If you need cash now, we offer fast payday loans up to $1000. The process takes less than 3 minutes.
Payday advance types of loans usually require the entire amount to be repaid on the next pay period. No credit or faxing needed for loans under $1000. Bad credit OK! Instant Decision; you can start today and have the cash you need quickly
We are an immediate loan specialist in East Point, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to East Point occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
"Sand states" is a term that came to be used for the states that got hit the worst by the pop of the housing bubble and financial crisis - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida - they all have beaches and/or desert (="sand"). Actually, it was mainly a few cities or areas that got hit the worst: Riverside/San Bernardino CA, Las Vegas NV, Phoenix AZ, Miami FL. The question is WHY did these states suffer the most in the financial crisis? Is it because prices went up the most in these states (cities, really)? Is it because these are the areas where the most sub-prime loans were sold, thus driving up prices? Were these areas targeted by banks to create massive bubbles and then pop them? WHY THESE STATES?
It is a combination of several factors. These areas all have sand as you mentioned, but are areas of high-growth or perceived high-growth. Some bought homes with the intention of renting them out to people. Areas like Las Vegas had seen very high growth for years, and so it was not unreasonable to assume there would be renters seeking housing. These areas are also all vacation or retirement areas. Many snowbirds from the North or East where it's cold like to own a second home to spend the winter months in the nicer climate. Some ultimately retire to the warmer areas year-round. Mortgage rates are based off of the 10-yr US Treasury bill. The treasury rates are in part based on the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Funds rate was lowered by the Federal Reserve under Greenspan in 2001 after 9/11, but also after the short recession that followed. In addition to this, there is a great deal of evidence that the emerging market's growth, particularly China, produced a lot of income that workers in these countries were not spending, but saving. In China for example, there are few if any social insurance programs like medicaid or social security, so people there actually save a much larger share of their income. These savings are put into banks, and much of that money was used to purchase US Treasury debt, which helped to keep bond yields low, and in turn kept mortgage rates low. These temporary record-low mortgage rates encouraged some buyers of vacation or investment property to enter the market. Once the snowball got rolling and prices were increasing at a certain level, more sub-prime buyers were able to get 100% financing because if a property appreciates at a certain rate per year, banks can look and say, "even if this person defaults in a year and we have to discount the property by 10%, the increase in prices will cover that discount and we will not lose money in a distressed sale." Normally, the 20% down payment covers the bank in the even of a sale, but that because unnecessary as the prices were increasing so fast. Also, it cannot be forgotten that there was significant Federal involvement. The FHA began allowing more borrowers to put down only 3.5% of the purchase price, thus allowing people who were unable to save for a normal down payment to purchase a home. These borrowers typically had fragile finances which meant that if they had a bad month or lost a job, they would be much more likely to default on their mortgage, as compared with someone who had more stable finances, either through higher income, family connections, an employed spouse, etc. The FHA and other subprime loans did not have a geographic component other than the fact that there were more such loans in these large cities, simply because they were larger cities with more people. However, Fannie and Freddie, which purchase loans from banks so that the money can then be lent to new borrowers, had their conforming loan limits raised in high-priced areas. If you lived in Easter Kentucky, for example, where homes cost little, loans up to $417,000 could be purchased by Fannie or Freddie. In areas like SoCal, where prices are higher, the loan could be up to $729,750. This allowed banks to underwrite and then SELL loans which may have been for dollar amounts they would have otherwise declined. Now, there were of course standards banks had to follow when underwriting these loans, but if they were going to own these loans they may have chosen stricter standards. Too many things happened that were out of the control of any one institution or individual that makes it unrealistic to banks targeted areas where they sought to create and then pop a bubble. Interestingly, you will note that the housing bubble appeared to have only spared sparsely-populated areas like North Dakota. My thought is that in these areas, no one really wants to vacation, and there are so few people that it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where there would be high demand for rental housing, and so neither of these would have served as an impetus for such house-buying, even though that ironically is a stark contrast to those areas now. I think that's about it, but I may have forgotten something. A lot has been written about it, but that's my take.
For Credit and finance solutions I always recommend this site where you can find all the solutions. :Why did the "sand states" (CA, NV, AZ, FL) suffer the worst of the housing crash? "Sand states" is a term that came to be used for the states that got hit the worst by the pop of the housing bubble and financial crisis - California, Nevada, Arizona, Florida - they all have beaches and/or desert (="sand"). Actually, it was mainly a few cities or areas that got hit the worst: Riverside/San Bernardino CA, Las Vegas NV, Phoenix AZ, Miami FL. The question is WHY did these states suffer the most in the financial crisis? Is it because prices went up the most in these states (cities, really)? Is it because these are the areas where the most sub-prime loans were sold, thus driving up prices? Were these areas targeted by banks to create massive bubbles and then pop them? WHY THESE STATES? Follow 4 answers
Ask 100 people and you'll get a 100 different answers. And it wasn't just those 4 states or areas hit the hardest. Portland, East Point lost 50-75% of value in some areas. Deep South states also bottomed out (other than TX). San Berdoo, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Portland all had one huge thing in common - lots of land that got overbuilt on out in the suburbs (urban sprawl). The second huge thing they had in common was an influx of East Point area people seeing cheap homes (comparatively) and artifically inflating the price of these homes. Then you throw in irresponsible lending, irresponsible borrowing, and outright scams by builders, and you had the perfect storm for a disaster.
Amount of pre-bubble undeveloped land and an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
Speaking for California only, it was definitely about land, (or lack thereof), location and greed. :(