• Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    116
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fta: "It’s a one-sided bet,” said John Y. Campbell, a Harvard economist who has argued that the 30-year mortgage contributes to inequality. “If inflation goes way up, the lenders lose and the borrowers win. Whereas if inflation goes down, the borrower just refinances.”

    Yeah won’t someone think of those poor lenders who make…let’s check my notes…130% on their investment or more over the 30 years and it is amortized so you pay the most interest up front in the first decade? Even if you refi you still start that interest over and pay thousands in closing costs to the bank on top of it.

    Waahhhhhh Cry me a fucking river.

    Lmfao The reason rate are locked is obvious.
    Why should I lose my home because interest rates changed and your mtg goes up 40%?

    That’s what happens with 5 -15 year loan terms.
    A buddy in the UK is facing this now. Because he can’t get a 30 year loan and can’t pay off his house he’s forced to restrcture and his payment is going from $800 to $1300.

    Man look at all that inequality defeated just like the article says it would be…not.

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      And the lenders don’t lose at all! They borrow the money at current rates, and immediately package it off to a mortgage backed security and sell it within weeks of closing. The only potential “loser” is the investor that buys the security, but that’s just the nature of investing.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only potential “loser” is the investor that buys the [mortgaged backed security], but that’s just the nature of investing.

        You say that, but we don’t have to allow that kind of predatory shit to exist.

        • Taringano@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s actually a mechanism to inject more liquidity to the market. And therefore allow more loans, for more people.

          The opposite would mean rates would for sure increase because there would be very limited pool of capital to be loaned.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You say that as if we didn’t have mortgages at reasonable rates back in the day before mortgage-backed securities were invented.