| Author |
Replies: 38 / Views: 2,655 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1130 Posts |
With all the talks of bail-outs and inflation, I still keep paying the same for my fixed 30 yr. fixed mortgage. So in theory, this could be good for me but very bad for the bank ? I'm assuming that income can rise (slowly) to keep pace with inflation. I do feel bad about the people that lost their life savings and retirement money with the crash in financial stocks (it affected my portfolio a bit too) but I'm trying to find a positive spin to all this.
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Fixed mortgages are generally higher rates, but good in times of inflation, because you're paying back with money worthless than when it was borrowed.
Interest rates theoretically contain two parts, inflation and risk.
If there is no inflation, and 98% of the people pay their borrowed money back, interest is 2%. You lend out $100, $98 gets paid back, plus $2 interest. In a year, you have $100 to replace the $100 you had, and it still buys $100 worth of stuff.
Now let's say there's 5% inflation. Interest needs to be 7%. You lend out $100, get back $98, plus $7 interest, for a total of $105. It now takes $105 to buy $100 worth of stuff, so again, you're even with where you started.
Where the process favors either the lender or the borrower is when the interest charged doesn't match the inflation plus risk.
You lend someone money for 30 years. Inflation is 5% and risk is 2%, so you charge 7%. Partway thru, inflation jumps to 10%. For the $100 borrowed, $98 is paid back, plus $7 interest, $105. But now it costs $110 to buy what $100 used to buy, and the lender only got back $105, so he's out $5 in purchasing power.
The opposite is true with falling inflation.
A similar problem happens when the risk factor rises. If 10% of the borrowers can't pay, then only $90 comes back instead of $98 with 2% risk.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
I would say you're good for the bank, because you're covering your monthly.  (Unlike a growing segment of recent homebuyers)  Not to mention, mort payments cover the interest first, principal second. So the bank sees their return upfront, and on time in your case. As Fred suggests, I think every bank has figured in the devaluation of principal due to inflation. In many cases, banks will see neither interest nor principal on the morts they issued--and with too little default risk-reserves, this is causing the real illiquidity problems.
Edited by KurtS 09/18/2008 2:03 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1415 Posts |
I think that is part of the story. That's where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae come in. Your bank sells your mortgage to them. This allows the bank to keep its money and make more loans. Freddie and Fannie take the risk initially. Note these are the government run, sort of. Before recent events. AIG also gets involved as well as they insure these loans (Freddie and Fannie). So the recent events were the domino effect. Back about 10 years ago, the government decided to relax the requirements for home ownership. The ship was sunk then, we just didn't know it. Just like the Titanic, sunk but didn't know. More later if ya want  my brain hurts
Edited by wwhitman 09/18/2008 2:53 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
 A lot of bad-risk morts were handed off to other entities, even in the "prime" category. I spoke about this issue with our bank, and they admitted they sold off the sub-prime to others. But they held our fixed-rate prime mortgage--probably because it was less risky. That said--I'm not in banking/morts/finance, so I don't know the whole picture, thankfully! 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
G'day, regarding Fred's analysis, there has to be an element of profit, or the lender wouldn't bother. So the equation becomes: interest = inflation + risk + profit A modest level of profit benefits borrowers, because it flushes funds out from under mattresses. If there were no profit in the exercise, there'd be no money available for borrowers.
In Australia, the academic economists have researched and studied these phenomenon for years. First mortgage home loans - the most secure way to park money - used to carry interest 6% above predicted inflation. So, 6% was the sum of risk + profit. In more recent years, the process has been interfered with, because the government uses interest rates as a tool of economic management. This interference ultimately is no good for anyone.
What I don't understand about the current situation in USA is: how did any lender imagine that lending to sub-prime borrowers was going to end any other way than it has ? It's like driving on the wrong side of the road: you'll get away with it for a while, but inevitably tragedy follows.
Peter in Oz
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1415 Posts |
Peter, Don't you guys already drive on the wrong side?  That's were AIG comes into the picture. They insure these mortgages. Their problem was the rates they were charged. AS the people they were backing got worse, their rating D&B when down. So they had to cover more of the margin. They didn't have the cash, so oops. 
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188415 Posts |
I have avoided joining this conversation in favour of just observing and seeing how it shakes out. Well, eventually somebody says something... Quote: In more recent years, the process has been interfered with, because the government uses interest rates as a tool of economic management. This interference ultimately is no good for anyone. ...and the I have to throw them an 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3294 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188415 Posts |
I get it. Inflation. 
|
|
Valued Member
United States
80 Posts |
I love the 'inflated' dollar. Too funny! 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Quote: ...the government uses interest rates as a tool of economic management. This interference ultimately is no good for anyone.  as well. It seems when central banks reactively lower their money rate too quickly, the market never responds in a calm and responsible manner.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1415 Posts |
Quote: ...the government uses interest rates as a tool of economic management. This interference ultimately is no good for anyone. Actually here in the US - the government does not affect the interest rate. That is done by the FED (federal reserve). They are an independent group. It is made up of a board and chairman (appointed by President for life - can't be kicked out). The FED assigns the 'prime rate' (rate at which banks can borrow against FED). The FED uses this mechanism to control the money supply. Banks then arrive at their interest rate off the FED rate. There is also the World Bank --- OHHHHHHHHH my brain hurts again 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
G'day, again, the Oz system is modelled on the American system. We even borrowed the name: we have a Reserve Bank of Australia. You'll see the Governor's signature on all of our banknotes. The RBA Board is supposed to be independent, but they are appointed by the government-of-the-day for (I think) five years. Isn't the underlying problem that the U.S. Government has used defecit financing for many years; coupled with an adverse balance of trade ? Sooner or later, all of those greenbacks come home to roost ... Peter
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2335 Posts |
Quote: That's were AIG comes into the picture. They insure these mortgages. Their problem was the rates they were charged. AS the people they were backing got worse, their rating D&B when down. So they had to cover more of the margin. They didn't have the cash, so oops That's not exactly what happened to AIG. Insurance companies take the premiums they receive & invest them. Most insurance companies have a couple profit centers, one is the difference between what comes in as premiums & what goes out as claims, the other is the investment profit they make on the money they hold. AIG decided they could make a larger profit by taking on more risk on the money they invested, mainly by putting it in credit derivatives & the like. As the current crisis has unfolded those investments lost most of their value. That loss of value meant they no longer had sufficient assets to cover their obligations or reserve requirements. I'm not a financial genius but I have been trying to make sense of what is going on. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that this problem is not confined to subprime mortgages. There are a lot of people that kept refinancing their property at the low interest rates, taking out extra cash to buy luxury goods, remodel their homes, take vacations, etc. Many of those people got variable rate mortgages, some in excess of the homes actual value, thinking homes would appreciate enough that they could refi again to keep their payment low. Real estate values couldn't keep expanding & have gone down, and interest rates are slightly higher. These people have great credit & decent incomes, but when their interest rates reset at the higher rate their lowered home value will not allow them to refi. At that point they must come up with a higher monthly payment amount or face foreclosure. The bottom line is that those of us who didn't benefit in any way from all of this will end up paying for it. This will be through our tax dollars, & also by investment losses, lowered purchasing power of our saved dollars, & inflation.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1415 Posts |
On our notes - it's the Sectary of the Treasury signature. He is a member of the President's cabinet and replaceable. FED chairman once appointed cannot be replaced - he/she must resign or ..... The deficit is normally not a problem. Deficit spending has its limits and is driven by the GNP. As long as the economy is expanding, all is well. Currently US economy is still expanding. The current situation in my humble opinion is manageable. Problem started 10 years ago when relaxed requirements for home mortgages was installed. DOW up 400 points yesterday and up 300 today. Note: there is a hold on all 'sell short' - 
|
| |
Replies: 38 / Views: 2,655 |