|
Underwater life
It happens to many of us, we make one of the biggest purchases we will
ever make and soon after we begin making payments we find ourselves “underwater” on it with it being worth less than we owe. Should we just walk away or stay in it? If you just stay with it for long enough and continue making payments, eventually you will be above water but that will take a long time. Maybe I should ask for a bailout. If I call my loan for my new truck a mortgage do you think I will qualify for the Obama bailout? |
Underwater life
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:33:55 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: It happens to many of us, we make one of the biggest purchases we will ever make and soon after we begin making payments we find ourselves “underwater” on it with it being worth less than we owe. Should we just walk away or stay in it? If you just stay with it for long enough and continue making payments, eventually you will be above water but that will take a long time. Maybe I should ask for a bailout. If I call my loan for my new truck a mortgage do you think I will qualify for the Obama bailout? I know you're being facetious but almost all vehicle loans are underwater from day one unless you put up a really substantial down payment. |
Underwater life
On Feb 19, 1:24 pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:33:55 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: It happens to many of us, we make one of the biggest purchases we will ever make and soon after we begin making payments we find ourselves “underwater” on it with it being worth less than we owe. Should we just walk away or stay in it? If you just stay with it for long enough and continue making payments, eventually you will be above water but that will take a long time. Maybe I should ask for a bailout. If I call my loan for my new truck a mortgage do you think I will qualify for the Obama bailout? I know you're being facetious but almost all vehicle loans are underwater from day one unless you put up a really substantial down payment. You miss the point. Why should "underwater" mortgages be bailed out when underwater auto loans are not, the concept is the same thing. Both will eventually be above water. |
Underwater life
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:36:52 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: On Feb 19, 1:24 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:33:55 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: It happens to many of us, we make one of the biggest purchases we will ever make and soon after we begin making payments we find ourselves “underwater” on it with it being worth less than we owe. Should we just walk away or stay in it? If you just stay with it for long enough and continue making payments, eventually you will be above water but that will take a long time. Maybe I should ask for a bailout. If I call my loan for my new truck a mortgage do you think I will qualify for the Obama bailout? I know you're being facetious but almost all vehicle loans are underwater from day one unless you put up a really substantial down payment. You miss the point. Why should "underwater" mortgages be bailed out when underwater auto loans are not, the concept is the same thing. Both will eventually be above water. What I haven't heard any of the "talking heads" mention about the mortgage problem mitigation is whether those who refi-ed their home to buy a boat or auto qualify. I can see reducing interest rates to keep "qualified" people in their home. Not good, but if stabilizes the economy it might be worth it. Might make a 15-30 mortgage a 50-year mortgage to reduce the vigorish. The banking industry and not the taxpayer should take the big hit on this. Principal loan amount should *not* be reduced. Those who refi-ed to pull money out of their so-called equity should not qualify. They were irresponsible and should live with that. Same with owners of more than one home. It's going to be a nightmare to administer this. --Vic |
Underwater life
"Frogwatch" wrote in message ... On Feb 19, 1:24 pm, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:33:55 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: It happens to many of us, we make one of the biggest purchases we will ever make and soon after we begin making payments we find ourselves “underwater” on it with it being worth less than we owe. Should we just walk away or stay in it? If you just stay with it for long enough and continue making payments, eventually you will be above water but that will take a long time. Maybe I should ask for a bailout. If I call my loan for my new truck a mortgage do you think I will qualify for the Obama bailout? I know you're being facetious but almost all vehicle loans are underwater from day one unless you put up a really substantial down payment. You miss the point. Why should "underwater" mortgages be bailed out when underwater auto loans are not, the concept is the same thing. Both will eventually be above water. ************************************************** *** Can't you Repugnicans stand on your own two feet? We have JustHate looking for a $7 K handout so he can buy a new vehicle and now you want to weasel out of a contract you signed 'in good faith'. JohnnyHs panhandling hobby is catching on. |
Underwater life
On Feb 19, 2:20*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
What I haven't heard any of the "talking heads" mention about the mortgage problem mitigation is whether those who refi-ed their home to buy a boat or auto qualify. Those who refi-ed to pull money out of their so-called equity should not qualify. *They were irresponsible and should live with that. Same with owners of more than one home. --Vic- While I loosly agree with your points, you're worrying about a small fraction of the people in trouble. Someone who has enough equity to have an equity line of credit and uses it to buy a boat or car has been in the house for a long time, or had a large down payment when they bought the house. They have a sizable investment in the house, and are typically responsible enough, and tied to the house enough, to not walk away or get in that far over their heads. The problem is with the people that got a mortgage for 100% of what their house was worth when bought, and/or signed up for payments that they simply can't make. They have no real equity built up, and since they have no personal investment in the house (down payment), they feel they have no reason to keep making payments on something that is no longer worth what they mortgaged. I struggled for a while to understand why so many people were walking away from houses. I finally realized they aren't losing anything but their credit rating, which probably wasn't so great to begin with. |
Underwater life
|
Underwater life
On Feb 19, 4:32 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:07:16 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Feb 19, 2:20 pm, Vic Smith wrote: What I haven't heard any of the "talking heads" mention about the mortgage problem mitigation is whether those who refi-ed their home to buy a boat or auto qualify. Those who refi-ed to pull money out of their so-called equity should not qualify. They were irresponsible and should live with that. Same with owners of more than one home. --Vic- While I loosly agree with your points, you're worrying about a small fraction of the people in trouble. Someone who has enough equity to have an equity line of credit and uses it to buy a boat or car has been in the house for a long time, or had a large down payment when they bought the house. They have a sizable investment in the house, and are typically responsible enough, and tied to the house enough, to not walk away or get in that far over their heads. The problem is with the people that got a mortgage for 100% of what their house was worth when bought, and/or signed up for payments that they simply can't make. They have no real equity built up, and since they have no personal investment in the house (down payment), they feel they have no reason to keep making payments on something that is no longer worth what they mortgaged. I struggled for a while to understand why so many people were walking away from houses. I finally realized they aren't losing anything but their credit rating, which probably wasn't so great to begin with. It's hard to get a handle on it. I read about a guy named Frank Torres who "barricaded" himself in his house for a while in protest of it being foreclosed. You can look him up. I don't remember all the details, but he bought the house in California in 2002 and paid $180k. He refied twice and when he lost the house he owed $284k. Those numbers might not be exact, but they're close. I don't want to bail this guy out. You've probably heard that many people did this kind of thing as house values appreciated in the bubble. There's been talk for years about people using their homes as a bank, buying boats and cars with refi's.. On the other hand I've seen a woman on TV that put down 30k on a 200k house but not being savvy got in over her head because she was sold an ARM with an outrageous rate adjustment. Then you got your flippers. Then you got responsible people on the edge because they lost their job. It's just the biggest damn mess you can imagine. --Vic It's a big mess and I have no sympathy. Flippers took the risk and should pay. Equity borrowers should pay too People who made zero down mortgages will never be good credit risks and they have nothing at risk, I have no sympathy for the lenders in that case. Who but an idiot would go for an ARM when the fixed rates were so low? STUPID SHOULD HURT |
Underwater life
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:48:53 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote: It's a big mess and I have no sympathy. Flippers took the risk and should pay. Equity borrowers should pay too People who made zero down mortgages will never be good credit risks and they have nothing at risk, I have no sympathy for the lenders in that case. Who but an idiot would go for an ARM when the fixed rates were so low? STUPID SHOULD HURT ARMs are nearly always lower than fixed. I did a 3-yr ARM refi at 2.75 when the lowest fixed 15 yr was @6. Anyway, my eyes were wide open and I had a backup plan if the rates went up hard when they reset. The woman I mentioned works and can afford to pay her mortgage at a real market rate. Purely a victim of predatory lending. I don't care if she isn't a sharp tack financially. She shouldn't be taken advantage of like that. If your mutual fund suddenly went negative due to malfeasance, you wouldn't be calling yourself stupid. You're welcome to call yourself stupid if you've suffered equity losses legitimately however. You rolled the dice. But I don't think predatory lending is the root cause of the disaster. Most of it is interest-only loans, flippers, and equity pullers. Not "poor people" in most cases, though they might be now. Again, until somebody actually collates the defaults, it's hard to get a handle on it. This is a case where the gov temporarily hiring 10,000 out of work accountants/investigators to sort things out would pay off. Get it done fast, and don't pay off the deadbeats. Things will get back to normal. And by normal I don't mean what's been normal for the last 10 years or so. I mean previous home market normal. 20% down and proven income to afford the note payments. Home prices will adjust to that supply/demand reality. Hardly the rocket science we boaters are accustomed to here. Wait....I don't have a boat yet. Hmmmmm, maybe I can refi and pull some cash out for that. Reminds me of a commercial that was running until recently, maybe Geico. "Cash out some of that equity!" Aw, ****. How did we get where people thought that was the way to go? --Vic |
Underwater life
On Feb 19, 7:33 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:48:53 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch wrote: It's a big mess and I have no sympathy. Flippers took the risk and should pay. Equity borrowers should pay too People who made zero down mortgages will never be good credit risks and they have nothing at risk, I have no sympathy for the lenders in that case. Who but an idiot would go for an ARM when the fixed rates were so low? STUPID SHOULD HURT ARMs are nearly always lower than fixed. I did a 3-yr ARM refi at 2.75 when the lowest fixed 15 yr was @6. Anyway, my eyes were wide open and I had a backup plan if the rates went up hard when they reset. The woman I mentioned works and can afford to pay her mortgage at a real market rate. Purely a victim of predatory lending. I don't care if she isn't a sharp tack financially. She shouldn't be taken advantage of like that. If your mutual fund suddenly went negative due to malfeasance, you wouldn't be calling yourself stupid. You're welcome to call yourself stupid if you've suffered equity losses legitimately however. You rolled the dice. But I don't think predatory lending is the root cause of the disaster. Most of it is interest-only loans, flippers, and equity pullers. Not "poor people" in most cases, though they might be now. Again, until somebody actually collates the defaults, it's hard to get a handle on it. This is a case where the gov temporarily hiring 10,000 out of work accountants/investigators to sort things out would pay off. Get it done fast, and don't pay off the deadbeats. Things will get back to normal. And by normal I don't mean what's been normal for the last 10 years or so. I mean previous home market normal. 20% down and proven income to afford the note payments. Home prices will adjust to that supply/demand reality. Hardly the rocket science we boaters are accustomed to here. Wait....I don't have a boat yet. Hmmmmm, maybe I can refi and pull some cash out for that. Reminds me of a commercial that was running until recently, maybe Geico. "Cash out some of that equity!" Aw, ****. How did we get where people thought that was the way to go? --Vic If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. |
Underwater life
Frogwatch wrote:
If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. |
Underwater life
"HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. |
Underwater life
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. Chump change. It's the wall street pukes who are cashing in during the bailout. |
Underwater life
"HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. Chump change. It's the wall street pukes who are cashing in during the bailout. I thought it was those Democrat pols. Got a pay raise during this downturn. |
Underwater life
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: "HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. Chump change. It's the wall street pukes who are cashing in during the bailout. I thought it was those Democrat pols. Got a pay raise during this downturn. And traveling overseas on our bucks. |
Underwater life
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. The CC companies are just as much to blame. They get what they deserve if they give a kid that young a line so high. That's just stupid. Of course, the kid learns absolutely nothing from the experience, and will do it again. My first CC had a line of a whole $100. Times have changed. --Mike |
Underwater life
On Feb 20, 2:03 am, "Mike" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. The CC companies are just as much to blame. They get what they deserve if they give a kid that young a line so high. That's just stupid. Of course, the kid learns absolutely nothing from the experience, and will do it again. My first CC had a line of a whole $100. Times have changed. --Mike In 1982 being married a whole year, I begged my wife not to ge a cc cuz I was afraid of going into debt. She got one with a whopping $200 limit. Turns out, she is cheaper than me. One time since then, we paid interest one month by mistake cuz I got the payment there late; you'd have thought we'd gone bankrupt for all the grief she gave me. That was 10 yrs ago and I still hear about it at least one a week. Being cheap makes you free. Buying things makes you a slave. |
Underwater life
"Mike" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message m... "HK" wrote in message ... Frogwatch wrote: If the interest rate truly determines whether or not you can pay a mortgage, then in my opinion you should borrow less. Using the ARM rate to justify overborrowing is silly. ARMs are ALWAYS risky. If you borrow needing two incomes to pay and you lose one income, no sympathy from me. HOWEVER, if you buy a small house and your payments are less than 25% of a single income and then you lose your job, OK you have my sympathy. Other peoples failure to plan for contingencies should not allow them to rob me to pay their bills. No one wants your rotten old boats and rusty old trucks. And it may be why he probably has money in the bank and not credit card debt. Today in guitar class we are discussing 1099's when doing a short sale or write down of credit card debt. One kid, about 21-22 years old, says he did not get a 1099 when they wrote off 70% of his $25,000 CC debt. I asked him how a 21 year old can rack up that much CC debt. Said it was easy. Went to Vegas and bought $1500 clothing outfit to look good. Things like that. These are the types getting bailed out. The CC companies are just as much to blame. They get what they deserve if they give a kid that young a line so high. That's just stupid. Of course, the kid learns absolutely nothing from the experience, and will do it again. My first CC had a line of a whole $100. Times have changed. --Mike And the rest of us are paying for the write downs with higher fees, etc. I did not use my first CC for maybe 5 years after I got it. Needed gas in the middle of the night and not enough cash on hand. I use my CC now for most things. Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. |
Underwater life
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:20:43 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. Strange concept that. Looks like banks subsidising airlines. Casady |
Underwater life
wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:55:10 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. Strange concept that. Looks like banks subsidising airlines. It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. |
Underwater life
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:55:10 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. Strange concept that. Looks like banks subsidising airlines. It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. But part of the price that you pay, even with a check, is the cost of credit. |
Underwater life
"HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:55:10 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. Strange concept that. Looks like banks subsidising airlines. It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. But part of the price that you pay, even with a check, is the cost of credit. The price is the same whether I use a CC card, Debit Card, write a check or pay cash. So I might as well get all the benefits you pay for by carrying a CC balance. |
Underwater life
Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:55:10 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: Even the phone bill is billed to the CC as well as paying for 2 university educations and weddings. But I do not run a balance and use the miles accumulated to travel. Strange concept that. Looks like banks subsidising airlines. It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. But part of the price that you pay, even with a check, is the cost of credit. The price is the same whether I use a CC card, Debit Card, write a check or pay cash. So I might as well get all the benefits you pay for by carrying a CC balance. Sure...why not. |
Underwater life
wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:37:27 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. It is bundled in the price. They pay 2% and that money comes from somewhere. Checks are deposited the same as cash. That is why "club" stores like Sams don't take Visa/Amex or MC. BTW yesterday I had an interesting experience. Ruck Brothers (rock merchant) processes your check right there and you get it back voided. They directly EFT the money. They also scan the stripe on your driver's license for ID. Sam's here takes Master Card now |
Underwater life
wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:37:27 -0800, "Calif Bill" wrote: It is bundled in the price of any product you get from any company that accepts cards and does not directly pass that cost on to the customer. It is typically between 2 and 5%. Does not cost me anymore than writing a check to them. It is bundled in the price. They pay 2% and that money comes from somewhere. Checks are deposited the same as cash. That is why "club" stores like Sams don't take Visa/Amex or MC. BTW yesterday I had an interesting experience. Ruck Brothers (rock merchant) processes your check right there and you get it back voided. They directly EFT the money. They also scan the stripe on your driver's license for ID. But I pay the same cash or CC and if I use my Amex at Costco I get a 1% rebate. 5% on gas. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com