Nikon raises prices and LIES about the cost of raw materials increasing

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Oh, for God's sake. You come in here pretending to understand
something and then say something like that.

Never seen the term PITI? A mortgage payment amount is often
described as the PITI: Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance.

of course i've seen the term.

What did you think it meant?

what i have not seen is insurance included in a single payment to the
bank. i've seen property taxes included, not insurance.

What are you talking about in "single payment"? The insurance amount
is part of each monthly payment. The mortgage company establishes an
escrow account and collects 1/12th of the annual cost of insurance
with each mortgage payment, and pays the insurance company once a
year. Property taxes are handled the same way if they are part of the
mortgage payment.

maybe your lender did, but not mine.

in my case, only property taxes were initially included in the mortgage
payment, but after a few years, it was separated and i got the tax bill
directly.

insurance was *always* a separate payment, directly to the insurance
company. it was never included in the mortgage payment.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

Why bring that up? You know you will not provide any proof. You
won't even provide any proof that you take photographs.

i brought it up because you claimed i'm lying, which i can assure you,
i am not.

sorry to burst your bubble,

No bubble. I never expected any proof.

how would i prove i *didn't* have insurance anyway?

but i'm not going to post financial
documents, which you would say were faked anyway.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

The only way a reputable financial institution would carry a mortgage
without a mandatory insurance requirement is if the structure is
without value. You can get a mortgage on a valuable piece of land
without insurance being required. If the land has a shot-gun shack on
it, that the loss of, or damage to, would not decrease the value of
the land, they may forgo the insurance requirement. The structure may
be uninsurable because it's such a worthless rat-trap.

"Rental property" includes property that someone places a mobile home
on and pays you ground rent. You are not required to provide
insurance in that case because you don't own the mobile home and
damage to the mobile home does not diminish the value of the land.
So, you could be weaseling if this is the case.

You are forever talking about "edge cases". This would be the edge
case of edge cases. The bank will loan you an amount based on the
combined value of the house and property on which it sits. If there
is no value to the house, or no house, the mortgage is based on the
land value alone. They don't care if the valueless house burns to the
ground or if a mobile home you don't own burns to the ground.

So, either you are lying through your teeth or you are slum landlord.

nothing but insults.

i knew you'd argue, and true to form, you did. you're acting like a
little child who didn't get his way.

edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile
home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****.

So you are a slum landlord or a liar.

neither.

nothing more than insults because you know you're wrong and can't admit
it.

you're also an asshole.

On 2016-01-31 09:25:56 +0000, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2016013014581534441-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual registration.

You're assuming that one wants to register the car in question.

Correct. If you choose to have a non-operating vehicle your
registration is $10/year.

If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment.

It's prudent but not mandatory.

Agreed.

If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

....but if you use nospam's mortgage lender you can drop the insurance
whenever you choose. ;-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/30/2016 8:51 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 01:29:05 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 13:16, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 00:02:22 +0000, Me said:

On 31/01/2016 11:58, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-30 22:37:03 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


You are required to carry insurance on your automobile and on your
house (if you have a mortgage), but you are not required to buy a
camera.

Eh, you're not "required" to buy a house or a car, either... Not
sure what
you
meant here.

If you have a car or a house, you are required to insure it.

not always.

In California proof of insurance is a requirement for annual
registration.
If you are a home owner it is usually prudent to protect your
investment. If you are still paying a mortgage the lender is going to
require insurance.

Is this true then - that only 17% of California homeowners have
earthquake insurance?
http://www.latimes.com/la-homeauto-story1-story.html

Earthquake insurance like flood insurance isn't mandatory in California.
One can certainly weigh the risks and forego that coverage. However, I
have experienced a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in my home and consider
myself fortunate that California building codes minimized damage.
That said I have optional earthquake insurance which will provide me the
means to rebuild or repair damage. I do not have a punitive deductable
and my annual premium is reasonable and affordable. So I am probably
among that 17%.

In September 2010 I experienced a shallow magnitude 7.1 with an
epicentre about 25 miles from where I live, which produced peak ground
acceleration at the nearest strong-motion detector to my location
(less than a mile away) of about 0.8g / 1hz. Closer to the epicentre,
ground shaking was ~ 1.2g.

We were about 8 miles from the epicenter of the M 6.5 which we
experienced here in 2003. It felt like a truck had run into the house.
We had one crack in a non-load bearing interior wall, and some siding
was loosened. Thy advise you to get out of the house/building ASAP, but
I couldn't even stand up. My wife was in her wheelchair hanging onto the
diningroom table. It was a sobering moment.

I was also home for the M 6.9 Loma Prieta quake in 1989. I was home
trying to get some sleep after working 16 hours straight and was woken
to the shaking. When I opened my eyes I was looking up at a ceiling fan
swinging wildly above me.

It was a very interesting way to start the day, main-shock duration
about 45 seconds during which the shaking was intense enough to
prevent you from moving about without falling over, very noisy, and
the nasty thought that while it's continuous severe rolling motion
going on, there are lots of very large jolts - and perhaps it's
getting worse not better.
This resulted in only very minor damage to my house, a few hairline
interior drywall plaster cracks, a few things fell from shelves. Power
was off all day due to substation transformer oil-level sensors
tripping safety cut-offs, which needed to be checked and manually
reset, then tripping again as aftershocks rolled through.
Seismic building codes here are similar to California. For a period
of about 6 months, there was a period of hearty back-slapping and
great joy expressed by engineers and various authorities, reveling in
the fact that quite a major shallow earthquake could happen close to
an urban centre (pop 500,000 or so) with structural damage confined
mainly to old unreinforced masonry buildings, no loss of life.
In February 2011, I experienced a shallow magnitude 6.3, with
epicentre less than 3 miles from where I live. The nearby strong
motion detector recorded peak ground acceleration at 2.2g lateral and
1.8g vertical.
The duration of strong shaking was very brief, only 5 seconds or so.
It was surreal, every tall item of furniture overturned, most large
plate-glass windows exploded, more-or-less every item in every
cupboard or shelf ended up on the floor. Damage to my house was
assessed at around $250,000 - relatively minor. On a camera related
matter, my D300 fell from a 2m high dresser, hit a wooden floor,
bounced and came to rest against the opposite wall. The lens was
broken, but the camera still works fine.
I live in a private lane with 7 houses accessing it. Three were
"total loss" and have been demolished, one rebuilt, the other four
repaired, about $3.5 million damage in a few seconds. Total damage
bill to the city was around $50 billion. About 180 lives were lost -
and it could have been much worse as many earthquake-prone buildings
were vacant at the time of the quake as those buildings had been
damaged in the first quake and were either condemned or in some cases
under repair / strengthening and not in normal use.
I only finished repairing my house mid last year - when there are
100,000 other houses needing repair, then things don't happen fast. I
also would not do a "good as new" repair, but considerable
strengthening etc - I don't want to go through that drama again.

Earthquake insurance isn't mandatory here, but it is relatively
affordable. I don't know the % who aren't insured, but expect it
would be one or two percent.

Having that added insurance provides some peace of mind.

Apart from the catastrophic human toll, I shudder to think of the
financial ripple-effect of a major California quake if so many are
uninsured - and particularly if of those uninsured, then mortgage
lenders are exposed.

They live under the illusion that the Feds will bail them out.


Don't get me started. I can understand and would hope that the gubbmint
would help after a storm like Sandy. What I don't think is right is to
use Federal funds to rebuild multi million dollar homes, so it can
happen again. the people who buy homes on the water should accept
responsibility for the reasonably anticipated consequences. I put them
in a different category than the lower income folks who are forced to
live in storm prone areas.


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 8:54 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've
ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner
insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage
lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change
carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder.

then you haven't heard of all of them.

no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know
everything.

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Then yew haven't seen very much and should STFU.
Inclusion of certain insurance premiums, while not done in the majority
of cases, is not all thy uncommon.



If you allow the homeowner's insurance to lapse, the mortgage contract
will usually contain a clause that allows them to demand full payment
of the remaining balance owed.

usually = not always.

you're confirming what i said, yet you argue anyway. that's ****ed up.


BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?

what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me.

Because it's suspected that you live in Mommy's basement and don't
know about such things.

more of your insults.

it's all you can do when you know you're on weak ground.

You want to weasel out of this as you usually do when wrong? Tell us
you were thinking a private financing by an individual as in
"rent-to-own" or "owner financing". It'll be a lie, but it's a weasel
you can use.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

all they cared about was that the mortgage payments were made on time,
which they were.

so yes, insurance *can* be cancelled without causing problems.

i'm sure you'll keep on arguing anyway.



--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 9:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-01-31 02:24:02 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2016013018132412019-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Ever hear of PMI?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenders_mortgage_insurance

sure have. only suckers pay that.

Strangely enough many folks with FHA or VA backed loans with minimum
(less than 20%) down payments are compeled to pay PMI until they have
20% equity.

and this is about property insurance, not pmi.

The two are entwined when equity is low.

Our resident expert on everything know better. It's words are the
equivalent of royal proclamations, except in edge cases.


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 10:35 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 20:54:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...

Granted? Don't you mean repaid?

no. i mean granted.

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've
ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner
insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage
lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change
carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder.

then you haven't heard of all of them.

no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know
everything.

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Oh, for God's sake. You come in here pretending to understand
something and then say something like that.

Never seen the term PITI? A mortgage payment amount is often
described as the PITI: Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance.


If you allow the homeowner's insurance to lapse, the mortgage contract
will usually contain a clause that allows them to demand full payment
of the remaining balance owed.

usually = not always.

you're confirming what i said, yet you argue anyway. that's ****ed up.

BTW: Do you own a home clear, or are you making mortgage payments?
...or are you renting?

what does that have to do with anything? this isn't about me.

Because it's suspected that you live in Mommy's basement and don't
know about such things.

more of your insults.

it's all you can do when you know you're on weak ground.

You want to weasel out of this as you usually do when wrong? Tell us
you were thinking a private financing by an individual as in
"rent-to-own" or "owner financing". It'll be a lie, but it's a weasel
you can use.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

Why bring that up? You know you will not provide any proof. You
won't even provide any proof that you take photographs.


i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

The only way a reputable financial institution would carry a mortgage
without a mandatory insurance requirement is if the structure is
without value. You can get a mortgage on a valuable piece of land
without insurance being required. If the land has a shot-gun shack on
it, that the loss of, or damage to, would not decrease the value of
the land, they may forgo the insurance requirement. The structure may
be uninsurable because it's such a worthless rat-trap.

"Rental property" includes property that someone places a mobile home
on and pays you ground rent. You are not required to provide
insurance in that case because you don't own the mobile home and
damage to the mobile home does not diminish the value of the land.
So, you could be weaseling if this is the case.

You are forever talking about "edge cases". This would be the edge
case of edge cases. The bank will loan you an amount based on the
combined value of the house and property on which it sits. If there
is no value to the house, or no house, the mortgage is based on the
land value alone. They don't care if the valueless house burns to the
ground or if a mobile home you don't own burns to the ground.

So, either you are lying through your teeth or you are slum landlord.


If a business is located in a Federal Flood Zone, many institutions
require federal flood insurance. I had a situation where a business was
renting on the 20th floor of a building located in a flood plain. It
took several days to get the financial institution to waive that
requirement.

--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 11:46 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 23:14:43 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

a lender may want insurance on a property for which they're loaning
money, but after that, it's possible to cancel the insurance and not
cause problems.

That is absolutely incorrect for any bank or mortgage firm that I've
ever heard of. The mortgage holder will require that the homeowner
insurance carrier notify them if there is a change. If your coverage
lapses, the carrier will notify the mortgage holder. If you change
carriers, the new carrier will notify the mortgage holder.

then you haven't heard of all of them.

no surprise there. this isn't the first time you've pretended to know
everything.

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Oh, for God's sake. You come in here pretending to understand
something and then say something like that.

Never seen the term PITI? A mortgage payment amount is often
described as the PITI: Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance.

of course i've seen the term.

What did you think it meant?

what i have not seen is insurance included in a single payment to the
bank. i've seen property taxes included, not insurance.

What are you talking about in "single payment"? The insurance amount
is part of each monthly payment. The mortgage company establishes an
escrow account and collects 1/12th of the annual cost of insurance
with each mortgage payment, and pays the insurance company once a
year. Property taxes are handled the same way if they are part of the
mortgage payment.


i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

Why bring that up? You know you will not provide any proof. You
won't even provide any proof that you take photographs.

i brought it up because you claimed i'm lying, which i can assure you,
i am not.

sorry to burst your bubble,

No bubble. I never expected any proof.

but i'm not going to post financial
documents, which you would say were faked anyway.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

The only way a reputable financial institution would carry a mortgage
without a mandatory insurance requirement is if the structure is
without value. You can get a mortgage on a valuable piece of land
without insurance being required. If the land has a shot-gun shack on
it, that the loss of, or damage to, would not decrease the value of
the land, they may forgo the insurance requirement. The structure may
be uninsurable because it's such a worthless rat-trap.

"Rental property" includes property that someone places a mobile home
on and pays you ground rent. You are not required to provide
insurance in that case because you don't own the mobile home and
damage to the mobile home does not diminish the value of the land.
So, you could be weaseling if this is the case.

You are forever talking about "edge cases". This would be the edge
case of edge cases. The bank will loan you an amount based on the
combined value of the house and property on which it sits. If there
is no value to the house, or no house, the mortgage is based on the
land value alone. They don't care if the valueless house burns to the
ground or if a mobile home you don't own burns to the ground.

So, either you are lying through your teeth or you are slum landlord.

nothing but insults.

i knew you'd argue, and true to form, you did. you're acting like a
little child who didn't get his way.

edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile
home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****.

So you are a slum landlord or a liar.


In nospam's defense, I believe that he has not seen such documents. But
he/she hasn't seen the outside of his/her mother's basement, except to
go to the supermarket.

--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 11:56 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The mortgage holder may require you have them pay your homeowner
insurance premium and add an amount to your mortgage payment.

i've seen taxes included in the monthly payments but not insurance
premiums.

Oh, for God's sake. You come in here pretending to understand
something and then say something like that.

Never seen the term PITI? A mortgage payment amount is often
described as the PITI: Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance.

of course i've seen the term.

What did you think it meant?

what i have not seen is insurance included in a single payment to the
bank. i've seen property taxes included, not insurance.

What are you talking about in "single payment"? The insurance amount
is part of each monthly payment. The mortgage company establishes an
escrow account and collects 1/12th of the annual cost of insurance
with each mortgage payment, and pays the insurance company once a
year. Property taxes are handled the same way if they are part of the
mortgage payment.

maybe your lender did, but not mine.

in my case, only property taxes were initially included in the mortgage
payment, but after a few years, it was separated and i got the tax bill
directly.

insurance was *always* a separate payment, directly to the insurance
company. it was never included in the mortgage payment.

i'm not wrong and i have the documents to prove it.

Why bring that up? You know you will not provide any proof. You
won't even provide any proof that you take photographs.

i brought it up because you claimed i'm lying, which i can assure you,
i am not.

sorry to burst your bubble,

No bubble. I never expected any proof.

how would i prove i *didn't* have insurance anyway?

but i'm not going to post financial
documents, which you would say were faked anyway.

i own a house and a rental property, the latter of which did not have
property insurance for a period of time for reasons that are not
important and the bank did not say a thing. nothing at all.

The only way a reputable financial institution would carry a mortgage
without a mandatory insurance requirement is if the structure is
without value. You can get a mortgage on a valuable piece of land
without insurance being required. If the land has a shot-gun shack on
it, that the loss of, or damage to, would not decrease the value of
the land, they may forgo the insurance requirement. The structure may
be uninsurable because it's such a worthless rat-trap.

"Rental property" includes property that someone places a mobile home
on and pays you ground rent. You are not required to provide
insurance in that case because you don't own the mobile home and
damage to the mobile home does not diminish the value of the land.
So, you could be weaseling if this is the case.

You are forever talking about "edge cases". This would be the edge
case of edge cases. The bank will loan you an amount based on the
combined value of the house and property on which it sits. If there
is no value to the house, or no house, the mortgage is based on the
land value alone. They don't care if the valueless house burns to the
ground or if a mobile home you don't own burns to the ground.

So, either you are lying through your teeth or you are slum landlord.

nothing but insults.

i knew you'd argue, and true to form, you did. you're acting like a
little child who didn't get his way.

edge case or not, it proves that it is possible, and it's not a mobile
home financed by a disreputable bank either. more of your bull****.

So you are a slum landlord or a liar.

neither.

nothing more than insults because you know you're wrong and can't admit
it.

you're also an asshole.


Speaking of lying, did you review your lending documents, that in the
cont4ext of this discussion, are being imputed to everybody, did you
notice an obligation to keep your property insured?
Or, do you now deny claiming that clause could not be enforced as a
practical matter.


--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 9:00 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

...and requires insurance as a condition of the loan.

and can be cancelled after the loan is granted...


If you do that, unless the financial institution made a serious error,
the loan will be due and payable in full.

not always.

NOT ALWAYS, tell us oh great financial expert, when does a financial
institution not require insurance on a home, when they haven't made an
error. I await your answer with bated breath, but don't really expect
anything but another twist.


What's your point?

read it again.


Explain, for the benefit of those of us who are too dense to understand
your abstract reasoning.

--
PeterN

On 1/30/2016 9:24 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


When I had a mortgage, my mortgage holder required proof of insurance
annually. The insurer was required to notify the bank if I canceled my
insurance. At one time, I changed insurance companies, the new insurer
didn't notify the bank quickly enough, and the bank threatened foreclosure.

so what? i didn't say every single lender.

the fact is that some check and some don't.


Give some examples of those that don't. It would be a rare exception,
requiring an unusual set of facts, where insurance would not be required.

did.


Nobody saw it. Please post the examples here.

--
PeterN