Home > Mortgages > Why the Lowest Mortgage Rate Can Turn Out to Be a Bad Bet

Comments 1 Comment

Is homeownership on the way out?

Sure seems that way, at least according to recent reports. A new Urban Institute study points to an increase in household formation among lower-earning minorities who may not have the means to afford much more than a monthly rent check. A survey by Wells Fargo last summer suggested that high debt levels are holding back millennials from becoming homeowners as well.

If true, this doesn’t bode well for residential real estate developers. It’s certainly not good news for existing homeowners with properties to sell, either. What’s more, a shrinking inventory of affordable rental units could drive up rents, and housing sales may also come under pressure as lenders tighten underwriting standards for fear that values may once again decline.

All this is happening despite government policies that are biased in favor of homeownership (consumer-friendly regulations and tax policies in particular). That and, until recently, an upward spiral in valuations have conditioned consumers to view ownership as an ideal worthy of great personal sacrifice.

Achieving that ideal, however, can also expose them to risks that may not be worth taking.

Consider as an example the adjustable-rate mortgage: A cut-rate loan product that’s touted by banks, mortgage brokers and real estate agents as a way for aspirant homeowners who are rolling the dice on higher future salaries and increasing home values to afford their dreams with the help of tantalizingly low monthly payments at the start of the loan.

The story behind the scenes, though, is a bit different.

The term adjustable is marketing-speak for “variable” or “floating,” in that the interest rate can move any which way. The rate is typically tied to LIBOR or a similar index, and resets at specified intervals — from monthly up to several years at a time — depending on the terms of the ARM. This can be beneficial for the borrower if the interest rates drop in the interim, resulting in a lower payment; or can have disastrous results if they increase to the point of unaffordability. So borrowers who require lower monthly payments early on to make their deals work must also accept longer-term uncertainty in exchange; risks that fixed-rate mortgage lenders had traditionally assumed.

Or had they?

There’s really no such thing as a fixed rate per se. Although the Federal Reserve’s policy actions influence the starting point for interest rates, inflationary expectations and other factors take over from there. So to lock in a particular rate at a particular time and for a particular term, a financial institution would need to find another entity (a so-called counterparty) that’s willing to gamble that rates will remain the same or decline during the same period, for which it would be paid a fee. The value of that fee plus, perhaps, a little more, is added to the borrower’s cost in the form of an interest rate markup.

Obviously, no such hedging is necessary for variable loans, which is a big reason why initial rates for ARMs are significantly lower than for fixed-rate mortgages. Issues for consumers, though, include the timing for the first interest-rate reset, the extent to which the base rate may ultimately increase and the effect all that may have on household budgeting.

Still, this product could make sense for homebuyers who expect to relocate before their mortgage reaches the point of that first adjustment. But that’s a crapshoot, particularly for those purchasers who haven’t much financial margin for error.

A more prudent approach would be to make purchase decisions on the basis of fixed-rate mortgage payments and to be disciplined about that: The numbers either work or the prospective buyer should consider a larger down payment, negotiate for a lower selling price or choose another – less expensive — property altogether.

One more thing. If we’ve learned anything from the recent crash, it’s that buying a house is not a guaranteed winning ticket to financial security. A better way to approach the purchase would be to hope that whatever appreciation in value occurs will at the very least offset the rate of inflation.

Anything more than that is a bonus and a good reason not to double down on price or monthly payment amount.

Remember: Budgets are zero-sum equations in that there are only so many dollars to go around. Housing costs, whether in the form of mortgage or rental payments, should not exceed 25% of pretax income. Otherwise, debtors may have no choice but to scale back in other areas to keep up with their financial commitments.

Living like that can get old really fast.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

More on Mortgages & Homebuying:

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • ohiodale

    Are you could refinance into a new 5/1 ARM every 5 years. The loan costs are lower then the amount you save in interest payments. The only risk is if your house depreciates which has only happened twice in history. I personally would not do it but I know a few who have and it seems to work for them. In today’s economy I would argue against it because rates have nowhere to go but up. In normal economies the rate fluctuate up and down.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team