Skip to main content

I Don't Care About History (Posted April 18, 2016)

The title of this week’s edition is taken from a line from a song by The Ramones – it’s chosen for the irony, of course, because history is a great predictor of the future, and it can’t be ignored.  So, find your seats and settle down.  Thank you.  Today’s lesson touches on the history of the interest rate here in the United States, and there’ll be a test later.  No cheating off your neighbor. 

•  Early 1950s: interest rates were comfortably under 5%
•  1960s: interest rates were at 6% and starting to climb to 8% by the end of the decade
•  1970 to 1980: interest rates climbed to just over 12%
•  1981: interest rates peaked at just above 18%
•  2002: interest rates had worked their way back to 6%
•  2010: interest rates crept back under 5%

In economic circles (you should attend some of their parties – they’re real ragers), this is an almost picture-perfect demonstration of what they call the “60-year cycle”. With the economy being sluggish for the past five or so years, we’ve sort of bottomed out and held, but things are starting to look up, which means we’re starting a new 60-year cycle. 

With that in mind, let’s look at a quick comparison for a 30-year fixed FHA loan for $200,000 with 3.5% down – monthly payment (PITI):

4% interest rate:   $1,332.24
5% interest rate:  $1,448.90  ($116.66 more than the 4% rate)
6% interest rate:  $1,572.09  ($239.85 more than the 4% rate)

In the face of these numbers and this reality, a very wise man once said, “Buy your dream house now because you may not be able to afford it in ten years.”  If you haven’t already run out to have bumper stickers and t-shirts made with this slogan, I’d highly recommend you do so just as soon as you finish reading this newsletter.

It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but we’ll be back up to 5% interest rates sooner than we think.  The difference between a payment at 4% and 5% is significant enough for consideration – you’re looking at a yearly savings of just under $1,400 and an overall savings of almost $42,000 for the 30-year term. 

Using history and the 60-year cycle as our predictors, it is very likely that we’ll be back up to 6% interest rates on 30-year mortgages in just ten years.  That means that if someone were to buy a $200,000 house now, they will be able to afford much more house and keep their payments more reasonable.  Let me explain it another way: in ten years, a $200,000 mortgage, at 6%, is going to cost $5,276.70 more each year, or $158,301 more over the 30-year term of the mortgage.  Also, if home values increase an average of 5% each year, a $200,000 home that someone would be buying today would be worth over $250,000; conversely, what $200,000 will buy in ten years will be a house that’s worth just under $125,000 today.  If you don’t believe me, do the math yourself.  I’ll wait. 


I opened with The Ramones.  I’ll close with the Rolling Stones: “Time is on my side.”  No, it’s not!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Definition of Insanity (in Real Estate)

More than a couple of years ago, I witnessed something that makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.  Having lunch at a local restaurant, I spied a real estate agent and a loan originator having what I would characterize as a “first date”. I couldn’t help but overhear little snippets of their conversation, and as far as I could tell, things were going relatively well . . . at least until the agent asked the LO this question: “So, do you like to sit at open houses with agents?”  I immediately looked to the LO’s face awaiting the response.  I didn’t need to hear another single word coming out of the LO’s mouth because his face said everything:  you would have thought the agent had asked him if he enjoyed bobbing for apples in a pool of acid judging by the look on his face.  While his face was communicating complete revulsion, his lips said, “Yes, of course.”  And that’s when I looked over at the agent’s face to see, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Time for a New York-Style Housing Fix

Previously, I’ve written about a man who works in our office who lived in New York City back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s – let me assure you that while that does seem like a very long time ago, it’s not nearly as far bac k as when the wheel was invented and humankind learned to harness the power of fire. If you’ve been to New York City recently and blissfully walked around Harlem to get chicken and waffles at Sylvia’s on Malcolm X Boulevard between 126 th and 127 th Streets or stopped in at Keybar on 13 th Street between First Avenue and Avenue A to wedge yourself into a cozy corner next to their notable fireplace, you wouldn’t get a sense that these areas were once . . . not as welcoming and glitzy as you now see them. Our office mate has told some fairly interesting stories of living in those and other areas of New York City that give a much different sense.   In the late ‘80s/early ‘90s, no matter how many great things you heard about Sylvia’s food, 127 th Str...
Post a Comment
Read more

Change: the Only Sure Thing

Which headline is better for grabbing your attention and prompting you to read the article to which it’s attached: “Credit Reports to Exclude Certain Negative Information, But Read on to See if This Even Applies to You” or “ Credit Reports to Exclude Certain Negative Information, Boosting FICO Scores”?   Obviously, the former is less than tantalizing while the latter makes you say, “Tell me more!”   I was in the “tell me more” camp, and the folks at The Wall Street Journal sucked me into their vortex. The development, set to go into practice on July 1 st , is certainly a departure from how the Big Three (Experian, TransUnion , and Equifax) have done things in the past, but it’s not going to wave a magic wand and make bankruptcies, foreclosures, short sales, etc., go away.   It’s sort of a bittersweet development.   Let me explain: Many tax liens and civil judgments will be removed from people’s credit reports if they don’t include a complete list of a...
Post a Comment
Read more