webLOGfor.US

    I recently read this article that gives details on a company, Champagne & Associates, that operated in Dorchester.  From the few examples it seems to be a case of fraud on the part of Champagne & Associates operator's, Roberta Robinson and Rachel Noyes, but is it clear cut?

    There has to be a level of personal responsibility here.  Every individual in this world needs to watch out for number one.  That number one is you, the individual.  If you don't watch out for yourself, no one will watch out for you.  Another golden rule to live by.  If it seems too good to be true it usually is.

    In this article it talks of how Champagne & Associates allegedly falsified records, sent mostly blank mortgage applications to clients, got clients to buy 2 or 3 properties so they had rental income, etc.  The list of these items goes on and on.  If all these allegations are true, is Champagne and Associates fully culpable?

    I am of the mindset that some responsibility must fall on the purchasers of these properties.  Although hindsight is 20/20 there were signs here as large as billboards letting the individuals know something was wrong.  First, thing, being asked to sign "almost blank" mortgage applications.  It's common knowledge that you don't sign anything unless it is all filled in, read, reread and fully understood.  

    Another instance has someone knowingly going into a mortgage with a payment of $7194 a month.  This person knows she made $1800 a month.  Basic math tells you that you can't aford these loans.  A third example here cites that a woamn saw at closing that her monthly payment would be $3300 a month when she agreed to $2300 a month.  Her thoughts here were: "I see the real mortgages and it's apparent to me I got robbed," Hayes says, "but I'm thinking I'm going to make this work."  This was a time when she should have walked away from the deal.  Emotion and blinders kept her going.     

    Other applications cite second jobs that didn't exist, inflated or non-existant bank accounts, etc.  All this would have been visible at the closing if anyone took the time to read their paperwork before signing it.

web log for us – those that take the time to reand and understand everything before we jump into it 

    REX & Company, a small San Francisco investment company is offering a new product to pay homeowners cash now in exchange for a right to part of the proceeds when the home is eventually sold.  They have the backing of a subsidiary of American International Group Inc. (AIG).

    The product is being marketed as an alternative to debt based methods of extracting cash from a home, such as equity loans or reverse mortgages.

    For example, a home currently valued at $750,000 might obtain $100,000 in cash by giving REX a 50% share of the change in the home's value.  If the home sold for $850,000, REX would receive $150,000.  The original $100,000 invested plus half of the increase in value.  If the home went down in value and sold for $650,000 you would still owe the initial $100,000 but REX would absorb half the cost of the loss in value so REX's share would really be only $50,000.   

    REX plans to reach consumers through mortgage brokers, real-estate agents and financial planners.  Brokers and other intermediaries could charge fees as high as 2% of the cash obtained by the homeowner.  People who sell the home in less than five years face an early exit fee ranging from 5% to 25% of REX's initial payment.

    The product is currently available in nine states – California, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, Washington, Colorado, New York and North Carolina but the company expects to offer it nationwide within a few years.

web log for us – those that are smart investors and like to use other people's money to help increase our net worth.

    I was perusing one of the sites I visit daily (money.cnn.com) and took their Money Ethics Quiz. All in all I found it mildly interesting but there was one item that I felt was a bit out of line more than the others. They had a question ""How often have you refused to tip a waiter or waitress for bad service". My reply to that answer was "Once or Twice". They came back with the following reply:

    Money Magazine ethicists said: While tips are the principal portion of a waiter's compensation – and in that sense, they're not optional – tips are also meant to insure that waiters provide good service. That incentive loses its punch – and service suffers for everyone – if diners are unwilling to vote with their wallets when the service stinks.

• Frequently: 8%
• Occasionally : 21%
• Once or Twice:38%
• Never: 33%

    First for those that answered "Never".  If you are going to just give your money away for nothing, give it to me.  I at least will put it to good use as an investment for myself. 

It seems that money is trying to placate everyone. I think that tips are completely optional based on service. One thing you should not hold a tip back for is a mistake on the part of someone else. If the kitchen or expediter makes a mistake, I let the waiter know and may even let the manager know that the wait service was good/excellent but the kitchen/expediter service was bad. Here's the PDM scale of tipping:

• Horrible service – no tip and a talk to the manager as to how bad the service was
• Poor service – poor tip – usually 5% – 10% depending on how poor Standard service – 15% to 20%
• Above average service – 25%
• Excellent service (or if I take a table up for the entire night at a bar/restaurant – 25% to 40%

web log for us….those that like to reward a job well done