30-year fixed mortgages get too much respect
Is fixing the interest rate for 30 years really as valuable as we seem to think?
In yet another sign that the Great Recession is receding, earnest discussion has begun in the punditocracy on long-term cures for our nation’s home mortgage system, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Remember them?)
I’m not sure if anything at all will come of this. It’s not clear that Congress has enough gas left in the tank to finish with health care, never mind rewiring the mortgage business. If I had to bet money I would say that this window of opportunity, in which there is consensus that something needs fixing, will close without much of anything changing.
But it’s inspired some rare discussion of that great American institution, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. And it really is a uniquely American institution. Except for Denmark, which has a very peculiar system dating to the 18th century, only in America do consumers think that borrowing on 30-year fixed rates is normal.
In fact, at least in the view of our elected officials, a 30-year fixed isn’t just normal, it’s a near constitutional right. Like the right to bear arms in national parks or talk on the phone while driving.
But is it really all that great a deal to begin with? Is fixing the interest rate for 30 years really as valuable as we seem to think?
The great majority of mortgages are for 30-year terms, meaning that if the borrower makes the payments as agreed for 30 years the loan will be fully paid off. (Fifteen-year terms exist, but are relatively uncommon, and other terms are rare.) Most, but not all, of those 30-year mortgages have fixed rates for the whole term.
The mortgages that have 30-year terms but not 30-year fixed rates are called adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs. At the start of the Great Recession they got a lot of bad press, but that seems to have died down. It would be nice to think this is because we all worked out that ARMs were not really the problem, but it also possible that the media got tired of reporting on complicated mathy things and moved on to better narratives like Madoff and bailouts.
ARM is a bit of a misnomer. These mortgages are generally fixed-adjustable hybrids, with a period of fixed interest at the start and then an annually adjusting rate thereafter. So a 5/1 ARM is a mortgage that will have five fixed years followed, at least in principle, by 25 years of annually adjusting rates.
Amongst the many pieces of mortgage information I would like to have but can’t find is the proportion of ARMs that actually get to the adjusting stage and how long they stay there. Americans move house about once every 14 years on average and refinance their mortgages more frequently than that. Personally, I’m in the process of getting my sixth 5/1 ARM. I let only one of the previous five adjust at all, and then only once.
If you are shopping for a mortgage you are presented with a menu of ARMs (3/1, 5/1, and 7/1 are popular) and the old 30-year fixed. Generally speaking, the interest rate you pay during the fixed period is inversely related to the length of that fixed period, so a 3/1 will have the lowest rate, 5/1 the next lowest, and so on until you get to the 30-year fixed, which will have the highest rate.
So that’s a tradeoff: higher interest rate while fixed in exchange for a longer period of being fixed. How should a person decide which mortgage to choose? Unavoidably, it will involve predicting the future, namely how long it is likely to be that the mortgage will run.
The first reason a mortgage might not actually be in service for 30 years is that the borrower might sell the house before then. That 14-year statistic I cited is real, but somewhat misleading. Homeowners are divided into those for whom it is nearly inconceivable that they will not move within the next 10 years or so and those who, if all goes according to plan, are currently in their last house.
The short-termers might include those whose careers will likely require them to change cities, those who expect to be able to afford more house in the future, and those who expect to require more or less house in the future because of a growing or shrinking family. Long-termers like me don’t expect ever to need or want to move to another house and look forward to being grumpy old men right where they are now.
The point being that most people can do a decent job of guessing how long it is likely to be before they will sell and move on.
The other reason a mortgage may not live out its full 30-year lifespan is because it gets refinanced. When interest rates are below what a homeowner is currently paying, it makes sense to refinance. How often that is likely to occur is very difficult to predict, but we’ve had several waves of refinancings over the past few decades. (Another statistic I’d like to see: How many of the 30-year mortgages written in 1980 are still with us? I’m betting practically none of them.)
All of this is background to my central question: If your best guess was that you were going to need the mortgage you were taking out today for seven years, wouldn’t you obviously prefer a 7/1 to a 30-year fixed? The 30-year does give you the peace of mind that if you wind up needing the mortgage to live longer, you know what the interest rate will be, but that reassurance comes at a steep price. If the difference between the 7/1 and the 30-year is 0.5% in interest (a reasonable figure I am pulling out of thin air), then over the first seven years the difference in cost of the two mortgages is 3.5% of the principal, and that’s real money.
- Bing: Worst mortgage mistakes
Turns out, the market share of 30-year fixed mortgages is around 70%. There is no question that some of those 70% of households legitimately are better off with a 30-year, at least based on their predictions of the future. They expect interest rates to never again be as low as they are now and they expect to be in their current house for the duration.
But it is simply inconceivable that homeowners who fit that description are anything like 70% of mortgage borrowers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number for whom a 30-year fixed is rationally the best choice were a tenth of that.
So why so many 30-year fixed mortgages? Like many such phenomena, a big driver may be ignorance. Consumers just don’t know any better and nobody is explaining this to them. Indeed, an unelaborated preference for the responsible sounding 30-year fixed is a consistent theme from personal-finance experts.
- Bing: Understanding mortgages
The tragedy in all this is that the government spends a lot of effort and truly vast sums of money to build and maintain the infrastructure for a mortgage product that ought not to be so vital or desirable. Much of the exquisitely ornate financial machinery that got gummed up last year, causing the global meltdown, was there because of the need to deal with tens of millions of very-long-term consumer loans, that is, with 30-year fixed mortgages on American homes.
Related reading at Bad Money Advice:
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
Editor Bev O'Shea lives and works in the foothills of the Appalachians. A former copy editor for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Orlando Sentinel, she joined MSN Money in 2007. She's a fan of sunsets, college football and free shipping, among other things.
Having worked as a writer, reporter and editor for more than 25 years, Editor Julie Tilsner is the sort of person who can't help but correct grammar in Facebook postings and on billboards. She's written for BusinessWeek, the Los Angeles Times, Parenting, Redbook, AOL and others. She lives in Los Angeles County with her family and loves to drink wine and practice yoga, although not generally at the same time.
A writer for MSN Money since January 2007, Donna Freedman won regional and national prizes during an 18-year newspaper career and earned a college degree in midlife without taking out student loans. She also writes about smart money tactics for magazines and on her own site, Surviving and Thriving.
Mitch Lipka has been warning people about scams and shining light on questionable business practices for more than 20 years. Mitch, the consumer columnist for The Boston Globe, has also been a reporter and editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer, Consumer Reports, South Florida Sun-Sentinel and AOL. He won the 2010 New York Press Club award for best consumer reporting online and was honored in 2011 for his reporting on child product safety.
Marilyn Lewis is an award-winning writer with a passion for getting readers clear, straight information that helps them stay out of financial trouble. A former reporter for The San Jose Mercury News, she works from her home in Port Townsend, Wash. Contact her at MarilynLewis@Outlook.com.
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Those shackled with student loan debt are increasingly being targeted by scams and shady companies promising relief.