Skip to main content

Financial Nearsightedness


Years ago when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created, we had some wacko thought that part of the job of the folks filling its ranks would be to . . . protect the consumer.  In some people’s view, this would mean that builders of new homes would no longer be able to dangle the carrot of “free” incentives if the buyer would finance the purchase through the builder’s in-house or preferred lender.  To those same people, it just made sense that the CFPB was created to even the playing field and make it so that the consumer got the very best deal available.  Well, we were wrong.

Builders ARE allowed to offer incentives for using their in-house and preferred lenders despite the fact that sort of goes against the idea that the consumer is getting the very best deal available. And for most consumers, all they see is the incentive, and this computes to less money coming out of their pocket at closing – and they’re right (sort of).  The purpose of today’s article is simple: demonstrate how much money REALLY IS coming out of their pocket as time goes by.  

The first example is a gentleman who is purchasing a new home for a price of $555,331.  He’s being required to put 10% down, or pay $55,533 out of his pocket at closing.  Enter the builder’s incentive of $5,000 to be credited against closing costs –who can argue with that?  In this particular case, he wants an interest-only loan, which means that he’s only going to pay interest for the first ten years of the loan – the principal doesn’t get touched if he doesn’t pay any extra in that 10-year period.  The in-house/preferred lender offered him a rate of 5.5%, which means that his monthly payment is going to be $2,290.74 –in one year, he’ll be paying $27,488.88; in ten years, at the end of the term, he will have paid $274,888.80.  We offered him a rate of 4.75% on the same type of loan, which means that his monthly payment is going to be $1,978.36 – in one year, he’ll be paying $23,740.32; in ten years, at the end of the term, he will have paid $237,403.20.  Yes, you’re doing the math correctly, ladies and gentlemen: for a $5,000 incentive at the front end, he’s going to pay $37,485.60 more over the term of the loan.  In one year alone, he’s paying $3,748.56, and in two years, that’s $7,497.12 (which is almost .5 times more than the $5,000 he “saved”)!  Believe it or not, he went with the in-house/preferred lender for the “free” $5,000.

Now let’s go with a slightly more subdued example. This woman is purchasing a home for $260,000 with a 5% down  payment –$13,000 –for a loan amount of $247,000.  The in-house/preferred lender offered a $3,000 incentive in exchange for a rate of 5.375% on a 30-year fixed mortgage.  This yields a monthly payment (principal & interest) of $1,376.96.  We offered a rate of 4.875% on the same loan type for a monthly payment (P&I) of $1,301.86.  So far, that’s not that big of a difference, right?  In one year, that’s a difference of $901.20 between the higher rate and our rate.  It will take 41 months (just under 3.5 years) of paying the higher rate to cover the $3,000 incentive.  In ten years, which is the average amount of time someone stays in a home, our rate would save her $9,012 – and yet she went with the builder’s in-house/preferred lender. 

In both of these cases, $5,000 and $3,000, respectively, are sizable chunks of money that could cause some immediate “pain” in having to part with them – no argument there.  However, if these borrowers stopped for a moment and looked a relatively short amount of time into the future, they would see that they would easily recoup that out-of-pocket money AND THEN SOME. Obviously enough to afford an eye exam. 

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