Thursday, January 7, 2010, 2:49AM ET - U.S. Markets open in 6 hours and 41 minutes.

Suze Orman Money Matters

Suze Orman, Money Matters

Bailout-Happy Washington Slow to Help Homeowners

by Suze Orman

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Good (391 Ratings)
2.427106/5
Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2008, 12:00AM

The recent action out of Capitol Hill should be filed under "thanks for practically nothing" as far as mortgage-stressed homeowners are concerned. In early April, the Senate pushed through a stripped-down bill that went out of its way to help homebuilders more than homeowners.

A Bankrupt Bill

The absurdly named Foreclosure Protection Act does everything but. To get enough of the Senate on board, a key provision was axed that would have altered bankruptcy rules to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. The idea was to give the bankruptcy court limited power to modify existing mortgages for Chapter 13 filers.

Chapter 13 is the "harder" bankruptcy in that the filer isn't looking to wipe anything clean, but rather agrees to a court-appointed payback plan over a three-year to five-year time span, with modifications made to the terms of the debt owed. But under current law, mortgages aren't allowed to be modified by the bankruptcy court. A proposal spearheaded by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would have given the bankruptcy court limited ability to modify mortgages for Chapter 13 filers who could handle payments on a modified mortgage.

But the ever-powerful bank lobby put the kibosh on the proposal, insisting that such a move would raise interest rates for everyone. And Washington bit. It's hard to see how modifying a select pool of existing mortgages would cause the entire pool of new mortgages to become more expensive.

Mixed-Up Priorities at the Top

In the same bill, the Senate approved a $7,000 tax credit over two years for anyone who buys a foreclosed home. Talk about mixed-up priorities: When it had the opportunity to help keep more homes out of foreclosure (via the bankruptcy provision), the Senate punted. Its idea of protection is to let more homes fall into foreclosure and then, after the fact, give an incentive to folks who buy a foreclosed home. Where's the logic in that?

Don't get me started on the value of a $7,000 credit over two years. With the average home price around $200,000, it's not exactly a big deal. Moreover, it's an after-the-fact incentive. If the concern is to get foreclosed homes sold, then help people buy them with down payment breaks, not tax credits a year or two down the line.

Another head-scratcher is a provision that would allow current homeowners who don't itemize their federal tax returns to qualify for a $1,000 annual deduction for property tax ($500 for individuals). Is that really going to solve much for the bulk of people on the brink of losing their homes?

Bailouts 'R Us

But wait, it gets even worse. While the Senate slammed the door shut on the substantive bankruptcy provision, it then swung the door wide open -- and I'm talking a double-wide door -- for businesses hit hard by the credit crisis. The same bill includes a provision that extends the period that a firm can deduct 2008 and 2009 losses against profits from two years to four years. That's going to be especially helpful for homebuilders who are facing big losses this year (and next) and have plenty of profits from four years ago.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this nice little tax break could generate $25 billion in tax cuts over the next few years, and homebuilders are expected to be at the head of the relief line. As for the bill's provisions that would assist homeowners -- you know, those other constituents -- the Joint Committee on Taxation says that adds up to about $3 billion.

So let's review: The Fed ponies up $29 billion in guarantees to facilitate the bailout-that-shall-not-be-called-a-bailout (of Bear Stearns), and now the Senate proposes a nice $25 billion in tax breaks for stressed-out businesses. That's $54 billion in potential taxpayer liability because of the credit crisis, with the Senate only seeing fit to come up with $3 billion in Band-Aids to help homeowners. Please.

Scorecard Required

As I write this, there's more proposed "assistance" trickling out of Washington. The Bush administration recently acted to extend the FHA Secure program, but that program will help a woefully small number of at-risk homeowners. The House is holding hearings on a more expansive assistance program.

One of the hardest challenges for lawmakers is defining the parameters of who should be helped. I like the early signs that aid would only be available for mortgages on primary homes; save the homes where people live, not where they're speculating or vacationing.

From there the task becomes even harder in terms of determining how to make unaffordable homes affordable. One idea percolating is how to get lenders to forgive portions of troubled mortgages (that is, reduce the principal) so the homeowner can then refinance into a more affordable fixed-rate loan. Sound like a huge government bailout? Well, maybe yes and maybe no.

One of the ideas being batted around is to create a mechanism so that the entity that forgives part of a current loan -- be it the lender or the government -- would get a portion of any profit when the home is sold down the line. Complicating matters (as if they aren't complicated enough) is the multitudes of "lenders" in this mess. As we all know, it's not just conventional commercial banks that hold mortgages, but a lot of Wall Street entities that no one really knows much about. So putting any new plan into action won't be easy given the number and variety of different players.

Help for the Qualified

Nevertheless, something has to be done to help qualified homeowners -- and I do mean qualified. I'm not suggesting a blanket bailout. The sad truth is that there are some people with unaffordable mortgages who never had the financial stability in the first place to really afford their home.

Were some of them guilty of lying about their income and assets so they could get a mortgage? Of course. And now they're going to face their comeuppance. But I guarantee you that an even bigger culprit in this mess were the aggressive mortgage lenders -- egged on by Wall Street investment banks chomping at the bit for more loans to securitize -- who talked a smooth game and enticed people into mortgages they couldn't afford; didn't bother to verify applicants' income; and encouraged inflated appraisals so the numbers would "work" on loans.

The bottom line is that a large chunk of the mortgage-stressed simply doesn't have the income to remain homeowners now that the smoke and mirror days of option-payment and negative-amortizing mortgages are over.

Real Relief on the Horizon?

I'm looking for Washington to consider the large contingent of at-risk homeowners who, with a moderate level of intervention, can get themselves into a fixed-rate loan they can afford.

And I absolutely agree that any future profits those people realize from a home sale should be shared in some way with the entities -- the lenders or the banks -- that help them out today.

The Foreclosure Protection Act that made its way through the Senate was an embarrassment for its lack of focus on homeowners. Let's hope the more thoughtful proposals that are beginning to bubble up will foster a meaningful debate on ways to extend assistance to qualified homeowners without triggering a massive federal bailout.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Good (391 Ratings)
2.5/5
Sign-in to rate!

189 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 189<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, May 2, 2008, 1:36PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Wwhat about those of us who bought a house we can affford, just at the wrong time? In my Southern California neighborhood, our property value has fallen $100,000 in the 2 years since we bought.

  • RomanS - Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 12:01PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    The author's logic seems flawed to me. Don't see how allowing term modification would impact everyone else? Well, if the banks are forced to take losses due to loan modifications, they will charge higher rates and higher fees on new loans to compensate. Don't see how incentives to buy a foreclosed property help? Makes sense to me - you want someone to occupy and maintain the property and limit the stress on the community.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:10AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    suzie....youve been denied

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, April 27, 2008, 4:45PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Homeowners wouldn't need bailouts if they bought homes that they could afford. Just because the money is available doesn't mean potential homeowners should take it. I think that it's the most absurd thing to expect the government to bail out these people.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Sunday, April 27, 2008, 12:04AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The only fair thing for the govt to do is...nothing. Sorry they made poor decisions, but I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes through taxes or through not being able to buy the house they're in.

  • binderzz - Friday, April 25, 2008, 7:55PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    The Wall Street financial gurus who invented our current credit mess have spent millions (billions?) of dollars in hiring the best lobbyists money can buy to look out for their best interests in Washington. They even placed their man (Hank Paulson) at the head of Treasury. At the same time, foreclosed homeowners have spent NOTHING on politicians. Nothing!!! As always happens in a free market economy, the better prepared will win and those who fail to plan will lose. Soon, the Wall Streeters will be planning extended vacations to their private South Sea islands and the evicted homeowners will be fighting over who gets the better Maytag dryer box to live in under the viaduct, and fighting over scraps of food. If you have a problem with this ... you're a liberal communist.

  • Leslie - Friday, April 25, 2008, 4:53PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    I think that since the tax-payers bailed out Bear Stearns that any future profits that Bear makes should be used to pay back the generosity of the federal government.

  • Augustine - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 7:19PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    So stupid homeowners are not worse than renters. Why any government aid, if not because it's an electoral year and they know pretty well who contributes more to their campaigns?

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 3:44PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    At first when I read this article I thought I was going to read a bunch of coments at the bottom from users that agreed with Suze. I was pleasantly surprised to find that most people feel that the government shouldn't pick up the tab for people's stupid mistakes. The only thing I would add is how can Suze not know how modifying mortgages under Chapter 13 raises rates for everyone?? Isn't she supposed to be a finance expert??? Let me explain how the mortgage market works Suze. The money comes from investors that buy mortgage backed bonds. The price that the investors are willing to pay for the bonds determines what the borrower pays in mortage rates. If investors want to buy a lot of mortgages the prices of the bonds go up and the yields go down. If the government starts modifying these agreements to the benefit of the borrower and the detrement of the investor, why would investors continue to buy the bonds? They wouldn't unless they got them cheaper, for a higher yield, which means higher rates for borrowers. Since it will be more expensive to buy a home, this will put further downward pressure on home prices.

  • BJ9736 - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 3:25PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The "bailout" of Bear Sterns is likely to actually make the federal government money. It would be great if people, supposedly educated, would quit mischaracterizing what happened. As for those losing their homes, "A FOOL AND HIS MONEY SOON PART."

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 3:19PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Once again Suze has it wrong, maybe that is why she got drummed out of the business.

  • Me - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 2:26PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The fact is, nobody forced people to buy houses at bubble prices with or without exploding mortgages. The government does not need to help homeowners or potential buyers. In a free open market, the market will fix itself. Houses will come back down in price. If the government gets involved the only thing that will happen is the correction will take longer to play out.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 2:01PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Outrageous! All of these buyers attempted to do the impossible and inflated the prices of homes in Los Angeles thru the roof... we all knew this could not last and now that the bubble exploded, good old government wants to step in and save the day... crazy! This is a free economy and your idiotic fincancial decisions should not be covered by the people. As a financially responsible person in need of a home, I have been unable to buy because of these irresponsible folks and banks: NO BAIL OUTS! How can you accept a loan w/o providing proof of income or actually having a steady income? How can you pay interest only on a loan hoping that the prices would continue to climb unchecked so you could profit two-fold? Live with it!

  • REX - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 12:33PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    They're slow to do it because the 95% who play by the rules will vote them out if they take our money to fix the problem they created by encouraging the finacial sector to loan to unqualified buyers.

  • Todd - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 12:12PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Just where in the Constitution does it say that it is the role of the federa government to subsidize taxpayer's stupidity??? I don't remember that being a role of the federal governemt. I have a better idea. First, don't buy a home if you cannot afford one. I know it is politically incorrect to deny someone the American dream. That dream can quickly become a nightmare if you have a lot of debt or live in a house that is way too big just to impress someone. I'm not impressed with your stupid house. Second, don't get a stupid loan. Get a conventional fixed-rate note. If anyone tells you to get an ARM, run fast. Third, read your stupid paperwork. Fourth, congress should lift the ridiculous environmental restrictions that limit construction in places like California that have drastically limited the number of available homes, shooting prices through the roof. I hear a lot of politicians talking about how everything is Bush's fault. I'm not a Bush fan either, however do you know who's responsibility it is to take care of you?? It is yours. Stop whining. Take responsibility for your actions.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 11:36AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    As I sit here and stare at my computer screen I can't believe what is going on out there. Just yesterday King George proclaimed that the economy is merely in a slowdown not a recession. Hell the economic data coming across my desk suggests depression. The information Suze Orman provided in the above article shows that our woeful economic condition will only worsen simply because the people who allowed this situation ( housing bubble) to exist are the ones called upon to fix it. Boy is that a reassuring thought. Greed gone wild and the elimination of moral hazard by the fed. govt and fed. reserve will only deepen this crisis. People looking for a near term bottom in the credit crunch would better serve themselves by calculating their chances of being struck by lightning. Moral hazard will be reckoned with one way or another and the manner in which the housing failure is being addressed will only delay the inevitable. I'm sorry if I sound doom and gloom it's just that I become a little nervous when the govt. attempts to direct the free market. Suze, thank you for the update. Please continue to keep us informed upon what's going on behind closed doors.

  • Jim - Thursday, April 24, 2008, 10:49AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    No bail out for greedy. If they want to profit when market goes up, they must take loss if market goes down. Let them go foreclosure. No mercy for greedy.

  • Yuri - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 11:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    It is funny to see how multi-millioniare advises poor folks ... :-)

  • Mary - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 9:42PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I know the man who takes care of my lawn. He has no money and lives pay check to pay check. The mortgage company gave him 100% financing on the house next to me. When they foreclosed on him he sold everything in the house, I mean everything, cabinets, floors, fireplace, refrig, tub, even the front brick entrance. He collected $41,000.00 took the money and went back to Mexico. I have no idea what the mortage company is going to do. How could you sell a house with no windows ,heating or doors.

  • AndrewK - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 7:54PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Allowing bankruptcy courts to modify loans could be disastrous. The banks and associated mortgage servicers are trying as much as they can, through various forms of workouts and modifications (e.g., freezing interest rates, lowering interest rates temporarily, etc.), to keep people in their homes, because if people are in their homes, they're paying. But at some point, it's just not worth it. The borrower does not have enough income to make it worth it for the banks, and at that point the banks have to foreclose and sell the home for whatever money they can get. If bankruptcy courts control these thresholds, it takes away the invisible hand that is already ensuring the banks are getting the optimal money out of their loans, and the losses from these huge tracts of mortgages will only increase. The government should not bail out irresponsible home-buyers with the taxes of those who are responsible! It's absurd!

  • Jonathan N - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 6:33PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    man, i luv Suze. unfortunately, i haven't had a chance to see her show and read her articles lately. to my dismay, she veered a hard left on this article. i still find it hard to muster sympathy to most people affected by this housing mess. these are the same people who smugly declared their financial acumen being involved in the real estate 'game' when it was in full swing. it's their bed. let them lie on it. with a very few exceptions, 'victims' are receiving their comeuppance. i hope Suze's not gone soft and is now pandering (or worse, enabling) to people's poor decisions.

  • Gabriel McLovin - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 4:18PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    It's hard to see how modifying a select pool of existing mortgages would cause the entire pool of new mortgages to become more expensive. WHEN COURTS INTERVENE IN A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT, (I.E., BONDHOLDERS AND THE I-BANKS SELLING THEM SECURITIES) IT IMPLIES A NEW LEGAL RISK THAT MUST BE REFLECTED IN A HIGHER RISK PREMIUM IN FUTURE INTEREST RATES FOR NEW MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITY INVESTORS. Its idea of protection is to let more homes fall into foreclosure and then, after the fact, give an incentive to folks who buy a foreclosed home. Where's the logic in that? 1/3 OF 2008 HOMEBUYERS ARE FOLKS PURCHASING FORECLOSED HOMES. THE QUALITY OF MORTGAGES ISSUED TO HOMEBUYERS IN 2008 HAVE MET STRINGENT UNDERWRITING STANDARDS AND ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS THAN THE PREVIOUS OWNERS WHO "STATED THEIR INCOME". KEEPING PEOPLE WHO ARE FINANCIALLY UNSTABLE IN NATURE IN THEIR HOMES ONLY PROLONGS THE PROBLEM. TRANSFERING REAL ASSETS TO FOLKS WHO CAN AFFORD THEM BRINGS ABOUT A SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION. The Fed ponies up $29 billion in guarantees to facilitate the bailout-that-shall-not-be-called-a-bailout (of Bear Stearns), SINCE BEAR STEARNS ACTS AS A COUNTERPARTY TO MILLIONS DOLLARS OF DERIVATIVES AND QUITE POSSIBLY IN THE BILLIONS DUE TO THE LEVERAGED NATURE OF SUCH INSTRUMENTS (INTEREST RATE SWAPS, CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, ETC.), IF THEY WERE TO FAIL, THE RIPPLE EFFECT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY DETRIMENTAL THROUGHOUT THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM. FOR INSTANCE, 2 FAILED BEAR STEARNS HEDGE FUNDS AMOUNTING TO LESS THAN $4 BILLION TOTAL IN SPRING OF 2007 HAS BEEN THE CATALYST TO A $300 BILLION WRITEDOWN BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE WORLD AS OF SPRING 2008. SEE THE POINT? Suze Orman's article has been "dumbed" down for the same folks who praise her financial prowess.

  • DanielM - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 4:17PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    Oh, woe is me! Let's bail out everyone from unaffordable mortgages, next we can reimburse people for bad investments in the stock market, perhaps even grant tax credits to those who bought their plasma tv when it wasn't on sale. These were all adults who took on this toxic financing, no matter how much of a smooth talker the mortgage broker was you have the responsibility to know your financial limits, read all parts of the contract and abide by the terms. A home purchase should not be viewed the same way we may impulse shop for low ticket items at a grocery store, anyone who thought the insane runup of home prices was sustainable was either a fool or just drinking too much realtor kool-aid. Most people understand their limits and purchased their homes accordingly and have maintained their homes. To bail out others is to in fact punish the responsible homeowners. Here's an example: 2 families both purchase a house in 2005 at a price of $500K. Family 1 puts down a nice down payment, has ample income to afford the house and makes all payments on time. Family 2 puts nothing down and can only afford an interest only mortgage with an incredibly low teaser rate set to reset in 3 yrs. They make the payments but now realize that the rate is going to reset this year and cannot afford the new payment. They try to refinance but the appraisal for the house is now $450K and their is no way its going to work. Now, some people want lenders to forgive the $50K loss and make the new mortgage for $450K, why not do that for family 1 also? Actually, family 1 is more of a victim anyways because a large factor in the housing runup was increased demand due to the market being flooded with people who should never been in the market anyways. So actually, if this had not been the case then maybe family 1 would only have paid $450K in the 1st place..

  • B Y - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 3:23PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    bailouts should be available for ALL fake boobs.. then they don't need to own a home - any homeower will give them a room :)

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 3:12PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The only people putting more than 1 star on this worthless article are the same losers who got in over their financial heads! They do not regard a house as a home. They're the losers who think a house is a "money print" and if its value falls below market they walk. Try losing some money at Vegas... and when you do whine to management that its not your fault... see how far that goes! Assume some fiscal responsibility, losers! This should be a good lesson to you. Anything other than NO BAILOUT would be telling people that its good to be a loser!

  • Booba K - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 2:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    When I read all of those comments about current real estate market I keep asking myself: what is so bad about affordable housing prices, huh? Read those comments! If housing prices are getting highr they call it "healthy market". If housing prices are getting down they are panicing! Ok, then we have very healthy gazoline and oil market now, becuase prices are getting up and up! :) Why all of those commentators are screaming when prices fell only by 7%???? They didn't scream when they jumped by 100% in the last 9 years! And another thing. How do you call folks that own ZERO of their houses "homeowners"?????? They are merely renters from the lenders that allowed them to leave in the houses they do not own! And they tell us we need to "help" them? This is non-sense! Yes, foreclosure is painful, and yes it decreases values of nearby properties. But the simple truth is the "value" of current real estate is not real! Folks keep reffering to the "values" that they used to have on paper from apprisers in 2005-2006. And these "apprised values" were severely overinflated! Have you heard of the leteer from National Association of Apprisers to Congress? They complained that 93% of its members had pressure from real estate agents and lenders to inflate housing prices! Guys, your houses cost exactly as much as somebody is ready to pay for them, no more! So, stop screaming about "values" of your houses! They are not portfolios, but your homes! Let the market drive peole that are not homeowners by any strech from houses they don't own! Let's market to clean up the mess! People who are loosing houses they cannot afford are not going to become homeless. 37% of Americans rent, and those who canot pay their mortgages can do the same!

  • Gary - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 2:00PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    No bailouts for anyone..........individuals or bank or corporations. The govenment should not be in the business of helping after bad choices or risks.

  • Lisa - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 1:30PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    People speculated on their primary homes, thinking of their homes are a way to make big bucks, not a place to live. NO BAILOUTS. Responsible people got a mortgage they could afford or decided to keep renting. Helping out the irresponsible only gives them positive reinforcement for their stupid decisions. And don't even get me started about the people who took out HELOCs on their huge home "profits" and are now underwater and crying how unfair it is. Two years ago these same people were bragging about their new cars, fancy vacations, fake boobs, and elaborate remodeling projects. With a bailout, I am essentially paying for all these excesses!! NO BAILOUTS!!!

  • Bill - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 1:18PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Well done. Some level of bailout is inevitable, and there should be help for "qualified" homeowners--both in their interest and in the interest of the economy and society as a whole.

  • PatsRULE - Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 1:10PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    I disagree. Everyone should be bailed out! It's the government's responsibility to help out its citizens who are in financial crisis, not just the big banks, but the people on the bottom as well!

Showing comments 6-35 of 189<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

Own the Power to Control Your Destiny

Women & Money

With her signature mix of insight and compassion, Suze Orman equips women with the financial knowledge and emotional awareness to overcome the blocks that have kept them from making more out of the money they earn.

Buy "Women & Money" now.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Sponsored Links

No-Hassle Auto Financing
Apply for Auto Loan w/Good Credit or Bad Credit. Free Auto Loan App.
finance.car.com
Trade Stocks? Try Currency Trading
Trade in a highly trending market 24-hrs a day, 5.5 days a week. GFT.
www.GFTforex.com
Buy Stocks for $4
No account or investment minimums. No inactivity fees. Start Today.
www.sharebuilder.com
Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance
APR as low as 3.616%! Calculate New Mortgage Payment Now.
www.SeeRefinanceRates.com
Obama Backs Insurance Regulation
Millions of Americans Are Over Paying For Auto Insurance.
www.Auto-Insurance-Experts.com
Refinance Now at 4.2% Fixed
No hidden fees, 4.4% APR. No obligation. Get 4 free quotes. No SSN req.
MortgageRefinance.LendGo.com

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.