![]() |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
I feel that the total payment (P+I) indicates the true "cost" of living in a
house. That's why I'm saying that a jump in the rate from 5% to 6% "only" increases the cost of ownership by a little less than 12%. Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone that won't be in their house for anywhere near the full term of the loan. In that case, I ask myself "how much will this house *cost* me per month"? I think most people think that way when buying a house. "What's my note?" "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: $100,000 mortgage at 5% for 30 years is $536.83 per month. $100,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years is $599.55 per month. Using your numbers: $536.83 x 360 pmts = $193258 Cost of 5% money in your example is $93,258. $599.55 x 360 pmts = $215838 Cost of money in your 6% example is $115, 838 Here's an interesting observation: The 20% cost differentiation only applies when working the numbers from the top down! It's *greater* when working the numbers from the bottom up. $93,258 divided by $115,838 equals .80 (so there's the 20% I've been talking about) However, expressed as a percentage of increase the number is somehow larger than 20%! Proof: 93258 x 1.2 = 111,909, a few grand short of the actual new cost number at $115,838. (Again, I'm just taking your figures at face value without checking them.) From that perspective, 6% money can be shown to even *more* than 120% the cost of 5% money, not less. The mortgage payment at 6% is 11.683% more than the payment at 5%. How am I wrong? You're not "wrong" exactly, you're just using an increase in total payment to argue that *interest costs* don't increase as much as I have claimed. There is no number of 11.683% or even 12% that comes anywhere close to expressing the increased cost of the money when borrowing at 6% vs 5%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 02:05:44 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
OK, Chuck, I apologize. The *interest* paid each month is in fact 20% more when the rate jumps from 5% to 6%. We are both right, as you say...since the *total payment* jumps just under 12%. Joe, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a clue. He concluded we were *both* wrong...when in fact we were *both* right. Does that make him twice as wrong? ;-) Okay, okay...you guys seem to be doing a reasonably good job of wiggling out of your respective ambiguous statements. :) --note smiley Joe Parsons ***group hug*** "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15 year mortgage. Joe Parsons Actually we're both right, that is if NOYB check his amortization chart before typing away. We are speaking about two completely different concepts, however. I didn't ever say the monthly payment went up 20%, just that 6% money is 120% the cost of 5% money. Math was never my strongest subject, but I would invite anybody to show me where 5 X 1.2 doesn't equal 6. NOYB said I lacked a brain because the monthly payment doesn't go up 20% at the higher rate. No, it doesn't. Part of the money paid back each month reduces the principal balance. I thought the guys on the right were supposed to be such financial geniuses! I guess the tax cuts should have been the first clue. :-) |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Actually, I said "either automation or labor"...but *intentionally* didn't
use the term "labor in the US". The idea of non-US labor could blow my theory out of the water. However, ramping up labor overseas requires a pretty large initial capital investment and doesn't happen overnight. It's much easier and cheaper in the shortrun to hire domestically in existing plants. Did you notice what segments *had* an increase in the employment numbers? I know that healthcare was one of 'em. It's time to face facts that if you're in manufacturing, you'll either be earning less, or have no job at all in the foreseeable future...as long as we don't impose large tariffs on imports. The problem with tariffs is that they increase the cost of goods at a rate that's much larger than the increase in employee income...and high inflation begins to rear its ugly head. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... I'm pretty sure imports don't affect the productivity numbers. Those statistics are talking about *American* productivity. You are most likely right. My comments were in response to the suggestion that American companies seeking further increases in productivity will now need to invest in either automation or labor in the US. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
I feel that the total payment (P+I) indicates the true "cost" of living in a
house. That's why I'm saying that a jump in the rate from 5% to 6% "only" increases the cost of ownership by a little less than 12%. Fair enough. Most people are "payment buyers" when it comes to a home. But, don't forget you're talking a 12% increase in what is, for most people, a relatively major chunk of the household budget. The example you used in a previous post examined a $100,000 mortgage and the payment went up over $60 a month. Most people are going to have a mortgage 2, 3, or more times that amount these days. Not all potential buyers are in a position to absorb 60, 120, or 180 additional dollars a month and will want some help via a larger discount in the selling price. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:59:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
$100,000 mortgage at 5% for 30 years is $536.83 per month. $100,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years is $599.55 per month. The mortgage payment at 6% is 11.683% more than the payment at 5%. How am I wrong? Actually, you're not, and I sit corrected. Joe Parsons "Joe Parsons" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:34:53 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15 year mortgage. Joe Parsons For a 15 year mortgage, the change is just a little bit under 7%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Our discussion was, I believe about how rising interest rates could affect the affordability of housing and dampen the current market. I'll agree there. We could be facing a flooded housing market (and a lot of defaults) in 3-5 years when all of the 4 to 4 1/2% ARM's come due. Imagine someone who bought the biggest house they could afford at a 4% 3-year ARM with high rate caps? Will they be able to afford that house if rates hit 8%? On a $400k mortgage, that's another $1000 per month on the same house! |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
It's time to face facts that if you're in manufacturing, you'll either be
earning less, or have no job at all in the foreseeable future...as long as we don't impose large tariffs on imports. The problem with tariffs is that they increase the cost of goods at a rate that's much larger than the increase in employee income...and high inflation begins to rear its ugly head. Rush Limbaugh had a guest host last week who advanced an interesting claim about tariffs. He said that Bush's tariffs on imported steel had saved 100,000 American jobs in the domestic steel industry. At that point, my 5-minute allotment of conservatism was about used up for the day and I was in the process of concluding, "OK, just more RW glorification of the Bush economic program. What else is new?.......) when the guest host said...."But, those same tarrifs that saved 100,000 American jobs in the steel industry have cost us, to date, a total of 400,000 jobs in other industries that can no longer compete when manufacturing items made from steel, and all because the tariffs have artificially raised the price of steel in the US. So, we spent 400,000 jobs to save 100,000 jobs. Not good policy!" ((I haven't checked it out to see whether the numbers are accurate.)) but.... What's this? Limbaugh's guest host criticizing Bush's economic decisions? Unless I miss my guess, it will be a "while" before Rushbo asks that guy to sit in again. :-) "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... I'm pretty sure imports don't affect the productivity numbers. Those statistics are talking about *American* productivity. You are most likely right. My comments were in response to the suggestion that American companies seeking further increases in productivity will now need to invest in either automation or labor in the US. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... I feel that the total payment (P+I) indicates the true "cost" of living in a house. That's why I'm saying that a jump in the rate from 5% to 6% "only" increases the cost of ownership by a little less than 12%. Fair enough. Most people are "payment buyers" when it comes to a home. But, don't forget you're talking a 12% increase in what is, for most people, a relatively major chunk of the household budget. The example you used in a previous post examined a $100,000 mortgage and the payment went up over $60 a month. Most people are going to have a mortgage 2, 3, or more times that amount these days. Not all potential buyers are in a position to absorb 60, 120, or 180 additional dollars a month and will want some help via a larger discount in the selling price. How about a $250, 500, or $750 increase when their 4% 3-year ARM hits 8% in 5 years? |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
Thanks Joe.
"Joe Parsons" wrote in message ... On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 01:59:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: $100,000 mortgage at 5% for 30 years is $536.83 per month. $100,000 mortgage at 6% for 30 years is $599.55 per month. The mortgage payment at 6% is 11.683% more than the payment at 5%. How am I wrong? Actually, you're not, and I sit corrected. Joe Parsons "Joe Parsons" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:34:53 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Remember that when 5% mortgages go to 6%, the interest rate has gone up only 1% but the cost of money has increased by a factor of 20%....(6 being a number 120% as large as 5). Just when it seems that you do indeed *have* a brain, you post something like this. If a mortgage rate goes up from 5% to 6%, the monthly payment on a 30 year mortgage goes up by a little under 12%...not 20%. Actually, you're *both* wrong--although you are closer with respect to the 15 year mortgage. Joe Parsons For a 15 year mortgage, the change is just a little bit under 7%. |
Great Economic News: Recession is Over!
It almost makes me want to sell my house now, rent an apartment, wait for
the correction, and then find myself a deal on the water. That would make the most sense. Of course, in Naples, the housing market hasn't made sense for about 5 or 6 years now. They're still reporting housing prices increasing 20% last year again. My house's appraised value is up almost 50% since Jan. '01. That's nuts. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... How about a $250, 500, or $750 increase when their 4% 3-year ARM hits 8% in 5 years? Exactly. Many of those folks will be trying to dump the house they own and move to a *cheaper* one, not bid prices up. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com