Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Only the police should have guns, you know. The shocking double murder of a young couple in Irvine turns out to have been suspectedly com...
-
UPDATE: Edited to remove the guy's name. I hope nobody harasses him or his employer. He was good-natured and his sign was innocuous a...
2 comments:
Enough harping on rising interest rates. Greenspan’s point is that people were paying a premium (around 0.5%) to lock in an interest rate for 30 years for no reason. If there is a 90%+ chance that you will not keep the loan for more than 10 years, you do not need a 30 year fixed loan. You are paying a premium for protection from rising interest rates that is a waste. That being said, Greenspan’s advice was not aimed at people who have 900% leverage in their homes. It was aimed at the traditional 20% down + 30 year fixed mortgagee.
Your first point is true, at least partially. If you know you're going to sell the house within a few years, and you're can tolerate the possibility of having to sell at a loss in a rising rate environment, then ARMs may be appropriate.
But your second point is not correct.
"Greenspan’s advice was not aimed at people who have 900% leverage in their homes. It was aimed at the traditional 20% down + 30 year fixed mortgage."
First of all, Greenspan never made this caveat. Second, there are almost no 20% down, 30-year fixed-rate loans being sold any more. Everyone is smoking the Greenspan chronic. Third, even if you did put 20% down, that doesn't insulate you from rising rates. Your payments still go up significantly. And if you can't afford the new payments, you'll have to sell or do a cash-out refinance... which only works until we have a down market.
Post a Comment