[HN Gopher] The existence of the 50-year mortgage shows lenders ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The existence of the 50-year mortgage shows lenders are desperate
        
       Author : benrmatthews
       Score  : 19 points
       Date   : 2022-08-19 19:59 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.newstatesman.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.newstatesman.com)
        
       | ralusek wrote:
       | I think access to debt unlocks the true value of a thing. You
       | tell me what this is worth without constraining it to what you
       | have in your pocket.
       | 
       | However, what things like housing and medicine have shown us are
       | that wholly free markets aren't very good with things that people
       | place nearly infinite value on. My life saving surgery will cost
       | me 10 million dollars? Okay, where do I sign. That number might
       | as well be a billion dollars as long as you're giving it to me.
       | Housing is not too dissimilar. A thirty year mortgage is already
       | in comical territory, it's already functionally synonymous with
       | "a lifetime."
        
       | 1randomuser wrote:
        
       | bediger4000 wrote:
       | The author's point is that a 50-year mortgage is a bad deal
       | because almost nobody has a 50-year working lifetime to pay for
       | it, and besides the interest over that time span is absurd.
       | 
       | But let's think instead of who a 50-year mortgage is bad for:
       | someone who can't quite currently afford a house. Who is a
       | 50-year mortgage good for (bearing in mind this is a UK thing):
       | anyone in the business of lending.
       | 
       | It's a done deal that these will become a commonly done way to
       | buy a house.
        
         | chadash wrote:
         | I don't think this is quite right. If the interest rates are
         | low enough, even the most financially savvy people will take
         | this deal. For example, I have a friend who can easily afford
         | to pay cash on a $1 million house, but he has a 30 year
         | mortgage. Why? Because his mortgage rate is 2.5%. He can take
         | his money and put it into Stocks or other investments and get a
         | much better return than 2.5%. If he were truly risk-averse, he
         | can even put the money in long term treasuries and make more
         | than 2.5. At low enough rates, it always pays to have a loan.
         | It's (almost) free money.
         | 
         | Edit: at current interest rates this advice makes less sense,
         | but even so, it could pay in some situations. For example maybe
         | your mortgage is 4.5% but your student loans are 7.5%. Take the
         | mortgage and pay down those loans. Obviously too much debt is
         | bad, but not all debt.
        
           | psychphysic wrote:
           | It begs the question why don't banks do that instead of
           | lending it?
           | 
           | Well because the bank never had the money they lent you.
           | Central banks let retail banks invent money for the loans[0].
           | Then incentives then to meet some thresholds on
           | "affordability tests". If they do that loan doesn't use up as
           | much liquidity as it's face value.
           | 
           | The net effect? You pay your bank interest on money that cost
           | (used bank resources) less that the face value.
           | 
           | [0] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarter
           | ly-...
        
         | rogerkirkness wrote:
         | These or even longer ones are common in various places.
        
         | UncleEntity wrote:
         | It depends.
         | 
         | Nobody says you have to make the minimum payment every month
         | and you're buying with today's dollars, err...pounds, but
         | paying with future less valuable money. Pay a little extra in
         | the good times but have a lower minimum payment for when money
         | gets a little tight.
        
       | alexfromapex wrote:
       | I think civilization needs to take a step back and reflect on why
       | we're making debt/credit a necessity to have basic needs like
       | shelter.
       | 
       | Also, why are governments not creating sensible upper limits on
       | lending and interest rates? For instance, if I can afford to
       | purchase the raw materials and build a house myself in 10 years
       | with my own two hands, assuming I'm not working a job, then why
       | is a bank allowed to extend interest over 5 times that timespan
       | and make me pay e.g. 1000% of the raw materials price in profit
       | to them? They are preying on peoples' basic need to have a roof
       | over their head.
        
         | __pache__ wrote:
         | ...because not everyone has cash to buy the largest investment
         | of their life...?
         | 
         | loans/credit are very useful...
         | 
         | profit is great, as long as there's competition, right?
        
           | throwaway_4ever wrote:
           | > the largest investment of their life
           | 
           | That's the problem. Housing has been regulatory captured.
           | Abundant housing contruction due to a free market would allow
           | people to live in dwellings at a slim margin above mass
           | construction.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-19 23:02 UTC)