Talk:Adjustable-rate mortgage

top

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where does the 28 come in on the 2/28 hybrid ARM example? --Dbollard99 02:43, Jan 15, 2006

If you have a 2/28 you have 2 years of fixed payment rates. Your loan doesnt become an adjustable rate mortgage until the end of 2 years. At which point you have 28 years left of adjustable interest rates on a 30 year loan term.

There are several egregious errors on this page first....

Understanding Caps

-SNIP- What's better? - The lower these numbers are, the better for you, especially, the first number.

Examples: 2/2/5 ; 5/2/5 ; 2/1/6 ; 3/1/6 ; 2/4 ; 1/1/5 .

This assumes rising interest rates. In a declining interest rate market a smaller periodic cap is preferable. Fortunately for consumers interest rates are not always increasing.

Secondly, HELOCS are not DESIGNED to be in the 2nd position. Most lenders ALLOW them to be placed in the 2nd or 3rd position however, ALL lenders would prefer to have any HELOC they have provided to a consumer to be in the first position thus minimizing their exposure to risk.

Thirdly, you dont Purchase a loan. You obtain financing. You acquire a debt, but you do not PURCHASE a loan. (unless you are a debt servicer).

Fourthly, the tone of this article in general screams lawsuit.

Fifthly at the end of the article... [QUOTE] Sadly, most people do not take the time to learn about their ARM product, and some people even take these loans out as their First Lien loan, putting their house in jeopardy of foreclosure if there is an inflationary market. [/QUOTE] This is just an idiotic statement. Not only are all consumers malinformed but anyone that owns their home outright that takes out a $25k HELOC is in danger of losing their home.... OH NOOOOOOOOO!!!

when this article says "these days" such as:

expressed as a maximum rate, usually 9.95% or 10.95% these days

shouldn't there be a year or range of year attached to the 'these days", like: those days (2006). This statement wouldn't be "true" at a different time ?

Roosurn 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merge with Mortgage?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Merge with mortgage article? (FRM) --Rj 05:34, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC) this is a test

I do not think a merge would be good. There are many types of Mortgages, and these are linked to in the Mortgage page. This is a special type of mortgage worthy of it's own page. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Against. This page is too US in outlook. ARMis a US only page. simonthebold 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Against strongly. Mortgage article is about the legal mechanism, and as noted, mortgage loan is far too broad.--Gregalton 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Against--strongly. Mortgage instruments are becoming more, instead of less complicated. Do any other Yanks remember Vice President Al Gore's Paperwork Reduction Act? When I renewed my amateur radio license, I did see some resultant streamlining.

Last week the Chairman of Freddie Mac spoke at the National Urban League convention in St. Louis, MO. He said that he had attended mortgage closings on his own home (and, as we had at our first closing) he attempted to read and understand the 23 pages of documents he had to sign. He wound up just signing each page with little understanding of what he was committing to. His point was that due to complicated mortgage paperwork, minorities are prime targets for predatory lending.

My wife and I been homeowners since 1984. At the first closing we hired a lawyer to attend the closing. Even though this guy talked to us like idiots, (which we were, as far as closings go), he was still somebody we could eventually sue if he had overlooked some detail which resulted in our subsequent loss. At the next two refinance closings we hired lawyers, and both of them were worth it, by attending to some fine details, which we would have doubtlessly missed.

We had a variable rate mortgage in the past, which stipulated a 3/4% per year ceiling which could go up or down with some index. A little over two years ago we got another ARM (without a lawyer) which we naively assumed had similar terms. We learned about our "2-28 loan" the hard way. Our initial rate was 8.5%. With 45 days notice we were informed that our two years are up in September, and that our rate would rise to 11.5%, and that they could (which means they will) raise it 3% every six months, without regard to an index, for the next 28 years. Ergo, one year from now, our rate will go to 14.5, and the year after 20.5%. We have yet to go back and read the terms of our loan. We wonder if, during the last year of our mortgage, our rate will be 168%?

My father taught me to read everything before signing, but at the first closing when our lawyer somewhat condescendingly explained the first couple of pages, we just signed. If we had had every page explained to our understanding, we would likely still be at the closing.

Along with the 3% rise, the August bill also informed us of our balance, which is higher than twice our market value. As soon as we got the notice, we contacted a local HUD counselor. If you are in mortgage trouble and do not have a real estate lawyer, go on the HUD website. We found it very educational and it contained a list of local counselors Her first advice was Do not refinance. We get many offers for refinancing which are always pitched as "helping" us. Mortgage companies are in business to make money, not to help anyone but themselves.--W8IMP 07:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cash flow ARM

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose Cash flow ARM is merged here. Its just a variation on a theme. simonthebold 16:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I second this. -Onceler (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC) PS moved "Comments ..." to dedicated heading.Reply

Comments

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I came to this article looking for general information about ARMs, and felt that I was well served. I think that the article DOES give give at least some global perspective, and is fair in talking about the overall justifications for ARMs from the both borrower and lender perspectives (term mismatch was new to me). However, I particularly wanted to learn how popular these loans are in the US - do they represent 10% of the loans out there? 90%? This is important in thinking about their role in the economy. Some news stories suggest that assets underlaid by securitized ARM-type mortgages may be at severe risk "these days" - implying such loans are common. Are there data? Also I do not believe a wikipedia talk page is a good place for financial advice (see top)

(moved someone else's previously submitted unsigned "comments" above from the "Cash flow ARM" [merge] heading to this dedicated one) -Onceler (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anon, you win a prescience award. Tempshill (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I mean any investment is a risk, per se. However, I do think there's a ton of data right now suggesting that ARMs are not viewed as risky as they once were. It really just depends on interest rates, not the structure of the loan. DLCasper (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the Section entitled "Pricing" should be deleted. First, the sentence is wrong to say that "on average" "the majority" of borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages save money in the long term. Either (i) the majority of borrowers with ARMs save money, or (ii) the average amount of money saved by borrowers is [blank] - not, on average, the majority of borrowers save money. In fact, an average, by definition, is not the majority nor the minority, it's exactly the middle. Second, the link to "some studies" is dead. If you are going to make a bold statement about the "majority" of borrowers saving money by purchasing a product that puts interest rate risk on the purchaser (a concept most people don't understand), you should at least have a citation to the the studies that make such an assertion - a dead link is absolutely inexcusable.--00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Cpuga001 (talk)

Rate Adjustment to an index versus rate adjustment in the original mortgage

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is quite correct in introducing an ARM as "a mortgage loan where the interest rate on the note is periodically adjusted based on a variety of indices."

The problem I see is not in that definition, but in the fact that sub-prime mortgages are almost universally described as ARMs. In attempting to understand the sub-prime mortgage crisis, I propose that it is important to make a distinction between, first, an ARM as defined here, which sets the interest rate in relation to an index; and second, a mortgage loan where automatic increases in interest rates and/or monthly payments are built into the contract at the start, and operate quite independently from any index. It is my understanding that a great many, perhaps most, "sub-prime" mortgages were written such that even if there were no movement in any index, the interest rate and payments would increase sharply. Those loans may also have had provisions to raise rates if the index moved upward, which would make them ARMs as defined here, but that isn't what drove most defaults.

When there is a mortgage loan that is from the beginning unsustainable; which absolutely depends on the borrower's ability to refinance the loan later at sustainable terms, then when events like falling home prices or tighter lending standards prevent the loan from being refinanced, that loan will default.

Madison Max (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The last paragraph in the article (in the Criticism section) contained the following sentence: "In December 1995, a study by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) concluded that 50–60% of all Adjustable Rate Mortgages in the United States contain an error regarding the variable interest rate charged to the homeowner.[12]" The FSLIC ceased to exist in 1989. The 1995 government study was probably by the FDIC or some other agency. Unfortunately the link to the cited article at allbusiness.com seems to be dead. I don't know the correct agency, but I am certain that it cannot be FSLIC - I therefore am about to edit accordingly. Qdiderot (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adjustable-rate mortgage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic