7 ms·

I don’t know that I really count since I’m quite frugal. On my end I think the term mortgages are great since I believe it leads to lower overall interest rates

I don’t know that I really count since I’m quite frugal. On my end I think the term mortgages are great since I believe it leads to lower overall interest rates. There’s a lot less risk that gets baked into the price that would be needed for longer terms. I know I’ve compared to other jurisdictions where interest seems way higher. So it doesn’t cause me any anxiety.

amscanne 4y ago
It’s been “great” for the last forty years because rates have been consistently trending downwards. You’ve never had to think about the downside. Your experience would/will be much different in an environment where rates are rising. Regarding the upside, the rates aren’t much different in the US where you typically have 30 years locked in. Unlike Canada, these also generally have no prepayment penalty, so you can always refinance on rate drops. I’m quite sure the rates on a ARM 5 year or 8 year would be directly comparable to a Canadian mortgage (and you always have that option in the US). There’s lots of great things about Canada, but I think you’re really stretching to see a positive where there isn’t one. (I’m Canadian but I definitely don’t hold a positive view of our financial institutions.)
- xyzzy123 4y ago
  30 year mortgages are a political guarantee to homeowners. They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. They're a government subsidy to mortgagors enabled by the origination process, obscured by a few hops of financialization. You get a rate guarantee for 30 years plus you can refi, sell or walk away if the bet doesn't go your way. It's pretty much begging to be exploited.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. I was going to quibble with this since I’ve seen fixed rate mortgages in Ireland but… > A fixed rate mortgage is a home loan for which the interest rate is kept the same for an agreed amount of time. The maximum length of time for which a mortgage can be fixed in Ireland is ten years. https://personalbanking.bankofireland.com/articles/my-first-home/looking/fixed-vs-variable-rate-mortgage/#:~:text=A%20fixed%20rate%20mortgage%20is%20a%20home%20loan,so%20what%20is%20a%20variable%20rate%20mortgage%20then%3F https://personalbanking.bankofireland.com/articles/my-first-...
    - xyzzy123 4y ago
      Yes and the rates will tend to be considerably different - you will actually see a risk premium in the longer terms, as you would expect. The fact that "cheap" 30 year fixed rate mortgages only exist in a few countries (US is only one I know of, but it's a big world) is the most accessible evidence that they're created by government policy (without having to dig into the technical details of how they are originated and guaranteed).
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        Living in the US, I can't imagine taking out the maximum mortgage that I theoretically qualify for. (without having done it, I think I don't like the idea of 1/2!)
        denimnerd42 4y ago
        It’s pretty easy to take out the maximum if you’re trying to buy a home without contingency on selling your previous one. Since only the monthly payments really matter towards qualification you could be 90% paid off on your first mortgage and still need to work around the DTI limit for your second. When you sell your first everything becomes comfortable again.
        maxerickson 4y ago
        Right, I wasn't saying "I can't imagine a scenario where taking out the maximum would be an acceptable short term decision", I was saying "I can't imagine buying a house with the plan to make the maximum payments I qualify for over the long term".
  - ska 4y ago
    Yes. This plus the home mortgage interest tax deduction amount to absolutely massive market distortions from policy encouraging home ownership in the US. You can argue +'s and -'s, but you can't argue it's free market rates.
    - pbourke 4y ago
      I wonder how many taxpayers are claiming the mortgage interest deduction nowadays after the rise in standard deduction.
      - denimnerd42 4y ago
        it’s pretty useless to me since they lowered it to 750k and raised the standard deduction.
        closeparen 4y ago
        A $750k loan is easily $20k interest, and you're probably maxing out the $10k SALT cap too. That's almost triple the standard deduction.
        happyopossum 4y ago
        It’s not triple anything if you’ve got a wife and 3 kids.
      - ska 4y ago
        That's an interesting point, plausible less impact over time.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        10% or fewer American tax filers itemize in the first place, so less than that use the mortgage interest tax deduction.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  - margalabargala 4y ago
    > 30 year mortgages are a political guarantee to homeowners. And they work; arguably these are one of the reasons why "owning your own home" was able to be something that so many Americans see(saw?) as an unquestionable part of adult life. The government used its political power to make things easier for a huge subset of its less-well-off citizens. > It's pretty much begging to be exploited. And yet it mostly isn't. There hasn't been any huge crash or people getting filthy rich due to the recipients of 30 year mortgages exploiting the system in any way, and recipients are the ones that would be doing the exploiting in the context of your comment. The lenders of course caused 2008, etc, but they're arguably the ones who would hypothetically be exploited. If it were actually begging to be exploited, I would suspect that we would see something different than this.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      They pretty clearly create upward pressure on home prices. That's a policy failure. Policies to encourage construction directly would work better to increase home ownership than subsidizing mortgages.
      - chii 4y ago
        under neoliberal economic theory, the high prices of homes would encourage building more of it. Unfortunately, the existing home owners, directly or indirectly, would lobby local gov't/councils to stop new builds. Current zoning laws also don't help.
    - yourapostasy 4y ago
      > There hasn't been any huge crash or people getting filthy rich due to the recipients of 30 year mortgages exploiting the system in any way... Those very US government programs that implement the political guarantee also implement an exploit in oh, so many programs for non-owner occupants, typically realtors / agents, to leverage in ways they absolutely cannot in a truly open commercial market. Every single realtor / agent acquaintance I've been introduced to will wax on about their impressive portfolio holdings if I give them an opening to do so. Acting innocent, I inquire about the details of their fabulous business acumen. Every single one below the $20M valuation mark, without exception, and most cluster around the $1M valuation mark, hold the bulk of their assets via government or quasi-government-backed paper and not through a commercial bank loan. The US rules around establishing owner occupancy in many programs are insanely easy to circumvent, and for all practical purposes never enforced. There are plenty of people exploiting the program making a pretty penny off of taxpayer largesse. Real estate is one of the most heavily subsidized assets in the US.
  - voisin 4y ago
    > They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. They're a government subsidy to mortgagors enabled by the origination process, obscured by a few hops of financialization. Is the government buying the mortgages or how is this a subsidy from the government? It seemed from the great financial crisis that these mortgage backed securities were being bought by institutions all over the place, so if there is demand why would it be a subsidy?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Grimburger 4y ago
      Fannie May and Freddie Mac is the research starting point you want here. US mortgages are certainly subsidised by the taxpayer through some complex financial instruments and those two government owned corporations. Funnily enough when I jest to American colleagues about it being socialism they seem confused and don't think that it is at all. Many don't seem to realise just how drastic a 30 year fixed term is in every other financial market on Earth. I think the max you can fix in Australia is 3 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        They pretty much have an implicit guarantee from the government, but they aren't government owned.
      - Schnitz 4y ago
        The irony is that because of the persistent low interest rates in the last decade it is more and more common to take out a 5/1 in the US because people think the slightly higher interest rate of a 15 or 30 year fixed is throwing away money. In fact, I know nobody except myself that got a fixed rate mortgage in the last few years. I certainly sleep better knowing that I don’t have to refinance in the next 2 years…
- kevin_nisbet 4y ago
  I don’t think it’s fair to say I’m not aware of the downsides. Yes my own experience is universally in a very aggressive rate environment that could impact my perspective. But I’m also aware that the majority of the time variable rates end up ahead of fixed rates. The term mortgages to me make it a bit closer to variable rates. The rate gets updated every few years. Banks themselves to fund the mortgages don’t get 25 year loans. So as an institution they need to set rates based on risk so they don’t lose money. This risk increases the further you project into the future. So all other things being equal you are not paying a premium to insure against that risk. I’m not commenting on the financial institutions as a whole, or other factors that may lead to higher or lower rates. I’m under the impression that rates are a higher in the us for the 25 year mortgages when calculated off of the overnight rates from the central banks. But I don’t have any data handy to back up the impression for I could be wrong. I suppose having this be an option for the consumer is probably the best option. But for most consumers insuring against rate increases will be quite costly.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    > But for most consumers insuring against rate increases will be quite costly. I’m not sure how you can make an argument that long and specific while completely ignoring the evidence to the south of you that contradicts it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
PragmaticPulp 4y ago
> On my end I think the term mortgages are great since I believe it leads to lower overall interest rates. When rates are going down, yes. But locking in low rates in the United States for 30 years either at purchase time or via refinancing is one of the weirdest advantages of home ownership here. It's surreal to have a 2.x% mortgage locked in for decades when rates are quickly going up and inflation is reducing the relative value of my debt and payments.
- pishpash 4y ago
  The only way this ends is by running the process in reverse where declining asset prices reduce the gains made on the debt side. If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled. We've baked in 8% annualized real loss somewhere going forward and it will come out of somebody's pockets, but it's still being decided whether asset owners or debtors will pay.
  - chii 4y ago
    > If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled the asset price could remain stable, if the jobs that service those mortgages aren't removed. Inflation of consumables can be controlled, but it is painful. Inflation of assets should not be controlled, even if it could - asset growth represents the wealth of those who invested in it. If this growth is artificially suppressed, millions would lose their retirement funds, and become poorer in the future, and for what?
    - sjfidsfkds 4y ago
      Inflation means there is too much demand in the economy compared to the supply (of goods and labor). Decreased retirement funds are one mechanism by which asset price reductions can lead to people consuming less and working more. More broadly there’s a wealth effect that determines how much people spend.
    - pishpash 4y ago
      Nothing is in a vacuum and wealth only has meaning relatively. As much as it may be a shock to hear, wealth is but a social contract on how much it gets you in exchange. There is no absolute answer on that and it's subject to negotiation. If you are in charge of distributing wealth (which is what this is, let's be honest), higher prices means current asset holders are favored over future asset holders who want to purchase assets. Why should those who invested in a bubble during the loosest money era be entitled to exchange it for the same amount of labor or goods of those who built wealth during austerity?
refurb 4y ago
Leads to lower rates? The US 30 year fixed bottomed out at 2-2.5%, which seems about the same as the lowest 5 year fixed in Canada? When Canadians have to renew at 5-7% in a few years that’s going to cause massive havoc.
- rnd33 4y ago
  On average over a longer period variable rates will always be lower, since the risk premium due to future rate uncertainty will be lower. If that period is a 100 years it won't help lenders much though.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Variables rates will always be lower? At any given point in time, true. But you can lock in a fixed rate that will be lower than a variable rate in the future when rates rise.
throwawayarnty 4y ago
Variable rates are great until rates dramatically increase. A huge number of Canadians will not be able to afford their mortgage payments over the next 5 years because they did not calculate rate rises when buying home. Furthermore, they won’t be able to sell the home without taking a huge loss because housing prices will have plummeted due to rate hikes. Combine that with rising cost of food and gas, Canadians are in for a wild ride.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  I’ve been saying this for a long time now and none of my Canadian friends seem to understand. I guess they’ve only seen rates continue to drop over the last 40 years. But I think people will be shocked when their interest rate is 10% soon. It sounds unthinkable but it’s the only way to get inflation under control. I expect a massive crash in the Canadian home market. In certain areas that have been high fliers I’d expect 50% - 60% declines or larger. Combine exploding interest rates, high inflation, and banning foreign buyers, the housing market is about to get “cheap” for cash buyers.

amscanne 4y ago

It’s been “great” for the last forty years because rates have been consistently trending downwards. You’ve never had to think about the downside. Your experience would/will be much different in an environment where rates are rising. Regarding the upside, the rates aren’t much different in the US where you typically have 30 years locked in. Unlike Canada, these also generally have no prepayment penalty, so you can always refinance on rate drops. I’m quite sure the rates on a ARM 5 year or 8 year would be directly comparable to a Canadian mortgage (and you always have that option in the US). There’s lots of great things about Canada, but I think you’re really stretching to see a positive where there isn’t one. (I’m Canadian but I definitely don’t hold a positive view of our financial institutions.)

xyzzy123 4y ago
30 year mortgages are a political guarantee to homeowners. They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. They're a government subsidy to mortgagors enabled by the origination process, obscured by a few hops of financialization. You get a rate guarantee for 30 years plus you can refi, sell or walk away if the bet doesn't go your way. It's pretty much begging to be exploited.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. I was going to quibble with this since I’ve seen fixed rate mortgages in Ireland but… > A fixed rate mortgage is a home loan for which the interest rate is kept the same for an agreed amount of time. The maximum length of time for which a mortgage can be fixed in Ireland is ten years. https://personalbanking.bankofireland.com/articles/my-first-home/looking/fixed-vs-variable-rate-mortgage/#:~:text=A%20fixed%20rate%20mortgage%20is%20a%20home%20loan,so%20what%20is%20a%20variable%20rate%20mortgage%20then%3F https://personalbanking.bankofireland.com/articles/my-first-...
  - xyzzy123 4y ago
    Yes and the rates will tend to be considerably different - you will actually see a risk premium in the longer terms, as you would expect. The fact that "cheap" 30 year fixed rate mortgages only exist in a few countries (US is only one I know of, but it's a big world) is the most accessible evidence that they're created by government policy (without having to dig into the technical details of how they are originated and guaranteed).
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Living in the US, I can't imagine taking out the maximum mortgage that I theoretically qualify for. (without having done it, I think I don't like the idea of 1/2!)
      - denimnerd42 4y ago
        It’s pretty easy to take out the maximum if you’re trying to buy a home without contingency on selling your previous one. Since only the monthly payments really matter towards qualification you could be 90% paid off on your first mortgage and still need to work around the DTI limit for your second. When you sell your first everything becomes comfortable again.
        maxerickson 4y ago
        Right, I wasn't saying "I can't imagine a scenario where taking out the maximum would be an acceptable short term decision", I was saying "I can't imagine buying a house with the plan to make the maximum payments I qualify for over the long term".
- ska 4y ago
  Yes. This plus the home mortgage interest tax deduction amount to absolutely massive market distortions from policy encouraging home ownership in the US. You can argue +'s and -'s, but you can't argue it's free market rates.
  - pbourke 4y ago
    I wonder how many taxpayers are claiming the mortgage interest deduction nowadays after the rise in standard deduction.
    - denimnerd42 4y ago
      it’s pretty useless to me since they lowered it to 750k and raised the standard deduction.
      - closeparen 4y ago
        A $750k loan is easily $20k interest, and you're probably maxing out the $10k SALT cap too. That's almost triple the standard deduction.
        happyopossum 4y ago
        It’s not triple anything if you’ve got a wife and 3 kids.
    - ska 4y ago
      That's an interesting point, plausible less impact over time.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        10% or fewer American tax filers itemize in the first place, so less than that use the mortgage interest tax deduction.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
- margalabargala 4y ago
  > 30 year mortgages are a political guarantee to homeowners. And they work; arguably these are one of the reasons why "owning your own home" was able to be something that so many Americans see(saw?) as an unquestionable part of adult life. The government used its political power to make things easier for a huge subset of its less-well-off citizens. > It's pretty much begging to be exploited. And yet it mostly isn't. There hasn't been any huge crash or people getting filthy rich due to the recipients of 30 year mortgages exploiting the system in any way, and recipients are the ones that would be doing the exploiting in the context of your comment. The lenders of course caused 2008, etc, but they're arguably the ones who would hypothetically be exploited. If it were actually begging to be exploited, I would suspect that we would see something different than this.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    They pretty clearly create upward pressure on home prices. That's a policy failure. Policies to encourage construction directly would work better to increase home ownership than subsidizing mortgages.
    - chii 4y ago
      under neoliberal economic theory, the high prices of homes would encourage building more of it. Unfortunately, the existing home owners, directly or indirectly, would lobby local gov't/councils to stop new builds. Current zoning laws also don't help.
  - yourapostasy 4y ago
    > There hasn't been any huge crash or people getting filthy rich due to the recipients of 30 year mortgages exploiting the system in any way... Those very US government programs that implement the political guarantee also implement an exploit in oh, so many programs for non-owner occupants, typically realtors / agents, to leverage in ways they absolutely cannot in a truly open commercial market. Every single realtor / agent acquaintance I've been introduced to will wax on about their impressive portfolio holdings if I give them an opening to do so. Acting innocent, I inquire about the details of their fabulous business acumen. Every single one below the $20M valuation mark, without exception, and most cluster around the $1M valuation mark, hold the bulk of their assets via government or quasi-government-backed paper and not through a commercial bank loan. The US rules around establishing owner occupancy in many programs are insanely easy to circumvent, and for all practical purposes never enforced. There are plenty of people exploiting the program making a pretty penny off of taxpayer largesse. Real estate is one of the most heavily subsidized assets in the US.
- voisin 4y ago
  > They're don't really come from the lending industry - lenders could not and would not ever create this product on their own. They're a government subsidy to mortgagors enabled by the origination process, obscured by a few hops of financialization. Is the government buying the mortgages or how is this a subsidy from the government? It seemed from the great financial crisis that these mortgage backed securities were being bought by institutions all over the place, so if there is demand why would it be a subsidy?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grimburger 4y ago
    Fannie May and Freddie Mac is the research starting point you want here. US mortgages are certainly subsidised by the taxpayer through some complex financial instruments and those two government owned corporations. Funnily enough when I jest to American colleagues about it being socialism they seem confused and don't think that it is at all. Many don't seem to realise just how drastic a 30 year fixed term is in every other financial market on Earth. I think the max you can fix in Australia is 3 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      They pretty much have an implicit guarantee from the government, but they aren't government owned.
    - Schnitz 4y ago
      The irony is that because of the persistent low interest rates in the last decade it is more and more common to take out a 5/1 in the US because people think the slightly higher interest rate of a 15 or 30 year fixed is throwing away money. In fact, I know nobody except myself that got a fixed rate mortgage in the last few years. I certainly sleep better knowing that I don’t have to refinance in the next 2 years…
kevin_nisbet 4y ago
I don’t think it’s fair to say I’m not aware of the downsides. Yes my own experience is universally in a very aggressive rate environment that could impact my perspective. But I’m also aware that the majority of the time variable rates end up ahead of fixed rates. The term mortgages to me make it a bit closer to variable rates. The rate gets updated every few years. Banks themselves to fund the mortgages don’t get 25 year loans. So as an institution they need to set rates based on risk so they don’t lose money. This risk increases the further you project into the future. So all other things being equal you are not paying a premium to insure against that risk. I’m not commenting on the financial institutions as a whole, or other factors that may lead to higher or lower rates. I’m under the impression that rates are a higher in the us for the 25 year mortgages when calculated off of the overnight rates from the central banks. But I don’t have any data handy to back up the impression for I could be wrong. I suppose having this be an option for the consumer is probably the best option. But for most consumers insuring against rate increases will be quite costly.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  > But for most consumers insuring against rate increases will be quite costly. I’m not sure how you can make an argument that long and specific while completely ignoring the evidence to the south of you that contradicts it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

PragmaticPulp 4y ago

> On my end I think the term mortgages are great since I believe it leads to lower overall interest rates. When rates are going down, yes. But locking in low rates in the United States for 30 years either at purchase time or via refinancing is one of the weirdest advantages of home ownership here. It's surreal to have a 2.x% mortgage locked in for decades when rates are quickly going up and inflation is reducing the relative value of my debt and payments.

pishpash 4y ago
The only way this ends is by running the process in reverse where declining asset prices reduce the gains made on the debt side. If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled. We've baked in 8% annualized real loss somewhere going forward and it will come out of somebody's pockets, but it's still being decided whether asset owners or debtors will pay.
- chii 4y ago
  > If asset prices do not decrease in a rising rate environment, then inflation cannot be controlled the asset price could remain stable, if the jobs that service those mortgages aren't removed. Inflation of consumables can be controlled, but it is painful. Inflation of assets should not be controlled, even if it could - asset growth represents the wealth of those who invested in it. If this growth is artificially suppressed, millions would lose their retirement funds, and become poorer in the future, and for what?
  - sjfidsfkds 4y ago
    Inflation means there is too much demand in the economy compared to the supply (of goods and labor). Decreased retirement funds are one mechanism by which asset price reductions can lead to people consuming less and working more. More broadly there’s a wealth effect that determines how much people spend.
  - pishpash 4y ago
    Nothing is in a vacuum and wealth only has meaning relatively. As much as it may be a shock to hear, wealth is but a social contract on how much it gets you in exchange. There is no absolute answer on that and it's subject to negotiation. If you are in charge of distributing wealth (which is what this is, let's be honest), higher prices means current asset holders are favored over future asset holders who want to purchase assets. Why should those who invested in a bubble during the loosest money era be entitled to exchange it for the same amount of labor or goods of those who built wealth during austerity?

refurb 4y ago

Leads to lower rates? The US 30 year fixed bottomed out at 2-2.5%, which seems about the same as the lowest 5 year fixed in Canada? When Canadians have to renew at 5-7% in a few years that’s going to cause massive havoc.

rnd33 4y ago
On average over a longer period variable rates will always be lower, since the risk premium due to future rate uncertainty will be lower. If that period is a 100 years it won't help lenders much though.
- refurb 4y ago
  Variables rates will always be lower? At any given point in time, true. But you can lock in a fixed rate that will be lower than a variable rate in the future when rates rise.

throwawayarnty 4y ago

Variable rates are great until rates dramatically increase. A huge number of Canadians will not be able to afford their mortgage payments over the next 5 years because they did not calculate rate rises when buying home. Furthermore, they won’t be able to sell the home without taking a huge loss because housing prices will have plummeted due to rate hikes. Combine that with rising cost of food and gas, Canadians are in for a wild ride.

nemo44x 4y ago
I’ve been saying this for a long time now and none of my Canadian friends seem to understand. I guess they’ve only seen rates continue to drop over the last 40 years. But I think people will be shocked when their interest rate is 10% soon. It sounds unthinkable but it’s the only way to get inflation under control. I expect a massive crash in the Canadian home market. In certain areas that have been high fliers I’d expect 50% - 60% declines or larger. Combine exploding interest rates, high inflation, and banning foreign buyers, the housing market is about to get “cheap” for cash buyers.