- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:46 am to SDVTiger
quote:Laughbly, even if you presume the same interest rate (it will be higher for a 50y), the "savings" amounts to $270/month.
How doesnt it solve making it more affordible
LINK
quote:
A 50-year mortgage saves you about $270/month (on average with same rates), but takes 18 years more to get to 50% equity. The amortization schedule is ugly.
quote:If RE prices come down 10% the "owner" would be upside down the first 20 years. What could possibly go wrong?
and how could it make it worse
A $400k loan pays out almost $900,000 in interest. This isn't buying a home. This is renting from the bank until you get foreclosed on.
In order to pay off a home by retirement, you'd have to buy it before you're legally able to hold a full time job.
One has to have have dyscalculia. or a severe case of TWS.
quote:
You ppl are incredibly dumb
Irony.This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 7:48 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:46 am to Powerman
quote:At present, that "impact" is dubious.
If it has the intended effect of more people qualifying that means that the available inventory will be reduced and the list prices inch up.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:49 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
If RE prices come down 10% the "owner" would be upside down the first 20 years. What could possibly go wrong?
Find me a decade where home prices fell 10%. The reality is they increase on average 67% over a decade meaning your $400K home is now worth like $750K and you created $350K in net worth.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 7:50 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:52 am to Taxing Authority
You broke out the charts. Another dumbarse who thinks ppl.stay in 1 loan longer than 7yrs and thinks paying front loaded interest to park principle.is building "equity"
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:56 am to Man4others
quote:Ma dude. I can find you a couple of years 2007-2009 and show you the chaos it called for people that became underwater on their homes, to the point that the Fed had to buy massive amounts of bad debt to keep banks from collapsing.
Find me a decade where home prices fell 10%.
quote:Stonks always go up!
The reality is they increase on average 67% over a decade
quote:Not if you're paying $800k in interest. Do you people even know what an amortization table is?
meaning your $400K home is now worth like $750K and you created $350K in net worth.
And it makes the point for me. In order for people to not have to bring a check to sell their own house at closing you need the price to increase rapidly and steadily. Again we saw this 2009-2010, lots of people were so upside down on their loans they simply kept the prices high, because they couldn't afford to sell their "own" house. Either way, they were getting foreclosed on.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:56 am to Taxing Authority
quote:For someone needing a 50yr to finance a $380K starter home, $270/m is probably a significant number.
Laughbly, even if you presume the same interest rate (it will be higher for a 50y), the "savings" amounts to $270/month.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:57 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
can find you a couple of years 2007-2009
The lowest of the iq always try and use this anomly
It never fails. Its SFPs go to also
Posted on 11/11/25 at 7:57 am to SDVTiger
quote::rotlflmao: Thanks for making my point.
Another dumbarse who thinks ppl.stay in 1 loan longer than 7yrs
quote:As opposed to those loans where you pay all the intrest on the back end?
thinks paying front loaded interest to park principle.is building "equity"
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Loaning money with an almost $1 million interest liability that doesn't have $270/month in float seems like a terrible idea to me
For someone needing a 50yr to finance a $380K starter home, $270/m is probably a significant number.
The reality is if you "need" a 50 year loan, you cannot afford what you're buying. Its just simple math.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 8:01 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:00 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Thanks for making my point
You havent made any point. You just did your typical rant of stupid
quote:
As opposed to those loans where you pay all the intrest on the back end?
Its incdible
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:02 am to SDVTiger
quote:
You havent made any point.
TWS. quote:As usual. You have insults. I have math.
You just did your typical rant of stupid
quote:Indeed!
Its incdible
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 8:03 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:08 am to Taxing Authority
quote:Come on. You don't even believe what you're posting.
meaning your $400K home is now worth like $750K and you created $350K in net worth.
---
Not if you're paying $800k in interest.
Assuming for simplicity not one penny to principal over the first 20% of a 50yr term, assuming the monthly notes approximate what would otherwise be paid for rent, assuming 10% down on a $400K home sold 10yrs later for $750K, ROI on the DP would be 875%.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:I'd say the same about this...
Come on. You don't even believe what you're posting.
quote:If make that presumption for price inflation, why not make the same for assumption for what at 50 year mortgage rate will be? Anything will look good if you only look at one side of the deal.
Assuming for simplicity not one penny to principal over the first 20% of a 50yr term, assuming the monthly notes approximate what would otherwise be paid for rent, assuming 10% down on a $400K home sold 10yrs later for $750K, ROI on the DP would be 875%.
Secondly, if that sort of price inflation exists in perpetuity, we *really* don't need 50 year mortgages.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 8:17 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:16 am to Taxing Authority
quote:That logic differentiates from a 30yr loan only insofar as we've grown accustomed to the 30yr.
The reality is if you "need" a 50 year loan, you cannot afford what you're buying. Its just simple math.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:19 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
That logic differentiates from a 30yr loan only insofar as we've grown accustomed to the 30yr
Exactly. By their logic no one should own a home
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Indeed, we've become habituated to debt. That's not an argument of merit, tho. The 30yr aligns better to working lifespan.
That logic differentiates from a 30yr loan only insofar as we've grown accustomed to the 30yr.
The idea that we need to work to make RE more affordable, while arguing that we should expect that prices should always rise is inherently conflicting.
This post was edited on 11/11/25 at 8:23 am
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:21 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Assuming for simplicity not one penny to principal over the first 20% of a 50yr term, assuming the monthly notes approximate what would otherwise be paid for rent, assuming 10% down on a $400K home sold 10yrs later for $750K, ROI on the DP would be 875%.
---
If make that presumption for price inflation, why not make the same for assumption for what at 50 year mortgage rate will be?
Enter that assumption into the equation.
quote:Not true if a first time buyer avoids purchase because he's concerned 30yr notes will leave him house poor.
Secondly, if that sort of price inflation exists in perpetuity, we *really* don't need 50 year mortgages.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:22 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The 30yr aligns better to working lifespan.
Posted on 11/11/25 at 8:23 am to SDVTiger
quote:We have different definition of "own".
Exactly. By their logic no one should own a home
Page 25 of 28
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News