Where are the highest foreclosure rates and what kind of loans are they?

[nerdgirl 0]

One not infrequently encounters anecdotal stories here and outside regarding what type of home loans are underlying the foreclosure mess. Some are thinly veiled racist attacks. Others are general stereotypes of “them” who are poorer and different than “us.” Of those I've seen, they're slim to lacking data.

Does anyone have any data on what type of foreclosures are the largest contributors? Is it ‘McMansions’ in suburbs? Inner city poor? Working class poor?

Stockton, Merced and Modesto metro areas of California lead the nation in % foreclosures.

That’s significantly mixed income demographics.

Outside of California, the only two localities to make the top ten in the latest data for foreclosure rates were Las Vegas-Henderson, NV and Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL.

What do they share? 10+% increase in population since 2000, e.g., Stockton 17.4% increase, Las Vegas-Henderson 15.5% increase, Merced 17.6% increase. And high housing values.

The top three states in terms of absolute number of foreclosure were Nevada, California and Arizona. The top state in terms of % of foreclosures was Florida.

“Where did the mortgage mess come from?” (from Kansas City Star, mid-America) traces the tremendous increase in housing prices in areas of the countries that are also – surprise, surprise – experiencing the highest rate of foreclosures. As the author details, foreclosures rates in urban and rural areas of Mississippi, *where the housing prices are reasonable,* has been on par with historical averages. Where housing prices have skyrocketed, e.g., California which leads w/8 of the highest foreclosure communities?

“Since the start of the Wall Street mess, several pundits and some economists have blamed the mortgage meltdown on the push in the 1990s and 2000s (through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to extend credit to lower income borrowers who otherwise wouldn't have qualified for loans.

“Those borrowers have now defaulted, the argument story goes, wrecking the mortgage-backed securities owned by investment banks and others.

“Here's a typical column … [observe the lack of data – nerdgirl].

“But is the claim really true? Let's look at some numbers.

“Mississippi was the poorest state in the nation in 2007 on a per-capita basis, with an average income of $28,845. And its home prices are low: in late 2006, when many of the problem loans were made, the median home sales price was $82,700.

“Even so, at the end of June this year, Mississippians were having problems paying their loans -- 10.44% of all mortgages were past due, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. That would suggest that, indeed, lower income people were extended credit they couldn't afford.

“But let's look at California and Florida. Per-capita income in California is $41,571; in Florida, it's $38,444. And, as you might expect, home prices in both states in 2006 were extraordinarily high, too. The median sales price in California was $452,000, while it was $236,000 in Florida.

“Here's the key: Foreclosure rates in both states -- loans that are non-performing, the very paper the government wants to buy -- are now very high, too. Florida leads the nation: 6% of its loans are in foreclosure. In California, the rate is 3.86%.

“Mississippi? The foreclosure rate is 1.98%, lower than the national average, suggesting that borrowers in that state are behind on their payments but not yet in default.

“Those numbers suggest the biggest cause of the mortgage meltdown may be loans to relatively wealthier borrowers in higher-price markets that went into foreclosure when home prices collapsed in those areas.

“And remember – on an aggregate basis, the effect of bad loans in high-income and high-price states cost more than in a lower-income area. That is, a foreclosure in California may be on a $400,000 mortgage, [that’s a *very* cheap mortgage in many parts of California-nerdgirl] while one in Mississippi may be, say, $200,000. It adds up. The Mortgage Bankers Association says Californians are paying off 5.9 million home loans; Florida, 3.5 million. Mississippi: 253,000.

“The figures may not tell the whole story. Florida's high foreclosure rate, for example, may reflect subprime loans in poor areas and not defaults on relatively expensive homes. [It also makes sense that predatory lenders in a capitalist system would concentrate on areas where the loans are significantly larger, i.e., they could make more money rather than areas where loans are much smaller – furthering (multiplying) the effect – nerdgirl]

“But let's assume foreclosure rates in Florida among poorer borrowers reflect Mississippi's experience (they are, after all, neighboring states.) That would mean -- very roughly -- that one-third of the crisis comes from non-performing loans from lower income borrowers, while two-thirds of the problem comes from wealthier borrowers buying more expensive homes."

And we don't seem to have good numbers on what is the differential between those "lower-income borrowers" and more expensive homes. If a lower-income" mortgage is $150,000, it takes 3 of those loans defaulting to equal one $450,000 mortgage default or 6 of those loans defaulting to equal one $900,000 McMansion default (altho' parts of California, $900k is a 1500ft^2 single-family home).

Historically, some very small percentage of home loans have defaulted and led to foreclosures (~1.5%, iirc), when the average default was some relatively smaller value, the impact could be adsorbed by the larger economic system; as mortgage defaults grew larger both in absolute number and average value, it's a larger pressure on the system.

VR/Marg

[Edit to add attachment: US foreclosure map]

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Here's the key: Foreclosure rates in both states -- loans that are non-performing, the very paper the government wants to buy -- are now very high, too.

Mr. Helling is extremely misleading with this statement. Mortgage backed securities always include mortgages on properties that will end up in foreclosure. The government is not proposing to buy mortgages on foreclosed properties. The bailouts do include loans to companies that invested too heavily in mortgage backed securities. The payments on most of the associated mortgages are being made by the borrowers. Still, any interest in those securities the government ends up with are due to those securities being held by the companies the government offers bailout loans to, not because the government is looking to invest in mortgages on properties in foreclosure.

By Mr. Helling's logic, purchasing stock in a company that owns property in Florida with a retention pond is the same as investing in mosquitoes.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[marks2065 0]

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

It's a sign of the times when universities and colleges give out names and addresses to credit card companies who suck up students with no source of income. Our educational system failed these kids in simple economics and then baited them. Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Quote

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

Unfortunately I don't think the people who were responsible are the ones who are going to have to pay for it, it is taxpayers like you and I who are going to get stuck with the responsibility.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

It's a sign of the times when universities and colleges give out names and addresses to credit card companies who suck up students with no source of income. Our educational system failed these kids in simple economics and then baited them. Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

That's a lot of comingling going on there.

You have NO evidence at all that students default on their credit card bills any more than anyone else does,

NOR do you have evidence that students go on to be on welfare or public assistance more than anyone else,

NOR do you have any evidence that loans to low income people are the primary cause of the financial meltdown. In fact, the available data suggests that they are NOT.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

The problem has as much (if not more) to do with what Wall Street did with those mortgages as it does with the mortgages themselves.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

That would indeed be a bad idea. That's probably why banks and lending institutions have never been forced to offer such loans. Where did you get the idea they had?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>It's a sign of the times when universities and colleges give out names
> and addresses to credit card companies who suck up students with no
> source of income.

A sign of the times? They've been doing this for at least 30 years.

And giving applications to college grads is a MUCH better idea than putting them in a stand in an airport somewhere. College grads, on average, get better paying jobs than non college grads. (Same reason why banks are willing to give large loans to medical students.)

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>It's a sign of the times when universities and colleges give out names
> and addresses to credit card companies who suck up students with no
> source of income.

A sign of the times? They've been doing this for at least 30 years.

And giving applications to college grads is a MUCH better idea than putting them in a stand in an airport somewhere. College grads, on average, get better paying jobs than non college grads. (Same reason why banks are willing to give large loans to medical students.)

It isn't grads, it's students who run up debt before they make a penny.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

That would indeed be a bad idea. That's probably why banks and lending institutions have never been forced to offer such loans. Where did you get the idea they had?

Ask Bill Clinton

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

That would indeed be a bad idea. That's probably why banks and lending institutions have never been forced to offer such loans. Where did you get the idea they had?

Ask Bill Clinton

Can I assume by your flippant response that you really don't have any legitimate reasons to believe your proposed scenario has any basis in reality? Or, are you just trying to build the suspense before offering some supporting evidence?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rickjump1 0]

OK, sorry to keep you waiting QUOTE........"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. " NYT

1999 NY Times Article Revealed True Cause of Current Fannie Mae Crises
By P.J. Gladnick
September 25, 2008 - 16:25 ET Excerpted from Newsbusters at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises
This is probably an article that the New York Times wishes it didn't have in its archives because it reveals the true culprits behind the current Fannie Mae meltdown. You will find "uncomfortable" truths in this September 30, 1999 article by Steven A. Holmes starting with the title, "Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending," that you won't find in current editions of the New York Times (emphasis mine):
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.



Get that? Pressure by the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans by lowering its credit requirements.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''



That would be the same Franklin Raines whom the Washington Post identified as a mortgage and housing adviser for the Obama campaign until that newspaper told us not to rely on its own reporting. We return you now to the article that the New York Times wishes didn't exist:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

END OF QUOTE.
[url]

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages,
>has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to
>expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt
>pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Yep. And, as Marg pointed out previously, most of the problem came from the higher income mortgage holders. So?

(Kansas City Star: "That would mean -- very roughly -- that one-third of the crisis comes from non-performing loans from lower income borrowers, while two-thirds of the problem comes from wealthier borrowers buying more expensive homes.")

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

my belief is that forclosures are happening to anyone that over extended themselves. when government and other agencies wanted to help lower income people get a loan to buy a house, they opened a door to no doc and intrest only loans that effected alot of buyers , not just the lower income. people over bought on housing and added credit debt to these loans and never actuually slowed their spending habbits or were able to control the cost increases to normal goods and sevices.

the low intrest rates and easy credit opened the doors for alot of people to get ahead, but like as we have seen countless times before, americans are greedy and don't plan for the future and now we are paying for it again. Not just the ceo's are greedy, it is everyone that overextended themselves, and now the responsible people have to pay for it, again.

It's a sign of the times when universities and colleges give out names and addresses to credit card companies who suck up students with no source of income. Our educational system failed these kids in simple economics and then baited them. Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house.

That's a lot of comingling going on there.

You have NO evidence at all that students default on their credit card bills any more than anyone else does,

NOR do you have evidence that students go on to be on welfare or public assistance more than anyone else,

NOR do you have any evidence that loans to low income people are the primary cause of the financial meltdown. In fact, the available data suggests that they are NOT.

I don't believe I said anything about "students" going on welfare or public assistance. Having raised two daughters I can say that during high school they had friends with credit card debt. Don't know how or why a high school kid had a credit card, but they did. College was even worse with kids holding a large amount of debt with a credit card IN ADDITION TO STUDENT LOANS. As for giving home loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance, it's not fair to expect the American taxpayer to pay for these loans, and now ask us to foot the bill because they failed. Did I say that these 2 things caused the meltdown? Nope, but they sure contributed.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>It isn't grads, it's students who run up debt before they make a penny.

I got most of those offers my senior year.

But in any case, college students generally graduate, and become much better at paying back loans than high school dropouts. So if you're going to target someone, college students are a much better choice than a flyer stand at an airport (or a bank.)

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>It isn't grads, it's students who run up debt before they make a penny.

I got most of those offers my senior year.

But in any case, college students generally graduate, and become much better at paying back loans than high school dropouts. So if you're going to target someone, college students are a much better choice than a flyer stand at an airport (or a bank.)

Well, you must be proud of yourself. Being enrolled in ROTC, the only offer I got was my branch choice before graduation. It was that or being drafted. From the beginning, I have not targeted college students; just the credit card companies that prey on students before they enter the work force. Apparently you think this is fine. I disagree.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,120]

>Well, you must be proud of yourself.

Actually, I am proud of what I have accomplished. I hope you are proud of what you have accomplished as well.

>Being enrolled in ROTC . . .

Hmm. So given your opposition to credit card companies that advertise to students, due to their vulnerability or something, can I take it that you oppose ROTC recruiting at schools as well?

> From the beginning, I have not targeted college students; just the
>credit card companies that prey on students before they enter the
>work force. Apparently you think this is fine.

Not only do I think it's fine - if I were in charge of credit card companies it's what I'd do.

If you were a lender, who would you want as your client:

-a Harvard junior
-an orthopedic surgery resident
-an out of work high school dropout

You would be wise to take the junior or the resident over the high school dropout.

(Now, as to using people's personal information for such purposes without their permission - that's a different issue, and that IS a problem. But that's not what we're talking about here.)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

OK, sorry to keep you waiting QUOTE … END OF QUOTE.

I noticed there was absolutely nothing in your article to support your previous claim:

"Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house."

Why am I not surprised?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

… As for giving home loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance, it's not fair to expect the American taxpayer to pay for these loans, and now ask us to foot the bill because they failed. Did I say that these 2 things caused the meltdown? Nope, but they sure contributed.

You're still making that same sorry, false claim without any supporting evidence? Why worry about facts, when you can blame everything on Clinton instead, right?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,150]

You have provided NO evidence at all that students default on their debts any more than anyone else does. That is a complete RED HERRING.

You have provided NO evidence at all that CRA loans to low income people are the cause of the financial meltdown. In fact, the available data suggests that they are NOT.


Instead of engaging in a bigoted anti Clinton rant, provide some evidence and you might be credible. Until you do that you have no credibility at all.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It isn't grads, it's students who run up debt before they make a penny.

You actually have a very valid point (altho' I'm not sure it correlates well with the topic of home loans) - increasing college student debt.

A typical college student has ~$2700 in credit card debt.

The debt burden on college grads from student loans is increasing significantly. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), part of the Dept of Ed, found that ~50% of recent college graduate have student loans, with an average student loan debt of $21,000 (2007). That's a doubling of average loan debt in less than 8 years. Some are much higher & obviously, some are much lower. The highest average loan burden is Washington, D.C., which has an average student debt burden of $27,757.

In a survey of loan recipients from New Hampshire, 82% indicated that without student loans, attending college would not have been possible.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

You have provided NO evidence at all that students default on their debts any more than anyone else does. That is a complete RED HERRING.

You have provided NO evidence at all that CRA loans to low income people are the cause of the financial meltdown. In fact, the available data suggests that they are NOT.


Instead of engaging in a bigoted anti Clinton rant, provide some evidence and you might be credible. Until you do that you have no credibility at all.

To repeat myself again: Both "contribute" to the mess.

This bigoted anti Clinton rant was quoted from the NY Times. Please don't tell me the NYTs is to conservative for you.[url]
The New York Times | 1999 | By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.



Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.


In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kallend 2,150]

I can read quite well, but thank you for caring. Nothing you have cited supports the notion that CRA loans contributed in any substantive way to the current crisis.

CRA didn't force any bank, insurance company or other investor to indulge in the "securitized" debt instruments that precipitated the meltdown. More than 50% of the problem mortgages originated with brokers who aren't bound by CRA anyway.

You simply don't have a case.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You have provided NO evidence at all that students default on their debts any more than anyone else does. That is a complete RED HERRING.

You have provided NO evidence at all that CRA loans to low income people are the cause of the financial meltdown. In fact, the available data suggests that they are NOT.


Instead of engaging in a bigoted anti Clinton rant, provide some evidence and you might be credible. Until you do that you have no credibility at all.

To repeat myself again: Both "contribute" to the mess.

Your sources do not support your initial assertion: ""Forcing banks and loan companies to give loans to people whose only source of income is welfare and public assistance is another way of preying on dumb people with the offer of a "free" house." Nor do your sources support your assertion that properties purchased with mortgages from CRA banks were more likely to go through foreclosure than properties from non-CRA lending institutions.

In fact, evidence suggests the opposite to be true; properties with mortgages from CRA banks are in foreclosure at a lower rate than properties from mortgages from non-CRA lending institutions.

Please, show us evidence supporting your claim that banks were forced to loan money "to people whose only source of income was welfare and public assistance".

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!