Asset Based Credit Line

My credit score has dropped because of credit card bills and I want to get a home equity line to consolidate my bills. I need to go SISA because I have a commission based job and I havent made enough much the past two years to qualify me, I also have very few assets right now. My home has about 200k in equity but I'm having the hardest time getting approved. If anyone has a lender who has approved them with my situation please let me know. Thanks
I live in California USA.

Lenders are increasingly concerned with the level of fraud inherent in stated income mortages. When it is a HELOC it is even tougher because the lender is in second position and there is substantial risk if the borrower defaults.

Couple that with a low credit score and you have a real problem. You need to go talk to a lender that specializes in subprime home loans. Try Novastar.

2006-11-16 12:18:42 by mangelooc

cashxchangegroup.com Asset based business credit lines. Equipment re- financing and equipment loans when your bank has to say no. Same day ...

I make 30K a yr at 24, have a 5 yr credit history/avg 4.5 with 1 30 day late nearly 4 years back. 2 revolving accounts totaling 3K and one 6.5K Auto loan half paid off. No mortgage or assets yet. 500/month rent...150 Auto...active CC/Gas Card usage with low minimum payments (Pay in full). My equifax score is 729, which is listed as very good, but not excellent. My exact question is how much of an overall revolving line should I have based on my income?

Seeing that you should keep below 10% utilization...the higher the better, but how much should be requested within reason?

It looks to me that you should question why you need credit. Save for a couple of months, or take a part time job until you Have some cash independence. Then you can use a no interest bank card and spend only what you need.
Get on a budget and stop paying interest

2008-11-29 02:23:56 by Ryan G

WHAT TIME FRAME OF THE YEAR DO YOU THINK WE WILL BE IN A BULL MARKET? I THINK THE DOW WON'T BE ABOVE 9,500 TILL MID 2010, TILL THEN IT WILL STAY VOLATILE FOR MANY REASONS THAT ARE LISTED BELOW.................

October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August and February. ~Mark Twain

While there is much to celebrate this year, we find little cause for joy when looking at the financial markets. While many pundits have predicted that the final closing low in the bear market was reached on November 20th, we at Hurricane Capital Global Alpha Fund still believe there will be more red than green in the stock market in 2009.

However, during every major bear market since World War II, the time to buy stocks was after a 30-50% decline in the S&P 500. So one may ask why we would recommend something different this time around. In the spirit of Christmas, we present twelve reasons why there is more downside to the stock market in 2009.

1. Valuation: Historically the price to earnings ratio (P/E) and price to book ratio (P/B) of a stock or index is considered cheap when trading at less than ten to one and one to one respectively. Stocks in the US bottomed with at a P/E of 7 in July 1982. During the Great Depression, Benjamin Graham wrote about how many of the greatest US companies would be worth more if liquidated for the cash on their balance sheets than kept. These stocks were trading below their net current assets.

According to Bloomberg, the Russell 3000, which incorporates 98% of the market cap of us stocks, has a trailing P/E of 24.64 and a P/B of 1.68. Despite the massive drop that occurred in 2008, it would be tough to characterize the market as cheap from a historical perspective.

2. Housing Prices Crashing: The latest monthly reading of the Case-Shiller home price index from October 2008 showed a drop of 18.04% year over year, the largest drop on record. Amazingly, the drop in home prices is still accelerating two years into the decline. We are not going to find a bottom in the market until the pace of decline slows significantly. The massive tailwind the US consumer had been receiving from equity extractions has officially ended.

3. Debt Destruction: American consumers doubled household debt this decade while incomes stagnated. Consumers adding a trillion dollars in debt ever year on average for the first 7 years of the decade. Two trillion in consumer credit lines may be pulled in 2009, and home equity extractions are done for the foreseeable future. Another way to look at this is consumers would have a trillion dollar pullback in spending from 2007 levels if debt stops expanding. Debt destruction, which we believe is going to occur, means purchases would have to decline by over a trillion dollars. This would mark the first significant destruction of debt in the US since the 1930s. Growth of household debt to GDP did not start increasing again, until after World War II, over a decade later.

4. More Writedowns: We have another trillion or so of losses to take in the commercial real estate, jumbo mortgage, prime mortgage, leveraged loans, asset backed, corporate bond and credit default swap markets. This is assuming subprime and Alt-A are now priced correctly. On second thought, considering the debt destruction process, it could be more like 1.5 trillion.

5. US Corporate Earnings Collapse: Corporate earnings estimates are way too high. The consumer is dead due to the debt destruction, and there is another trillion (give or take) in losses yet to be realized across the financial sector. Almost all earnings growth in the first half of 2008 came from oil, basic materials and technology. Pricing has collapsed in all three areas. We have not yet seen the price collapse reflected in the EPS of companies in these industries. We will see it in 2009. Be wary of people touting cheap stocks based on future earnings. Trailing twelve month earnings on the S&P are $44.91 a share. The average analyst estimate on Bloomberg for the S&P 500 is currently $71.69 per share for 2009. There is absolutely no way companies will earn more in 2009 than in 2008. None.

6. Corporate Credit: Credit spreads are at levels where companies cannot fund themselves and survive. This is if companies can roll their debt at all. Much of the lending during the last 5 years was never meant to be paid back. Spreads on CCC bonds hit 40% in December. There are loan sharks who charge better rates than this. The debt markets are still closed for virtually everything high yield.

7. 12.5% Underemployment: And rising fast.

8. No Savings: The savings rate was under 2% from 2005-2007. Interest rates were low, and lots of spare money was funneled into the stock market. It always goes up if you buy and hold. Right? This was conventional thinking anyway. Many people now need this money to live on. This means

As you have probably noticed, your post was truncated. What was posted, however, raised legitimate concerns. However, the big drop in the market we have already seen was largely in recognition of those concerns.

No one that I know seems to think things will be getting much better very quickly, so I am not particularly bullish. I do think the attention the government has given the problems, and much of what they are doing to address the problems, is appropriate. So I am not particularly bearish either.

One thing to remember is that the market is usually pretty good about predicting that things are going to get better, so the market will probably start going up well before much of an economic recovery is evident. I think the market might be going up by mid 2010 even if the economy is not a lot better.

I will not be staying away from the market due to high volatility. I will be trying to profit from that volatility.

2009-01-11 16:26:05 by STAR

Creditors threatening legal action < inthery > 05/01 10:26:52

I had received a phone call from a legal firm representing a bank which I had defaulted on a business line of credit. They say that they will file suit against me in federal court regarding a credit card that I used to try and build my business but let my expenses get out of hand while revenues would not keep up. Since I possesed the card as a business and not an individual, there is nothing I can do about it and they would be able to garnish the wages I earn through salaried job I got when I had to fold my business.

He says I need to seek counsel today and prepare myself. Pretty scary considering I don't earn much and don't have much in the way of personal assets. He is based in New Jersey and I am here in California which he smugly stated works against me since the laws in this state favor the creditors.

Any ideas....anyone??

You have no money, what are you worried about? They are just trying to scare you. I wouldn't do anything until they serve papers. It probably won't ever happen.

2007-05-01 10:38:10 by Ryan S

remeber folks: both Obama AND McCain backed this bill that falls far short on these issues:

1. THE PLAN MISSES THE KEY ISSUE – WE SIMPLY GIVE MONEY BACK TO WALL STREET AND CROSS OUR FINGERS THAT SUCH FIRMS WILL RETURN LIQUIDITY TO MARKETS. Financial institutions who receive government support are under no obligation whatsoever to use such funds to provide liquidity to the financial markets. Thus this aid package fundamentally misses the real problem and may not provide liquidity of trading we need. Instead, such financial institutions could simply distribute the cash to shareholders and partners, and provide no further help to the economy.

2. TAX LOSS CARRYFORWARDS WILL MEAN THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY PAY TAXES. Importantly, any tax levy in 5 years on troubled financial institutions will be avoided by such bailed out firms. Financial institutions holding troubled assets will incur TAX LOSSES today from the sale of such assets to government and thus will be exempt from paying taxes for very long periods of time as a result of tax loss carryforward rules (the amount of such tax losses will depend upon how they originally accounted for the assets in their financial statements - some firms may record massive tax write downs). In fact in 5 years they may still have sufficient tax shelter from the sale of these troubled assets that they will not be subject to the special tax on financial institutions. Ironically, the financial institutions that avoided these troubled assets and thus did not incur tax losses will be the ones who carry the burden of the new tax since they will not have tax shield available.

3. The total exposure of government is possibly $3.131-TRILLION - well in excess of $700 bn since this is simply an upper ceiling on the maximum outstanding at any one time (per notes on page 40 of the Act). The plan is designed to absorb substantially more troubled assets - as government sells such assets the proceeds from sale can then be used by the Secretary to buy more troubled assets. This establishes a "revolving" loan facility which can be used over and over again to buy troubled assets and then sell such assets. The true exposure of government debt is illustrated by the requested increase in the statutory limits of total debt allowed. This new bill requests to increase the allowed debt by $3.131-trillion (from $8.184-trillion to $11.315-trillion, per pp. 68, line 8). See http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ uscode31/usc_sec_31_00003101----000-.htm l for current wording and limit on government debt.

4. Credit card loans and car loans that are secured by a home loan (very common in USA) are included in the bail out package. See pp. 14, line 18. Any type of purchase on a credit line secured by a home can be acquired or guaranteed by the government. Since such loans are very common this means virtually any type of debt can be taken over by the Secretary. This package goes well beyond subprime mortgage loans.

5. There is practically no cap on what a financial institution can sell to the government. The cap has been set at $100,000,000 (pp 38, line 24). Thus a small number of big-time offenders can dump their bad debts onto government. If it is only a small number of firms that hold large amounts of such paper then the government should consider allowing them to fail. Government intervention is appropriate to stop systematic broadly-based risk. Not a handful of firms. The private sector could easily buy up a handful of firms with such troubled assets (e.g. JP Morgan easily absorbed WaMu and other institutions like Barclays are seeking opportunistic acquisitions)

6. There is no clarity on the type of deals the Secretary can structure. He has a free hand to deem what is appropriate - even if such deals are not at fair market value. pp 35 line 10 outlines the mechanism for how government takes an equity or debt position in the selling financial institution. Importantly, there is no mention or requirement for the Secretary to use fair market value in determining the value of debt bought by the government. As mentioned earlier the selling financial institutions can flip debt acquired from other struggling financial institutions to the government. There is no consent requirement for the Secretary from any oversight committee. Suggested improvements:
(a) Have Secretary establish fair market value for consideration paid when buying, insuring or guaranteeing troubled assets.
(b) Have Selling/insured financial institution indemnify government against any and all losses resulting from the troubled assets bought, insured or guaranteed. Thus the downside risk of loss will be mitigated.
(c) Have government receive equity participation IN ADDITION to the indemnification.
(d) Place limitations on distributions/dividends to shareholders until the loans are repaid. There is no limitation on dividends and other distributions to partners/shareholders from the financial institutions. Repayment of government obl

Why do people think that because clueless George said we need a bailout (Actually it was more like "Gimme gimme right now. Shut up, no strings. Gimme gimme gimme).

Now that common sense has survived the first spate of Bush and Paulsen crying "wolf". it is time to think. Just because Bush loudly and hysterically proclaimed that the only way to prevent the depression he has been leading us into for 8 years is to throw hundreds of billions of our tax dollars at it does not mean that is the only or best or even a good "fix".

Other nations are responding with more calm and wisdom. There are other things that can and should be done.

Trading on the stock markets should be suspended until strict regulations can be put in place to limit the damage that can be done by reckless speculation and panic.

Those financial institutions that are in trouble should be nationalized, set in order and sold to new owners. Bush has had no problem violating the Bill of Rights when it comes to the People, he shouldn't be cowardly about a little thing like nationalization of companies that are a threat to national welfare, hence security.

The Federal Reserve needs to either be attenuated or dissolved.

Just as starting points.

2008-09-30 10:00:03 by spillmind