I was at a BBQ tonight with a guy from London, and what he said is that the EU has already told England that trade agreements between them will include the free movement of people as a non-negotiable item, and that England will wind up paying fees similar to what they are paying now for access to the EU markets (much like Norway and Switzerland do), and that many of the EU laws will continue to apply in order for GBR to access the EU trade markets.
GBR was never on the Euro, so there’s no change there. So the net effect in the long run is that you really aren’t going to be able to tell the difference if GBR is in the EU or not.
@notrichenough, did the BBQ guest from London have an explanation for why the UK government, in the face of a supposedly mostly unchanged scenario, was all “hair on fire?” The UK was in the sweet spot, being a member of the EU but with its own currency. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
"Is there a cap on how much it cap adjust? Typically on adjustables there is a 2% max adjustment per adjustment period.
If that is the case, and you are going to pay it off in 8-10 years, there will only be one more adjustment, so the max it can go to is 4.875%. At that point, the amount of interest you will be paying is so small that the difference between 4.875% and whatever you might be paying by refinancing now will be quite small and probably will not be worth what you pay to refinance"
Yes, it can adjust a max of 2% every five years. However, the index is 1.75% above the 5 year CMT, which is a pretty good index, so it’s extremely unlikely it would go all the way up to that 2% cap by next year.
I don’t think right now it’s worth refinancing. But if it did bump up very much, I might consider refinancing to another 5 year adjustable, and try to pay it off over that time. Though if I could find a 3% 15 year loan somewhere, with zero closing costs, I might do it. Can’t find that, though.
“notrichenough, did the BBQ guest from London have an explanation for why the UK government, in the face of a supposedly mostly unchanged scenario, was all “hair on fire?” The UK was in the sweet spot, being a member of the EU but with its own currency. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”
We just had a visit with my sister in law, and her boyfriend. He is from the UK, a retired international investment banker. Not conservative at all, has a lot of money in the pound. I assumed that he was going to be very upset by the Brexit, particularly since he had lost a ton of money, especially with the decline of the pound. His perspective was that he was rather glad about the Brexit, though he didn’t feel strongly about it. Didn’t seem to upset him by losing so much money. He said that the immigration issue, lack of control, has been a huge problem in the UK. And that they were incredibly aggravated about every little thing being controlled by the EU. You should have heard him go off about how they are regulating sausage, I guess you don’t mess with English sausage!
Anyways, it really surprised me. I thought a rich, liberal Brit would not be supportive of this. He is very well educated and intelligent, not the demographic that supposedly voted for Brexit, if you were to listen to our media, the type that doesn’t know what is good for them. I guess people get weary of being controlled and told what to do, especially when they are donor countries and footing the bill for others. I don’t know if it was such a great idea for the Europeans to try to pretend they are all one, when they have so much history, so many differences, past conflicts, and not even a common language between them.
I think it’s a smear campaign to bill it voted for by racist. It’s a lot more than that. There will be short term pains but it might be better in the long run.
@Iglooo, that’s an interesting article, although if you apply the same reasoning, many US states should vote to leave the US. Well, I guess some states rights people agree, but I don’t. Why should some textbook committee in TX determine which textbooks my NJ kids use? Oh, sorry, forgot which side I’m on :))
^You know you are stretching. We went through a war to stay united. Our bond is much stronger, same language, history, culture. Whether you like them or not our politicians are elected. To equate that to European UNION is plain stupid. I won’t get into this discussion. I think people are projecting Brexit to our November election, and Brexit has to be wrong if you are HRC supporter.
Personally, I find the Brexit disparity between the under 40’s vs. over 40’s to be most interesting. I’m still rather surprised on the (seemingly rather short term) effect it had on the US stock market. I’m very glad that I quit using limit sell orders a few years ago. Too much volatility between roller coasters like this one, flash crashes and the like. I do want to consider some limit buy orders on some ETFs.
I can understand why Iglooo would think you weren’t joking, after reading some of the press around here. Her article does make one realize a little more, why people took a chance and voted for it. The press just labeling people as stupid, racist, and voting against their own financial interests seemed rather simplistic. It’s too bad the EU had to be so controlling and heavy handed, because I think many others might leave now. Of course, reading your article was a pretty funny explanation, but oh my, what a mess!
It kind of makes sense why older folks would vote for it, and younger against. The younger folks want the ability to move around Europe freely, and they probably aren’t paying as much of the taxes. They want the benefits of being in the EU. The older folks are the ones who are paying for it, are staying in the UK anyways, and still have pride about being British and not having their every last banana controlled. I’m guessing it all comes down to who pays, and who benefits.
@busdriver11, for the record, I wasn’t joking in the sense that my true views are the opposite. I was stretching, exaggerating, taking easy shots.
FWIW, DW and I have more skin in the game than the “typical” US citizen. DW was an expat in the UK for two years, has daily involvement with her staff in the UK (maybe 20% of her total), I worked in/with the U.K. but am well-retired, and most importantly, Scotland is a serious contender for where we will retire (hoping for 50% and 50% Italy, so we are not uninterested parties to Scotland’s desire to Remain).
That’s what I figured. I tend to do the same thing.
I suspect that most people are lined up based upon their personal interests.all we can do at this point is watch, and hopefully the world economy won’t go down the tubes. And then we can never retire!
I’ve been away for awhile so just catching up. Awhile back someone asked about health insurance companies in CA and two people had negative experiences with Cigna. I just wanted to mention that we’ve had Cigna twice over the past five years or so, once an individual plan and once through a start up. Thus, neither was self-funded or through a large employer with much clout and I was very impressed. They paid claims quickly and the few times I needed to call, a CSR picked up quickly, was easy to understand and was able to resolve my issue/answer my question. I was surprised to see the two negative comments and just wanted to share my positive experience. We now have Anthem and I have been very impressed. I have a background in managed care contracting and Anthem was a PITA to work with when I represented hospitals so I was skeptical when dh switched jobs and we had to change from Cigna to Anthem but so far so good.
Also, in terms of our portfolio, we’ve known for a while that we’re too heavily invested in one particular stock and dh keeps mentioning that he needs to sell about 1/2 of it. I was disappointed he didn’t sell right before the Brexit vote and, of course, for a few days, it took a hit. Now, however, it’s about 3% higher than it was the day before Brexit. Great stock but we really do need to diversify. I suggested to dh that he put in a sell order for $1 below what it is now (I think it’s at an all time high). Hopefully he will although and then I can be disappointed when it continues to go up!
I think this is mostly right, but one major difference is the UK will no longer have a vote on EU policy matters. Another difference is that the poorer regions of the UK will no longer be eligible for the rather substantial EU subsidies that they now receive. What a lot of people seem not to understand is that the EU isn’t just a customs union or a free-trade zone, it really is constructed as a “single market” with free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor within the entire EU. Kind of like the United States. A few non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland have been allowed to “buy in” to the single market, but the price is agreeing to all the same rules that apply to EU member states, including free movement of labor across national boundaries, EU-determined environmental standards, product specifications, etc, and financial contributions equivalent to those charged to member states. The Brexiters seem to want it both ways–they’re hoping for continued free access to the single market, but without being subject to the rules and expenses that go into creating the single market, including free movement of labor, various business regulations, and financial obligations. And the EU has made it abundantly clear that won’t fly. In the end, I think it’s likely the UK (or what’s left of it if Scotland and Northern Ireland opt out) won’t have much choice but to capitulate and agree to the same terms as Norway and Switzerland have. If a more favorable deal was a realistic possibility, I’d don’t think you’d see people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage bowing out of responsibility for negotiating the next steps. So Brexit will prove to be a hollow symbolic victory: there will still be free movement of labor, UK businesses will still be subject to EU regulations, and the UK will still contribute to the EU financially. The difference will be that, like Norway and Switzerland, the UK will no longer have a voice in deciding what those regulations are, and the impoverished valleys of Wales and the rotting industrial towns in the north of England won’t get any more subsidies from Brussels. But at least they can claim a nominal kind of “sovereignty.”
@dstark, It isn’t decided. We enjoyed Scotland a lot when we visited. I like the craggy landscape, craggy people, and steel cut oats :). DW lived in Italy during her step-dad’s sabbatical and loved it; I only visited Rome recently, but felt at home. My parents retired in Spain for many years, and I enjoyed visiting. Language issues aside, I feel comfortable in Europe. I also feel comfortable in Maine, and my sister tells me that I’d love Oregon, where she’s retired.
I think my kids will probably stay in the US, although it wouldn’t be shocking if they went elsewhere. In practical terms, it shouldn’t be difficult to stay in touch with them as long as we are near a convenient airport. There are 4 of them, and I expect that they’ll land in different places anyway.
I’m kind of intrigued by the idea of spending part of my retirement in the Algarve, Portugul’s southern coastal region. It’s sunny with a mild climate, beautiful beaches and coastal cliffs, good seafood, and it’s relatively inexpensive, all of which make it a popular vacation and retirement spot for people from the UK, Ireland, Germany,the Netherlands, and the Nordic countries. I don’t think I could live in Europe year-round, though. There are some things about the U.S. I’d miss too much. Like my kids. And baseball. I’m sure there must be others as well, but they’re not immediately coming to mind.
