, with the state seizing them to "distribute" the benefits to everyone else (similar to how they currently claim nationalizing banks will "spread" profits to the masses).
Nonsense. 😬 I mean, it wouldn't go that far; that would involve nationalizing massive holdings, and we saw how poorly that went in our recent history.
We might as well just send the police to raid people's homes and seize whatever cash they have stashed under their mattresses. Why bother stopping at the banks? We could just go after the predatory lenders, too—and even kids, teaching them a lesson by emptying their piggy banks.
What on earth? There isn't really a connection there, unless you're implying that both situations amount to theft—but even then, that’s a bit of a stretch for a comparison.
It seems we’ve fallen back into that old habit where tearing someone else's idea apart is much easier than actually coming up with something of our own. It’s funny how the definition of theft changes depending on who is doing the stealing. When it involves direct handouts to the public or residents who have been grinding away to pay off massive loans and crushing interest rates, suddenly it's "generosity." But when a handful of greedy idiots jeopardize the liquidity of the largest banks in the US, forcing the government to bail them out using taxpayer money just to prevent a total collapse? That’s suddenly not considered theft.
Here is a little moral hazard for you, since you seem so hell-bent on chasing it. 😬 How do you prevent people in high-level banking positions from acting purely out of self-interest when they know the government will eventually bail them out if things go south? When there’s a guarantee that the state will step in to cover their tracks, rational decision-making takes a backseat to reckless gambling.
The currency clause needs to be scrapped for all existing loans. Banks aren't even interested in offering new loans tied to the Swiss Franc anymore, and honestly, you have to ask yourself why.
The solution is simple: abolish the currency clause entirely. Declare it unconstitutional and force a full refund of every cent overcharged to debtors. That’s it. Period.
I’m not so sure that’s going to happen, and honestly, the thought of things moving backward like that scares me. If they could at least manage to eliminate variable interest rates on new loans, that would be a massive win to start with. Theoretically, there might be a way to do it—keep the dollar stable against the Euro and then just pull an average from the last several years to set a middle-ground exchange rate for the Swiss Franc. But let’s be real: I don't see the Hub ever agreeing to that. And honestly, it's not like the government has much leverage to force their hand anyway.
It’s interesting how many people are quick to tear down someone else's methods while refusing to lift a finger themselves. It’s easy to spit on someone else's work; why don't you step up and present your own ideas? Sure, nationalizing banks isn't a realistic option right now. But let's look beyond our borders for a second—that's exactly what happened in the USA a few years back when some of the biggest banks buckled; taxpayers were the ones footing the bill for the bailout. Here, it would be the exact opposite: their profitable operations would just be "transferred" onto the taxpayers.😁 Look, I'm not saying this is the perfect solution, but something has to be done, and there are other ideas being floated here too. On this thread, we could really focus on the issue of the Franc.
A good starting point would be eliminating variable interest rates for new loans, forcing banks to tie the value of X to real economic indicators rather than leaving it to the whim of Bank management, and converting existing loans to a fixed rate based on actual exchange rates. If those things actually happened, it wouldn't cause any absolute losses for the banks; it would simply level the playing field between the lenders and the borrowers. You all seem to forget that behind these banks stands a massive army of lawyers and litigators, while your average Pero Perić just knows his monthly payment is $X and he needs to scrape together a few extra bucks from his pocket to cover the difference. That's pretty much the reality of it.
Whoa, easy there—don't let the moderators of this sub hear you 😲 . They might ban you from the forum, the internet, and then show up at your house to wrap it in yellow police tape like something out of a movie.
While I generally agree with your sentiment, 😍 just keep it down, okay? What you really need to consider is whether you truly grasp the weight of thirty years. For instance, I’m still figuring that out myself; I’ve got five years left to go, and in my lifetime, the entire economic landscape has been flipped upside down. We transitioned from the planned economy of America into a full-blown capitalist society. In that same span, we saw a nuclear meltdown happen right here in Europe, and we lived through a civil war where the front lines were barely 60 miles from the capital while the city itself was being shelled. There was a period where wages were practically nothing, followed by an era where every single family in the US felt pressured to buy real estate just because everyone they knew was doing it. Take my case: a married couple with two kids had a little bit of savings tucked away. Neither had a steady job, yet back in 2007, they were actually considering buying a vacation home on the coast just because it seemed like the "standard" thing to do. Fortunately for them, they didn't have enough saved, and their loan application was denied. Today, they are both unemployed.
The point is, the situation has shifted dramatically.
Try saving for a year. Set aside what would be your monthly mortgage payment (I can send you a link to a mortgage calculator so you can see what your projected payments would look like) and see how that goes for you.
Rachel Smith9 said:So, I see... it actually makes more sense to go with a mortgage on the property you're buying rather than a different kind of loan. I hadn't realized that. Thanks. And obviously, I know $30,000 is pocket change—you could barely scrape together enough for a parking spot in most cities with that amount. 😁 But what am I supposed to do when wages are stagnant? My paycheck is tight as it is, and my parents are already struggling just to make ends meet on their social security. I don't have any extra real estate to fall back on, so I figure if I can at least secure a small studio apartment now, who knows where things might lead down the road. 🤷 The part I’m struggling to wrap my head around, though, is how it's even feasible to put a mortgage on a home you haven't actually purchased yet because you lack the upfront capital. 😁 I assume this happens right at the moment the purchase agreement is signed... but doesn't that mean the seller has to be involved in the signing process for the loan as well? Man, that sounds complicated. 😁
Look, let's put it this way. Take a long, hard look at whether you can actually see yourself living in that tiny studio for the long haul. If you're thinking that won't be enough space for you eventually, don't beat yourself up—it's not your fault, that's just the reality of the market right now. Maybe consider saving for a bit first. Treat it like you're paying the monthly installment on a non-existent loan; put that money into a separate savings account and see if you can actually handle the lifestyle hit. On one hand, having your own place is great for independence. I don't know what your social plans are, but eventually, you'll likely reach a stage where you want to move in with a partner, or maybe your salary will jump, or real estate prices will shift. Whatever you buy now probably won't cut it later, and then you're stuck dealing with the headache of selling it just to upgrade to something bigger. The reality is you'll probably spend money furnishing that place, only to find yourself furnishing a completely different setup in a few years.
The only thing I don't get is how it’s even possible to put a mortgage on an apartment you're buying when you don't have the cash to buy it in the first place. 😁
Fiat money and massive bonuses for guys in suits. That's the short version.
To put it more simply, until just a few years ago, it was perfectly standard and logical in the US to take out multiple loans against a property you bought on credit—mortgages. Basically, you have nothing, you buy an apartment on credit, you live in it, and then as property values rise, you use that equity—the difference between the purchase price and current market value—to secure a second or third loan against that same property that wasn't even yours to begin with. 😁
So, compared to that, what we have here is a walk in the park.
As for how the mortgage actually works, the bank typically pays the funds directly into the seller's account—the person you're buying from. Then, a lien is recorded against the property title.
Yeah, you can definitely get a loan on that apartment; it doesn't matter if your parents are living there right now.
It’s highly likely they’d approve you for something around $30,000. It really comes down to the appraisal—an appraiser comes out, looks at the property, and gives their professional estimate.
Honestly, $30,000 is barely enough for even a studio apartment. If it covers anything, you might have to stretch that amount quite thin.
Keep in mind, the interest rate will be pretty steep—probably in the 8, 9, or 10 percent range. You might want to reconsider and look into a standard mortgage instead. With a mortgage, the property you're buying serves as the collateral, which keeps your interest rates lower. Plus, between government programs and the banks themselves, residential mortgages are more heavily incentivized right now. I won't bore you with all the technical details, but it's just a better deal.
With a standard mortgage, the property itself acts as collateral, and they’ll likely require you to carry a life insurance policy. If you go the home equity route using the apartment where your parents live, that becomes the collateral. However, they would probably insist that you have your direct deposit set up with them as well.
So, here’s another one for the pile, much like 😁 . Hehe, renting vs. owning your own place . There isn’t a single right answer here, folks... As time goes on, buying probably starts to "pay off" more (I mean, if you can't get a mortgage, don't want one, or you're just waiting for a sign from above), but I know plenty of people, especially abroad, who have been renters for over 30 years. Is that actually smart? I guess everyone has to weigh that for themselves.
It’s hard for me to say, honestly. Thank God, I’m not in a position where I ever have to worry about being a renter, so speculating is a bit of a stretch for me. But if I were? Well, throwing money away is a waste. And please, don't give me that nonsense about how renting costs the same as a mortgage payment—don't kid yourselves. That logic only applies to maybe 2% of people, the ones who are already loaded anyway. The other thing is, I suspect not everyone is liquid enough to buy the square footage they actually want in a decent neighborhood. It's not like we're living in some tiny corner of the country outside of Washington, D.C.
Give her the money back. Try looking at this from her perspective for once... she isn't the one responsible for the foreclosures and all the other messes you've managed to pile up on yourself. Look, sure, she messed up the bookkeeping. Mistakes happen...
On the flip side, this is actually the perfect window to take out a loan. Why? It’s not an issue if people anticipate a devaluation. The danger arises when they're caught off guard and max out their credit capacity just as things shift. Right now, you should run the numbers based on an exchange rate of 8.5. If you can leverage that to grab these cheaper installments (priced at 7.4), you’re covered even if a devaluation hits. The worse move is sitting on your hands for a year or two and doing nothing. Once the devaluation happens, you'll be forced into loans with much higher monthly payments. Because of the currency shift, the prices of everything bought on long-term credit definitely won't stay the same (in Dollars).
Ugh, brilliant logic there. (Pardon my French) So, the exchange rate will magically hit exactly 8.5 in precisely two years and just stop right there, exactly how ice-man imagined it, right?
There is never a "perfect" time for a loan, especially when initial interest rates are this high. In my view, if someone is dead set on taking out credit, they should either wait for fixed-rate Dollar loans to become available (we're all still waiting for Godot, though maybe it'll show up since we aren't adopting the Euro as fast as people think) or wait for interest rates to drop and opt for something with a currency clause on a shorter term (assuming Dollar-only options don't exist).
FORGET ABOUT AXA, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!! Forget those billboard ads, the upfront commissions, and those shady characters trying to pitch you loans in a local dive bar! And definitely forget about any "guaranteed" interest rates if you hand over your savings for a 20% monthly return! 🙂
I was reading through this earlier, and honestly, I was just feeling bitter. How can so many people be so incredibly, staggeringly naive and dim-witted?
"I'll get your loan sorted out in Switzerland, I just need 1% of the total upfront." UPFRONT?!?!?!
Who pays in advance? Prostitutes? Who else? Nobody. It actually made my blood boil while I was reading it.
I mean, where is everyone's common sense? Are you really going to give someone more than they're worth$33, for crying out loud? No paperwork, no nothing—you barely know them for two weeks and suddenly you're handing over 1% of a planned loan.