you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 5 months ago (68 children)

Point taken, but where are you in the world with an 8.5% mortgage? Rates in the US for 30 year mortgages are around 6.5% right now (source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US)

  • source
  • hideshow 68 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago* (56 children)

    the baseline is around 6.5% but I don't think most people get that, plus it was up around 7.5% six months ago

    the numbers in the meme are definitely closer to what we've seen recently

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (55 children)

    When I bought my first house - doing so with decent income but pretty bad credit - I did so at 6.25%.

    Everyone in the room recoiled at such an apparently high number.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    What? You're confused. Lower is always better. I bought my house when interest was 2.5%, pretty much the bottom of the interest rates during the start of covid. My house loan was around 450K. By the time I've paid off my loan (if I were to make the normal monthly payment) I'll have given the bank over 750K dollars. Even at an amazing rate, some bank gets 2/3s the cost of my house in interest. At 12%, a 30 year, $450,000 loan would have you paying the bank 1.8M dollars, meaning some bank gets over 3x the cost of your house in interest. That's insane. I get that you're saying people will buy worse houses to not borrow as much money, but that's not really a win. A family of 5 can't fit in a one bedroom apartment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's just not true. To buy my house right now on a 12% loan for 8 years, the monthly payment would be $10,000. If someone were to buy it right now on a 6% loan for 16 years (trying to match your numbers to the current state of the market), their monthly payment would be $5500. And they'd pay just a few thousand dollars less than I did in interest. Why? Because prices went up along with interest rates. For what you are saying to be true, prices would need to drop when interest rates go up, but that isn't the case. Most people can't afford to drop $10k a month on a loan just to save a few thousand long-term, let alone $5.5k. My monthly payment is less than half that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    If you take out a loan at 12% today well then you're an imbecile.

    If rates go up to 12%, then housing prices will go down because as you yourself just showed (!), it's too expensive to buy at todays prices. So they will go down. If that happens.

    Nothing spectacular in the housing market will happen just because you throw money out the window.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's why I ran it with today's numbers as well. You talk in hypotheticals that just don't reflect the behaviour of the current market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I'm talking about housing economics, not like what's the current loan cost. The current market is what it is today, buy what you have the financial possibility to buy.

    But if rates go up wildly, I'm gonna repeat this once again, then housing prices will go Down.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (36 children)

    Nothing you said was correct or made sense...

    Lower interest rates are better. You waste less money paying to bank to exist and profit from you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (14 children)

    This isn't true at all. They don't suddenly have more money to burn, and in fact, in the US, the amount you can borrow is based off of credit score, not the going interest rate.

    I still don't really understand what you're trying to say to be honest. You owe the bank less at lower interest rates. Higher interest rates cause you to owe the bank more. You do not have to buy outside of your means if the interest rates are low, and in fact, the financially responsible thing to do is to buy well within your means while they're low and lock in lower interest for the term of the loan.

    I think what you're trying to say is that when interest rates are low it becomes a seller's market. While true, this is not permanent and you will save money in the long run if you buy with lower rates. I think you're stuck on the short term and not thinking of the long term.

    For example, rentals in my area have surpassed my mortgage payment by a good amount. If I didn't buy when rates were low, this: 1, may have not been the case due to higher monthly payments, and 2, I might have gotten trapped in the rental cycle and never been able to own a home, ending up paying more than what I would have if I purchased a home while rates were low.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

    The usa is not an exception when rates hit 12%. And they were not a long time ago. Quantitative easing made money cheap after the 2008 crash, but that's over, and cheap money is no more. So eventually rates might rise and cost per house (in inflation corrected numbers) will lower.

    It's basic math.

    Sure, maybe they'll hiver at 3-4-5% for 2 decades, what do I know, but that was not the discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

    You are still assuming that rates will increase to that level.

    Look at this. Interest rates haven't been as high as 12% since roughly 1987. That's more than 2 decades, and it's been almost 2 decades since 2008, where rates were already falling before the housing market crash. 2008 saw some of the lowest housing costs of the 21st century so far because of the amount of foreclosures. And yet, look at that, interest rates were around 6-7% and dropped to about 5%. Of note, the historical average is 7.70%, not the 12% you insist upon going back to.

    Neither one of us know what the future holds, but taking modern economics into account shows that rates are unlikely to get high enough to have that make a meaningful difference.

    Housing in the 70's and 80's wasn't cheap because of the interest rates. It was cheap because housing was rapidly expanding into suburbs, a suburbification. This is why rates could actually be that high, because the loans were comparatively smaller. You are confusing correlation and causation.

    Look at this one:

    Housing costs at 12% were not meaningfully cheaper. They were still slowly rising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (7 children)

    I do not assume that. sigh.

    What I said was that if rates go up a lot, prices go down.

    Edit: correct the second for inflation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

    They will not go up enough to make your claim valid, full stop. It has never happened in the way you've been claiming, so you can't even point to the historical data to back yourself up, it seems.

    Inflation is not something that needs to be included in this, and it only hurts your case further. Your original claim is that if interest rates go up (now you're saying "a lot", but it doesn't change anything), home prices go down.

    Well, in the 80's, interest rates went way up, but housing prices didn't go down, even in the short time period where inflation isn't going to meaningfully be a factor. It went up at the a slow rate. So, you're grasping at straws now ("correct the second for inflation" even though it didn't magically make the housing prices go down in any way that matters) seemingly because you didn't understand basic econmics in the real world and dug yourself too deep.

    Are you going to provide any sources for your bold claim? Any amount of data? Anything? Or are you just going to keep talking in circles and not providing anything of substance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Lol, basic economics 101, supply and demand is not enough? It happened in Sweden, it happened in France, guess usa is magic after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    The US isn't magic, it's corrupt and unregulated. Supply and demand only applies in your freshman econmics class, not here, as you can very clearly see on the data I provided. You have provided nothing, not anything, to back yourself up. How embarrassing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Lol whatever, one day you'll figure it out!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Lmao, nice, still not providing anything to back up your claims huh? It would have been less embarrassing for you to just admit that you have no idea how economics work past supply and demand, and yet, here we are!

    I have already figured it out, and that's why I bought a home at 3.2% interest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    You still haven't figured out I'm not saying you should take a mortgage at 12% today?

    😂🤣😂🤣 You must be trolling!

    Anyways good for you, but it was not the point, whatever 🤪🤷🏼‍♀️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Keep moving the goalposts, sure. The claim of yours that is entirely incorrect is that high interest rates bring down home prices. They have never done that in the US.

    The emoji spam is a sign that you have completely lost the plot. Add it to the embarrassment pile.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    If you feel so strongly, I'm certain the big banks will take your donations. It will help others get loans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    You are also espousing that there should be fewer home owners in a country that is already strained with wealth inequality.

    I've just been waiting for you to say something actually useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    There aren't a set number of houses, though. We can build them according to need. Many projects in my area.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    You sound like a college freshman at a low-tier midwestern university who just took a freshman business course and is now an expert in the actual economy.

    You can’t collapse the assumptions of something as expansive and complicated as a housing market into basic notions of supply and demand. It is, without a bit of irony on your part, that you keep calling out literally everyone in the thread with “lol, don’t you understand basic economics???” More or less what everyone is trying to explain is that freshman level economics is not applicable to the real world here.

    The truth that you can’t see is that your framework is just too overly simplified to matter here, as are your conclusions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    You already said you needed to rule out fundamental realities like the ability to create more supply quickly and easily. Nor the surplus we face.

    I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, that is all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    You sound like an old AI, your first sentence is just gibberish, the second insulting.

    That will get you nowhere lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    You don't understand. I don't care. No one here does.

    The point is you are applying college-freshman level principles to a rather complicated system. People keep arguing and downvoting not because of your self-perceived smart-troll brilliance, but because you are just spouting nonsense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Aww, boohoo. You couldn't back up your claims, spent hours arguing for them, and then have to end it with an embarrassing "blocked" like anyone gives a shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Lower is definitely always better in this case, there is no upside to paying more interest since you can typically get around the same range (give or take) no matter the term length.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

    It doesn't track. I didn't buy out of my means when I purchased a home at a low rate. In fact, it allowed me to afford a better home for a cheaper price. You are not suddenly worse off at lower interest rates, infact, you owe the bank less. That doesn't mean the duration of your loan changes. Referencing your example, you can still get the same term loan (12 yr is what you used, but in the US that would be an unusual duration), and the loan itself is cheaper.

    Why would I give the bank extra money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    As someone who did exactly what we're talking about here, prices were not "very high" when I got my low interest loan. They're higher now than when I purchased 6 years ago, that's for sure. I don't know what else to say about that, or how to say it differently, as I've stated this several times now.

    Lower interest rates do not enable longer loans, at least not in the US. You can always get 10, 15, and 30 year fixed loans. They also don't enable you to borrow more, not here. The amount you can borrow is based on your income and credit score, current interest rates are generally not a factor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    At 12% interest and 30 year fixed with 20% down, a $400,000 home would cost the buyer $1,184,961.71 out of pocket. That's $3,291.56/mo. The total interest paid is $864,961.71. Adjusting that to 15 year fixed but everything else being the same, you pay $691,296.80 out of pocket and $371,296.80 is interest. Don't forget the down payments in your calculation, of course.

    At 6.576% (the current interest rate), that same 30 year fixed loan comes to $733,909.74 out of pocket, with $413,909.74 being interest. That's $451,051 less than the 12% (this is basic math). That's how much you save.

    This does not include insurance or taxes, this is just pure mortgage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    It does the opposite of proving your point. Interest rates do not meaningfully decrease the cost of housing the US. If that were the case, my house should be cheaper for me to buy now, since interest rates are 3.3% HIGHER than when I bought, right?

    Yet, my house is almost $150k more expensive than when I bought it just 6 years ago. My mortgage would be much more expensive, not only because interest rates are higher, but also because the US treats housing as an investment, a bad practice yes, but it causes it to only meaningfully drop when the economy is terrible.

    Let's break it down for my home.

    With my 3.2% interest rate, I will pay $194,908.25 in interest on my loan by the time I pay it off. This is on top of my $350,000 loan, so $544,908.25 is what I will end up paying in total. I bought below market value at the time, and now my home is worth nearly $500,000 just 6 years later, which just about negates the interest if I were to sell now. If I bought the same home, now, with higher interest rates and property values, this comes to the following: $646,615.21 total interest paid(!) on a $500,000 loan @ 6.575% for a grand total of $1,146,615.21.

    In what way, exactly, would I save money here? It doesn't save money, even if I bought when it was $250,000 @ 6.575% (to pretend your scenario is accurate and that it reduces home prices). That would make me have to pay $323,307.60 in interest, substantially more just to end up in roughly the same spot. And no, housing prices here didn't drop by $100k when interest rates went up this year. They didn't even drop by $25,000. They dropped roughly $15,000. That's it. Peanuts.

    So you are still incorrect, and doubling down is only making you even more incorrect here. Show me exactly where the higher interest rates magically make the housing market cheaper, I'll wait, because according to you, I should sell my house and get a better deal right now. I'm all ears, and I've done what you said and brought out the calculator, and it's just not adding up to be a better deal at higher interest rates.

    You do realize how fucked housing is in the US, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • You're better off not wasting your time. Big brain here doesn't understand numbers nor economics. They think that they can apply the most basic Wikipedia level principles to actual markets.

    I'm suddenly understanding why people on the internet keep referring to economics as witchcraft. Jokers like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    My math says that the monthly principal+interest on that house is more like $4,300 a month, assuming:

    • Purchase price: $850,000
    • Down payment (20%): $170,000
    • Loan amount: $680,000
    • Interest rate: 6.5% fixed
    • Term: 30 years (360 months)

    Not insignificant, but not wildly off like the infographic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    You gotta roll home owners insurance in there, and taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    That's realistic, but the infographic doesn't include tax and insurance. Working backwards, it has:

    • Home price: $600,000
    • Down payment (20%): $120,000
    • Loan amount: $480,000
    • Interest rate: 3.0% fixed
    • Term: 30 years (360 months)

    The monthly principal-and-interest payment is exactly as the post said, $2024 / month.

    Has insurance gone up? Absolutely? Have property taxes generally rise? They have. But this is an honest like-for-like comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    $2024 > $4300 is more than double, while also assuming saving an extra $50,000 in downpayment while that cost increased.

    Although the down payment has less impact. But nonetheless, that lower payment boosts the loan to about $4600.

    Wages aren't doubling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    We don't do 30 years here anymore. Its 25, and most people can't do the 20% down, its 5% for first time homebuyer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment