December 16th, 2008Zero Interest Rates And 100 Year Mortgages Coming Soon
If you thought Greenspan was a maniac for temporarily dropping interest rates to 1% in the years after 9/11, just wait until you seen what Uncle Ben Bernanke has in store. Since taking on his positioin, Bernanke has so far ratcheted the federal fund rate down to Greenspan’s low of 1%. But the two day fed meeting that started today is expected to commence tomorrow with an announcement that interest rates are going lower, and quite possibly to zero percent!
The United States bubble based economy is in trouble. Instead of focusing on innovating and exporting our way to a stronger economy, we instead choose to borrow more, cut taxes, inflate, and spend. Our government insists on short sighted solutions to keep asset prices artificially high.
In 1981, the federal fund interest rates topped out at over 19% and mortgage borrowing costs were expensive. Borrowers were responsible, 20% was the customary home down payment, and the economy was humming along. But with the first sign of economic trouble, the targeted strategy was to inflate asset prices at any cost, and the preferred solution was lowering interest rates. Since that time, every new sign of trouble brings lower and lower interest rates, and those rates are now widely expected to hit zero percent in 2009, if not sooner.

Stimulating after zero percent? – Japan had deflating asset problems in the 1990’s Rather than allow the market to naturally self correct, they chose instead to aggressively lower interest rates. When they approached and hit zero perecent, they extended mortgage terms to 100 years to dupe consumers. 100 year mortgages were introduced in Japan starting in 1995 obsessed only with monthly payments and no comprehension of true value. If desperate homebuilders, mortgage lenders, and real estate agents have their way, they will be introduced in the United States starting in 2009.
The sellsius real estate blog called for 100 year mortages recently. Sellsius attempted to justify 100 year mortgages with seven ridiculous and unfounded benefit claims to the 100 year mortgage. Unfortunately, every indication is that the United States will follow on with every policy mistake Japan has already made, including the 100 year mortgage. Consumers will initially resist 100 year mortgages, but later embrace them. Stupid Creative financing wins over most unsophisticated borrowers in the end as they consider only the monthly payments with no regard for longer term considerations. But a few savvy consumers will make better choices. And in most parts of the country, the wiser choice is still building equity through renting. The equity comes from investing and compounding all the additional disposable income you keep from not buying inflated assets!
Other interesting reads:
December 16th, 2008 at 2:01 am
Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:22 am
I suggested the 100 year mortgage as a means of keeping families in their homes. In my opinion, the loss of a home through foreclosure has a worse effect than refinancing it at 100 years. I am not an economist who can hang his hat on a reason why it would make sense. I understand that other countries besides Japan offer 100 year mortgages. Do you know the consequence of this option on home ownership, the economy, etc? If, indeed, those countries using the 100 yr mortgage have suffered because of it, I withdraw my suggestion, admit you are correct and look for another solution.
December 16th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Joseph: How exactly is a 100 year mortgage different from a 100 year lease!? Foreclosure isn’t a great option but depending on details if it was me I’d walk – if only to be free. We’ve owned four houses over the past 20 years but decided to sell and rent three years ago. Renting can be quite liberating. You are free to move on relatively short notice and you don’t have the burden of home maintenance on your back.
I suspect that zero percent interest rate loans and 100 year mortgages do more social harm to families than a foreclosure.
As for another solution, I have one to suggest. It doesn’t directly address the foreclosures but instead fixes (IMHO) the root cause of the overall financial mess. Replace all taxes with a tax on land and natural resources.
That sounds like a leap and a tad crazy I’m sure but read “Progress and Poverty” (http://www.henrygeorge.org/pcontents.htm) cover to cover and I think you will be convinced it will work.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:49 am
The very notion of a 100 year mortgage should make anyone immediately think “SCHEME” just because it should be intuitively obvious that anyone who takes out a 100 year mortgage is not going to live long enough to pay it off. Duh. Who is going to pay for your house, idiot? Not you – you will be dead. What do you care? You are just another jerk who is out looking to get something for nothing.
People who advocate this garbage believe in “free lunches” as they expect that nobody will ever have to pay off their debt and are betting that their house is going to pay itself off through appreciation i.e bubble economics.
Are you smarter than a 6th grader? Hello?
This country is in a lot of trouble.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:18 am
“How exactly is a 100 year mortgage different from a 100 year lease!?”
Ownership and those pesky landlords (lessors)and their lease renewals. I might consider a 100 year mortgage based on OPM (other people’s money). With a renter’s monthly nut, I might afford to add upgrades and additions to boost the home’s value. I am also free to sell or refinance. I guess my favoring a 100 year mortgage is akin to my preferring a 30 year fixed over a 15 year– lower monthly payments. And from a non-economic viewpoint, I can’t help but think of kids having to leave their family home because of foreclosure– if a 100 yr mortgage can keep families in their home, I’m for trying it. Heck, foreclosure sales also hurt the values of surrounding homes.
And yes, I do agree that renting can be quite liberating– except for those pesky landords and lease renewals. Perhaps that is why some companies opted for 99 year leases.
I think your idea on taxes may sound like a leap but hey, we won’t know unless we try.
Here’s a tax solution for you and your readers to ponder (from our neighbors tothe north)– a tax deferral system for seniors (its been around for quite awhile): http://tinyurl.com/5s3vcg
December 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Problem is that prices will always rise to what the average person can afford to pay. This plan will not save buyers money, because the market forces will drive prices way up to meet what people can afford as a monthly payment. This plan ONLY helps sellers and real estate agents. Its a win-lose idea. Besides always paying and never owning is the same as renting. I rent now and would prefer that over a 1000 year never own the house morgage.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Joseph:
“Ownership and those pesky landlords”
Yes indeed, there are good landlords and some not so good ones. I’ve been fairly lucky with mostly good landlords. Your second sentence is interesting: “With a renter’s monthly nut, I might afford to add upgrades and additions to boost the home’s value.” Here in Tempe, AZ we are able to rent for about $500-$1000 less than what buying would cost us monthly. That pays for a lot of nice vacations etc. and if zillow can be trusted at all, home equity is going down, not up. Home improvements should be done because you desire the improvements, not as some sort of investment. I read an article some time ago that indicated that in the UK the only home improvement that actually nets positive is painting and even then not always. It’d be interesting to know the ROI of various home improvements here in the US.
The tax deferral system you pointed out is a good idea in the same sense that using duct tape and plastic to fix a broken windshield is a good idea. Sure, you can now drive the car but better keep that speed down. Zero percent interest rates, 100 year mortgages and tax deferrals for the elderly are all duct tape solutions that do nothing to address the root cause of the problems. Of course given the reality of our dysfunctional system and having compassion for the victims of that system I myself would support the tax deferral system.
“I think your idea on taxes may sound like a leap but hey, we won’t know unless we try.”
There is a list on the henrygeorge.org site of places where the idea has been tried with great success. I’d be interested in hearing of any cases where it failed to work.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:44 am
We already have 100 year student loans which have made millions of people a debt slave to Sallie Mae. I hope I die soon, so I can stop paying those loan sharks from Hell!
December 17th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Don’t for one second even entertain the idea that 100 year mortgages is a good idea, or you have already succumbed to another evil plot to keep the middle class down and transfer what remains of our wealth to the elite scumbags who orchestarted this mess.
What is better for us working stiffs:
1) Affordable housing priced where one can afford a 15 year mortgage with the hope of actually building wealth………..or
2) 100 year mortgages allowing prices to remain above historic and sensible norms that only enrich banks and make us slaves to a mortgage that will out-live us?
December 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Right here in California they were touting 45-year mortgages in 2006 – right at the top of the bubble. I guess people couldn’t afford most of those homes so real estate agents hoped to inflate the bubble even more with such mortgages. It never took off though.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
How is a 100 year mortgaged amortized? Just like a 30 year? …or have those lenders offering it, cooked up something “special”? It doesn’t seem like they would even go there, if it weren’t profitable for them *Right Now*.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
The fact that mortgage options are available, does not mean they must be used. God Bless America and free choice. If you believe people have a right to choose what they do with “their” property (not their kin folk’s), then whether they choose 0 interest,100 yr mortgages or duct tape should be none of my business. I am also reluctant to say this will work for NO ONE.
Rather than arguing philosophy, perhaps we should investigate whether 100 yr mortgages are truly stupid by seeing their effects in other countries. If, indeed, they are crap, let’s get us some proof.
Also, renting will NEVER be the same as owning. They are two distinct legal possessory interests–renters do NOT have title to the property. Thus, they cannot leave the property to their heirs, sell it, or paint it purple. Landlords can evict you for things other than nonpayment of money and the property may be sold by your nice landlord to the landlord from hell.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Matt
You posed a question about ROI on home improvements. I have an answer for that…
Average cost, and percent that can usually be recouped if a residence is sold within a year, of the following home improvement projects: Bathroom addition (mid-range), $37,202 (66.0%); major kitchen remodel (mid-range), $55,503 (78.1%); minor kitchen remodel (mid-range), $21,185 (83.0%); master suite addition (mid-range), $98,863 (69.0%); family room addition (mid-range), $78,989 (68.6%); bathroom remodel (mid-range), $15,789 (78.3%); replace siding (mid-range), $9,910 (83.2%); roofing replacement (mid-range), $18,042 (67.4%); deck addition (mid-range), $10,347 (85.4%); sunroom addition (mid-range), $69,817 (59.1%); basement remodel (mid-range), $59,435 (75.1%); home office remodel (mid-range), $27,193 (57.0%); attic bedroom remodel (mid-range), $46,691 (76.6%).
Source-
Remodeling Magazine, 2008
Now it is true that this is only statistics on recouping expenses for the remodeling. However, if you use your home equity (if you have any) or use money from investments (like most will) you can, in some cases, recoup 80 percent or more from your “investment” and roll that into the asking price. Now of course timing is everthing, these numbers are based on a one-year turn around and in this market if you were to do those project you probably would be sitting on your home for 2-3 years.
I hope that helped
December 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yes, I agree, home improvements should be made because you want to enjoy them … but there are instances where making the upgrade is necessary to raise the value and saleability of a home. (that 70’s shag carpeting will have to go
As for ROI on home improvements, HomeGain.com has a homemaximizer tool (there are surely others out there). While computers are not trustworthy, it may give you an indication if it’s better to add a new kitchen or an in-ground pool (I’m betting the kitchen wins)
http://www.homegain.com/sellertools?entryid=10647
As for the senior tax deferral program in Canada, it’s been around for 20+ yrs (I think) and seems to work. I guess it may be seen as compassion for elders, but I can live with that. They might have earned it.
December 17th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
A 100 year mortgage is yet another scheme promoted by the finance industry to suck in the gullible. Rent and save the difference and buy right when prices come down as they inevitably will. All the gimmicks in the world cannot create artificial value in housing. If you want to hear a man speak who truly understands this issue, go to youtube and search Peter Schiff and start with his video made in 2006 with Art Lafner. At that time he predicted this exact sequence of events, and people we’re laughing and snickering but no more. Says Peter ” The fundamental problem is debt, and you cannot cure debt by creating more debt” In the end that is why none of these schemes will work to save housing or anything else.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“Problem is that prices will always rise to what the average person can afford to pay. This plan will not save buyers money, because the market forces will drive prices way up to meet what people can afford as a monthly payment. This plan ONLY helps sellers and real estate agents.” Well put Ann, few words and direct.
“then whether they choose 0 interest,100 yr mortgages or duct tape should be none of my business” I disagree Joseph. The bubbles we have suffer show that most people can do dumb things. This 100-years-door can be another dumb thing most people can do and might affect all of us, and even future generations. This is dangerous and should be our business because it can affect us all.
December 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
You all make good points– on paper. As a pragmatist, I would like to see the results of an idea before I judge it utter folly. Sometimes things work out counter-intuitively. Anyone find any research on the “actual” effects of 100 year mortgages? Then we can bury this horse.
Here’s another thought– if a person could “own” a house at a renter’s rate (assuming the 100 yr amortization brings the monthly cost down to rental rates), people who would otherwise rent would buy on these terms and the cost of rentals would drop because of lower demand and higher supply. Possible?
And even if the rental prices did not drop, the chance of building equity would be worth it, since renters can NEVER build equity.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
The 100 year mortgage isn’t going to lower the payment enough to help most people. As the mortgage term stretches out, the mortgage gets closer and closer to being an interest only one with the only advantage being you know your rate is fixed. The savings of a couple hundred dollars a month is unlikely to keep most of the people in their house. If the house is really underwater (They bought it for 500k and it is now worth 350k), there isn’t any financial tricks you can do. Someone has to eat losing that money. I would rather it be the buyer, bank, and investor and not me. They all voluntary chose to play the game, they can deal with the consequences.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Why should anyone take out a 100 year mortgage? “So they can build equity” is not an answer. A house built today doesn’t have a 100-year lifespan. It’s going to need major work over those decades, and your children or other inheritor probably doesn’t want the problems and debts associated with a 100-year mortgage – they’ll have created their own lives, either in a home of their choosing in the local community, or elsewhere.
BTW, Canada has now banned 40-year mortgages because of the extremely high default rates associated with them.
In today’s job market, owning a home is a boat anchor. It reduces mobility just when people need it the most.
Also, communities change. A house in what is now a nice, quiet community could easily be at the center of a slum in 50 years, worth nothing. You or your estate would still be on the hook for another 50 years.
Amortization terms need to be reined in, not extended. 20 years should become the new standard. Sure, this will devastate the over-inflated market, but it’s over-inflated because of lax lending, in part because overly-long amortization terms caused people to focus on the monthly payment.
As for keeping people in homes they can’t afford, let’s not fool ourselves – that doesn’t work. Either the loan gets modified, or the house gets repossessed, and the bank eats the loss. Either way, the home is now available at its’ true value. Attempting to keep people in houses they can’t afford is a case of trying to solve a debt problem with more debt. You can’t borrow your way out of debt.
Also, renters CAN build equity – just by another name – assets. They can take the money they save by renting and invest it in something that will appreciate. Or they can stash it in the bank, or even in their mattress. In all those cases, they’ve built up their net worth, and increased their “equity” in themselves.
Think of it – who has more “personal equity” – someone with an under-water mortgage and other debts, or someone who, because they rent, is able to clear out their debts, live debt-free, and has a few dollars in the bank. The home debtor is a slave. Your 100-year mortgage scam (it is a scam, since it hurts those who you think it would help, even if that wasn’t your intention) will just extend that slavery to another generation.
December 24th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Excellent points, Barbie & I agree with most of them. But if indeed the 100 yr mortgage is interest only and can be equated with “rent”, it may still be a better choice if it is fixed– renters do not have the comfort their rents will stay constant– many are the horror stories of store owners who had to close because of escalating rents– those same horror stories happen to renters. Rent, too, is a type of slavery.
December 25th, 2008 at 8:13 am
While “renters do not hae the comfort their rents will stay constant”, they *do* have the comfort that they will stay pretty much constant in terms of inflation-indexed dollars.
Also, they have the “comfort” of not being faced with $20,000 bills for remedial work to their foundation, or $10,000 for a new sewage and water line, or $7,000 for a new roof.
Also, commercial leases are not the same as residential leases. I doubt there’s a single jurisdiction that has rent controls on commercial leases, whereas there are plenty of places that have rent controls on residential properties.
Renting is not a type of slavery in today’s economy. Paying two or three times the cost of renting to “own”, and still being under-water, is slavery. After all, the debtor is slave to the lender.
The way to get some sanity back into the market is to go back to the standards of 30 years ago – 25-year fixed mortgages, no more than 2.5 to 3x annual income, and total debt load of no more than 40$ of income, including car, credit cards, personal debt, and mortgage payments.
If people can’t afford the payments on a 25-year fixed mortgage, then they shouldn’t “own” via the 100-year mortgage route. After all, one major disaster and they’re in default, and the risk is a LOT higher on a term of 100 years than on a 25-year term. In fact, the risk of a default during the term is probably 100% on a 100-year mortgage, which means that lenders will want (a) lots of security, and (b) higher interest rates.
I haven’t owned in years; I’ll become a buyer again if and when two things happen: (1) prices go below historic norms, and (2) I can get a deal that makes me look like a thief. In other words, because I purposefully sat on the sidelines during the last bubble, I can afford to wait; if someone wants to call me a “bottom-feeding vulture,” I don’t care – I’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Until then, I’ll continue to rent, and continue to live 100% debt-free. It lets me enjoy a higher standard of living, such as renting a 3-bedroom duplex in a nice part of town just for myself and my two dogs. 1200 square feet + indoor heated garage for less than half the cost of ownership leaves no incentive to “own” as a debt-slave.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Your landlord can fail to make repairs & improvements, evict you for nuisance caused by your dogs (if they were to become one), or refuse you a renewal, even at an inflation adjusted rate. Your lease may also contain a clause that if the landlord sells the property you can be removed. Slaves are not only to money. And rent too is a debt you must pay every month.
I guess where we part (or where we agree) is that one should have the right to choose their master. You choose the landlord while I may choose the bank. The problem lies with our ability to pay our master. And those that choose to assume debt unwisely (renters & owners) risk loosing their homes.
In conclusion, your statement that you would be a buyer reveals an undercurrent of belief that home ownership is not, de facto, a worse type of slavery that renting.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Personally, I would much rather own a home than rent, but with the caveat that the business case of owning makes sense. In some parts of the country, owning does make sense. But in Seattle, most of California, Miami, Chicago, New York city, Boston, etc, there is no way I can justify spending $600,000 for a 1 or 2 bedroom condo, many of which have enormous association fees of $400-$1000 per month.
When the existing and projected long term rent in my neighborhood costs more than the expected long term cost of ownership, then I will buy a house. Until that time, I will continue to rent, and sock away hordes of cash each month that will eventually be used as a down payment.
December 26th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Perhaps you’ve been mis-informed, but landlords cannot refuse to make repairs. If they do, the renter has the right to have them made and deduct them from the rent due. Also, any future buyer of the property is equally bound by the lease, and may not force you to leave. The only exception to that last part is if they are moving into your specific unit, in which case they have to pay 3 months’ rent plus all moving costs. An afternoon in court to get the equivalent of 7 months’ free rent was a very worthwhile exchange, in my opinion.
As for the dogs, even if you own your home, if your dogs become a nuisance, you will end up with three choices – control your dogs, get rid of them, or move – and moving is a lot harder when you have to dispose of a house, especially nowadays.
Now what are you going to do, as a homeowner, if the neighbor decides to practice on their drums every day? You have a lot fewer avenues of complaint than if you’re a renter. Renters can get reductions in rent for the lack of peaceable enjoyment that the lease was supposed to guarantee; a very strong incentive for the landlord to intervene. As a homeowner, your options are a lot more constrained.
Also, unlike an owner, if the neighborhood deteriorates, or I don’t like my neighbors, I’m nut stuck with an unsellable asset that is declining in value daily. Ditto if my job changes. As for my statement that under the right conditions I would buy – please keep it in context … I said it would only be if the property were an absolute steal, and this means a property that came on the market because of divorce or death, and had to be sold quickly at a discout that would have all the homeowners in the area cursing. In other words, I would use the same business logic a vulture fund uses.
Long-term (the last 350 years), real estate has only kept up with inflation, so the 100-year mortgage, which gives no chance to realize equity in the owners’ lifetime (after all, the first 85 years are mostly interest), is really, really a bad idea, totally indefensible from both a macro-economic, and from a personal finance, point of view. What is so wrong about a 25-year mortgage term? The monthly payment isn’t that much higher than a 100-year term, especially if you take into account he higher mortgage insurance premium, and the higher interest rate over the term because of the higher risk of default.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I used the word “fail” to make repairs, not refuse– meaning you have to make a demand, get a refusal, and then take that landlord to court to force he/she to do them. Depending on where you live, that can be a long and inconvenient task– most landlords send lawyers to court while most renters have to go themselves. If you happen to work to pay your rent, that means you have to miss work– that may not be a good exchange.
BTW, read your lease– there is usually a provision that says landlord has the right to cancel the lease if the building is sold — this allows landlords to deliver a vacant building to a buyer who wants one.
There is nothing wrong with a 25 year mortgage unless you can’t afford the payments, ditto a 100 yr. mortgage.
BTW, what study can you refer me to which shows a higher rate of default for 100yr mortgages?
December 28th, 2008 at 8:03 am
I don’t know where you live, but many jurisdictions, including my own, you have the right to make emergency repairs and then deduct the amount from the rent. If the landlord doesn’t like it, it is up to THEM to sue. Just keep your bills, and ask for an additional award of time missed from work for lost wages.
Also, a lease provision that requires a tenant to vacate on change of ownership of the building is not enforceable. Heck, they’ve recently passed legislation in several states that confirm tenancies in the case of foreclosures of homes.
As to the higher default rate of 100-yer mortgages, since you are the one proposing them, it is up to you to show that they would have a lower default rate. You won’t be able to do this, obviously, because their default rate will be higher, not lower. Nobody will live to the full term of the mortgage, and any inheritor will be obliged to either refuse the estate (and place the mortgage in default) or accept the estate – which they won’t be doing with a building that is at the end of its’ economic lifespan. Today’s McMansions won’t last 50 years without major repairs – some new Pult homes have been declared total writeoffs after only 3 years.
Give it up – your “100 year mortgage” was a really dumb idea, just a way to guarantee that people never build up any equity, while subsidizing the dying real estate agents. 20 years from now, there will not be any such thing as a “real estate agent”, thanks to the Internet and the inability of realtors to execute any sort of arbitrage between buyers and sellers.
Ditto for mortgage brokers.