4 ms·

Kind of funny that 60 days is too long for a product that lasts 30 years. My guess is local banks and credit unions are the most likely source. They keep the

by davio 4y ago

Kind of funny that 60 days is too long for a product that lasts 30 years. My guess is local banks and credit unions are the most likely source. They keep the loans on their portfolio instead of selling them like the mortgage companies.

ak217 4y ago
A 200 day lock is a call option on a loan, the price of the option changes all the time. What you're saying is that local banks/CUs would offer such an option for free. Someone has to pay for the option - in the scenario you describe, the bank/CU would pay for it by losing liquidity of its assets, then having to mark them down. Rate locks are backed by rate swaps. The cost of purchasing a rate swap ultimately comes out of your pocket in the form of additional rate on the loan (the lender can add overhead of course). The cost of rate swaps has doubled in the past 3 months and quadrupled in the past 18 months. I believe it's currently around 3% on 10 year loans, so a 60 day lock on a $500K 10Y mortgage would cost about $2500 while a 200 day lock would cost over $8000.
- pc86 4y ago
  Who the hell is buying 10Y mortgages?
  - ak217 4y ago
    Feel free to add an extra percentage point for a 10Y/30Y swap. One interesting hypothesis is that the focus on fixed-rate 30Y mortgages is fundamentally destabilizing for the US and world economy, because the stability and optionality of 30Y mortgages is paid for by added volatility of the 10Y debt market through those same swaps. Per this theory, US 30Y fixed-rate mortgages are effectively subsidized by the rest of the world. https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-30-year-mortgage-is-an-intrinsically-toxic-product-200c901746a https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-30-year-mortgage-is-an-in...
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Seems like most folks can barely avoid the monthly payment on a 30Y fixed; wouldn't 10Y being the norm just cause a lot of people to be unable to buy at all?
      - ak217 4y ago
        I don't know. The question is whether subsidizing 30Y mortgages (fannie mae/freddie mac/FHA/QE/standard terms enforced by law to enable refinancing, etc.) is the right policy in an open system where it has many major side effects, compared to other ways to adjust housing policy. For reference, Canada has no 30Y fixed mortgages - instead they have 5-10Y fixed terms and distinguish between prepayment for refinancing (exploiting the rate environment) vs. moving (the mortgage can be rolled into the new property). As a policy, this seems less likely to have destabilizing effects than what happens in the US (concentrating volatility by loading up the banks' balance sheets with trillions of refinanced debt at times of low interest rates for folks who happened to have the means and cash flow to refinance at the right time).
        kelnos 4y ago
        Rolling the mortgage into the new property seems interesting. From what I understand, this is very rare in US mortgages, right? I do wonder, if we just had 10Y mortgages, would home prices just crash? People won't buy what they can't afford (I mean, sure, they do to some extent, but not if their monthly payment would double), so sellers might just be forced to sell for less. The first "generation" of 10Y-only mortgages would be disastrous for current owners, as their existing 30Y mortgages would be underwater. Or maybe people just would stop moving... I just glanced at the article you linked, and realized I'd read it back when it was posted, and agreed with its conclusions. I just don't know what the solution is.
        ak217 4y ago
        Right, US mortgages are not portable. Going back to the Canadian mortgages, they have terms of 5-10 years but they can be amortized over up to 25 years. So their standard practice is effectively a balloon payment of up to 80% that is expected to be refinanced at rates in effect at the end of the term. This still financializes housing over up to 25 years (similar to the US) but without subsidizing the interest rate optionality. In the US, balloon payments are heavily discouraged by federal regulation on what kinds of mortgages can be financially supported by the government.

by davio 4y ago

ak217 4y ago

A 200 day lock is a call option on a loan, the price of the option changes all the time. What you're saying is that local banks/CUs would offer such an option for free. Someone has to pay for the option - in the scenario you describe, the bank/CU would pay for it by losing liquidity of its assets, then having to mark them down. Rate locks are backed by rate swaps. The cost of purchasing a rate swap ultimately comes out of your pocket in the form of additional rate on the loan (the lender can add overhead of course). The cost of rate swaps has doubled in the past 3 months and quadrupled in the past 18 months. I believe it's currently around 3% on 10 year loans, so a 60 day lock on a $500K 10Y mortgage would cost about $2500 while a 200 day lock would cost over $8000.

pc86 4y ago
Who the hell is buying 10Y mortgages?
- ak217 4y ago
  Feel free to add an extra percentage point for a 10Y/30Y swap. One interesting hypothesis is that the focus on fixed-rate 30Y mortgages is fundamentally destabilizing for the US and world economy, because the stability and optionality of 30Y mortgages is paid for by added volatility of the 10Y debt market through those same swaps. Per this theory, US 30Y fixed-rate mortgages are effectively subsidized by the rest of the world. https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-30-year-mortgage-is-an-intrinsically-toxic-product-200c901746a https://byrnehobart.medium.com/the-30-year-mortgage-is-an-in...
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Seems like most folks can barely avoid the monthly payment on a 30Y fixed; wouldn't 10Y being the norm just cause a lot of people to be unable to buy at all?
    - ak217 4y ago
      I don't know. The question is whether subsidizing 30Y mortgages (fannie mae/freddie mac/FHA/QE/standard terms enforced by law to enable refinancing, etc.) is the right policy in an open system where it has many major side effects, compared to other ways to adjust housing policy. For reference, Canada has no 30Y fixed mortgages - instead they have 5-10Y fixed terms and distinguish between prepayment for refinancing (exploiting the rate environment) vs. moving (the mortgage can be rolled into the new property). As a policy, this seems less likely to have destabilizing effects than what happens in the US (concentrating volatility by loading up the banks' balance sheets with trillions of refinanced debt at times of low interest rates for folks who happened to have the means and cash flow to refinance at the right time).
      - kelnos 4y ago
        Rolling the mortgage into the new property seems interesting. From what I understand, this is very rare in US mortgages, right? I do wonder, if we just had 10Y mortgages, would home prices just crash? People won't buy what they can't afford (I mean, sure, they do to some extent, but not if their monthly payment would double), so sellers might just be forced to sell for less. The first "generation" of 10Y-only mortgages would be disastrous for current owners, as their existing 30Y mortgages would be underwater. Or maybe people just would stop moving... I just glanced at the article you linked, and realized I'd read it back when it was posted, and agreed with its conclusions. I just don't know what the solution is.
        ak217 4y ago
        Right, US mortgages are not portable. Going back to the Canadian mortgages, they have terms of 5-10 years but they can be amortized over up to 25 years. So their standard practice is effectively a balloon payment of up to 80% that is expected to be refinanced at rates in effect at the end of the term. This still financializes housing over up to 25 years (similar to the US) but without subsidizing the interest rate optionality. In the US, balloon payments are heavily discouraged by federal regulation on what kinds of mortgages can be financially supported by the government.