# Ben Bernanke got turned down for a mortgage refinance....



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/be...to-save-300-a-month-in-failed-refi-2014-10-03


lol


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

> it’s also possible that Bernanke could have other debts that put his debt-to-income ratio too high. Other liabilities below that threshold don’t have to be disclosed, according to the federal government, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any. “He’s probably not like us with car loans, student loans, but you never know,” Ferlisi said.


Lots of these high finance guys overextending themselves then playing games with refinancing to cut themselves a better deal,
on 30 year mortgages why should he be any different just because he was in charge of The Fed at one time..:rolleyes2:

He probably just realized lately that he may not live long enough to pay it off completely. ..he's 60 now...if he didn't refinance for a shorter mortgage at a lower rate, he would be 90 by the time he would pay it off ..$3300 a month x 30 year= 360 payments x $3300 = $1,188,000 he would have paid by the time he makes the last payment on the 30 year mortgage.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

carverman said:


> Lots of these high finance guys overextending themselves


Overextended? C'mon. He charges $250,000 for a speaking appearance or a private dinner. He is reported to have signed a $1 million book deal. The mortgage is 671K. He can easily pay the sucker off in a few years, if he wants to. The payments are tax deductible, so he is probably not in a rush.


----------



## Islenska (May 4, 2011)

Amazed to read his net worth not long ago was around $2mill, not huge but still seems to be a top notch financial person

His earning power going forward will be more than decent

Thought the mortgage story was more of a red herring!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Like hell he did. He could call up one of his buds at the big banks he did so much for over the years, and get a mortgage on any terms he liked. Interest and payments optional.

If he gets $250,000 for a speech, and only owes $671,000 what does he need a mortgage for? He could pay it off in a week.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The story highlights the problems with the computerized qualification software the banks are using.

As Bernanke doesn't have a "job" with a steady paycheck, the computer recognized him as "unemployed" and rejected the application.

Of course he can pay the mortgage, and his home is valued at just under $1,000,000, but the software doesn't factor in his speaking fees and book deal.

The bigger question........opined by Bernanke himself........is that perhaps the banks have tightened the qualifications too much.

Perhaps also, they should return to the "old days" of actually sitting down with a lender and having an application scrutinized by a live person.

Fraud would be fairly easy under the computerized system........with a group issuing false employment records from fake companies.

Computers and the internet have been a wonderful advance..........but it also comes with a lot of problems in the financial world.......as we have learned from all the hacking.

Those problems didn't exist in the old world.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

He could put down "retired" and give the pension he gets from the government. He could also tell them about his "spare time" income of $1,000,000 a month.


----------



## hark (Oct 5, 2014)

wow...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Like hell he did. He could call up one of his buds at the big banks he did so much for over the years, and get a mortgage on any terms he liked. Interest and payments optional.
> 
> I*f he gets $250,000 for a speech, and only owes $671,000 what does he need a mortgage for?* He could pay it off in a week.


There is something fishy about this story. If he can write off most or even all his mortgage payments in the US, he is involved in some other things that this story is not telling us and maybe that's why he got turned down. 
Yes, it is claimed he makes $250K for a speech, so as you say, there is more to this than we are led on to believe. 

In the US, refinancing mortgages seems to be a big thing when you have a more debts than you can handle. 
They can write off most of their mortgage payments and only have to pay capital gains? taxes or some or when they sell..so the property is just a way to get extra cash for them. 



> B][Refinancing[/B]
> In recent years, falling interest rates have encouraged homeowners to refinance their mortgages. *Refinancing provides an opportunity to reduce monthly mortgage payments, reduce the term of the loan, or both. When refinancing is done without taking on additional debt, all interest generated by the mortgage remains tax deductible.* When homeowners use their homes as a piggy bank and refinance in order to take out equity to generate spending money - that is, for reasons other than to buy, build or improve their homes - the Home Equity Debt Post-October 13, 1987, rules apply. (For more on this, read Mortgages: The ABCs Of Refinancing.)
> http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/mortinttaxdeduct.asp


Now my question: IF he is paying $3300 a month and wanted to refinance the mortgage to save $300...is that because a) heis not making enough money with his $250k speaking engagements or b) does he have some underlying financial crisis because he's not getting the demand to speak as much..or c) is it just smart business thinking on his part to do that?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Bernanke has remortgaged twice already, once for a higher amount and once for a little smaller amount.

The refinancing have taken the mortgage interest down, but he doesn't appear to be paying much off the balance, and added to the mortgage once.

Maybe he was spending more than he was earning.........or maybe he withdrew the capital to invest in the stock market.

With mortgage interest tax deductible.........there is no rush in the US to pay down the mortgage faster.

Probably just smart financing..........


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> He could put down "retired" and give the pension he gets from the government. He could also tell them about his "spare time" income of $1,000,000 a month.


You have to read the article Rusty..no where in the article does it mention he is making "1 million a month"..I think if he did, he wouldn't be asking for mortgage refinancing.

If he is working at the Brookings institute for 35K to 50K a year similiar to his co-worker, that is probably what the banks are using as salaried income...the big question we don't know is his current debts besides his $3300 a month
mortgage payment. 

The "1 million book deal" is just that..if he sells a ton of his book(s) the royalties from the sale of his books may account for some extra income,
but that is not a given, neither are his speaking engagements and at "$250k" for each, I'm sure he doesn't get one every month..otherwise why would he even want to work at the Brookings institute? 

Sounds to me, like his spending does not equate to his 'take home pay". 

*From the Market Watch article above:*


> Even with a reported $1 million book deal and a speaking appearance fee of $250,000, it’s the *actual income on the books currently that is what counts. And the salary of a fellow at the Brookings Institute, where Bernanke actually is employed, is quite modest, just $35,000 to $50,000 a year*, according to one well-placed source.


But even around all the speculation of what he *could* be making after he got fired by Obama, it is also possible
that due to his unpopularity, the money isn't rolling in like it used to...it is starting to sound like he didn't live
up to expectations when he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve..



> Advised by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who had worked closely with Bernanke, Obama ended up giving Bernanke another four years. With the markets and the economy still fragile, it seemed the sensible thing to do.* In retrospect, it looks like a mistake. By putting Bernanke in charge for the run-up to the 2012 election, Obama jeopardized the recovery and put at risk his own reelection prospects. As the economy has sputtered badly over the past six months, the Fed chairman has failed to do anything about it*. Even today he continues to equivocate. Looking back, Obama should have canned Bernanke when he had the chance.


http://fortune.com/2012/08/20/obama-should-have-fired-bernanke-a-long-time-ago/

and this may be the reason Bernake got fired..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIM8x5wLtR4


> Rep. Alan Grayson questions the *FED inspector General where $9 TRillion dollars went… and Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman hasn’t a clue*… Dunno whether to laugh or cry – I am still getting over the shock and have watched 4 times – LISTEN carefully to what she says – “THEY HAVE NO JURISTRICTION” to investigate the fed!!!
> ————————————————————————————————
> *Just how in the HELL can the Federal Reserve LOSE 9 TRILLION dollars IN ONLY 8 MONTHS? *As Rep Grayson said, this comes out to 30,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the US…..Personally, I think it is more than that ! I think he meant to say; 30, 000 dollars per man, woman, and child in the WORLD.


----------



## MRT (Apr 8, 2013)

I have paid little attention to the story, since I think it is probably bogus anyway, but has there been a revelation as to WHY he was unable to refinance?

If the issue is home equity, then it wouldn't matter who he was...the equity is not there. I *highly* doubt he was turned down due to some reason on the COVENANT side of the qualification process. 

It is bogus that lenders only use 'salary' to qualify. They will use variable income so long as there is a history of that income and it is reasonably likely to continue...so if he is charging 250k per engagement, some lender will indeed use that income...guaranteed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

MRT said:


> I have paid little attention to the story, since I think it is probably bogus anyway, *but has there been a revelation as to WHY he was unable to refinance?
> *
> If the issue is home equity, then it wouldn't matter who he was...*the equity is not there*. I *highly* doubt he was turned down due to some reason on the COVENANT side of the qualification process.
> It is bogus that lenders only use 'salary' to qualify. They will use variable income so long as there is a history of that income and it is reasonably likely to continue...so if he is charging 250k per engagement, some lender will indeed use that income...guaranteed.


------------------------------------------------

From article :http://www.thestreet.com/story/1290...ant-get-a-bank-to-refinance-his-mortgage.html


> Speaking at a conference in Chicago Thursday, Bernanke told the moderator, economist Mark Zandi *that "just between the two of us.*..I recently tried to refinance my mortgage and I was unsuccessful in doing so." When the audience laughed, Bernanke said, "I'm not making that up," according to Bloomberg.
> 
> While amusing, the anecdote is indicative of a serious issue, and also rife with irony, said Richard Bove, analyst with Rafferty Capital Markets.





> "If he can't get a mortgage, just think of all the tens of thousands of people who are trying to get mortgages right now *who can't get them because of the stringency of the rules that he agreed to put in place*," Bove said.


So the new rules put in place after 2008 have come back to bite him in the....




> Jim Vogel, interest rate strategist with FTN Financial, believes it isn't over-regulation so much as the lack of clarity about what the rules are for mortgage finance that is the problem. In the wake of the crisis, for example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FMCC) *forced banks to buy back billions of dollars worth of home loans it says weren't properly underwritten.
> *
> "As long as mortgage originators know *loans can return to them for years after they're sold to others, lending standards can't get easie*r," Vogel wrote in a research note published Wednesday.


.."just between the two of us"...uh huh? ..right!


----------

