What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Are Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) still considered too risky? (1 Viewer)

Zow

Footballguy
I have a purchase pending on a new home. In the process, I'm strongly considering a ARM mortgage with the plan being to refi in a few years (the ARM can be fixed for 7 years). My broker seems to be appropriately and gently pushing us this way. However, my wife and our extended family are all strongly against. I'm trying to understand their position, but assuming mortgages don't shoot way up in the next seven years, it seems like a fixed 7 year arm is worth the risk as it saves us upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

Anybody have opinions on ARMs and whether they're now safer than the mid-2000s? 

ETA: Went with my wife's "strong preference" (i.e. wasn't worth pushing it and being wrong) of the fixed 30 year. Nonetheless, feel free to discuss. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a purchase pending on a new home. In the process, I'm strongly considering a ARM mortgage with the plan being to refi in a few years (the ARM can be fixed for 7 years). My broker seems to be appropriately and gently pushing us this way. However, my wife and our extended family are all strongly against. I'm trying to understand their position, but assuming mortgages don't shoot way up in the next seven years, it seems like a fixed 7 year arm is worth the risk as it saves us upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

Anybody have opinions on ARMs and whether they're now safer than the mid-2000s? 
I am NOT an expert on this... but I thought the problem with them in the aughts was less the mortgage, and more the brokers giving them out like candy to people they knew would default. As a lawyer making (I hope) a decent wage with long term prospects of continuing to do the same... I don't think your demographic is the problem with ARMs, so I'm with you in not seeing what the problem would be. 

but again... not an expert at all.

 
I am NOT an expert on this... but I thought the problem with them in the aughts was less the mortgage, and more the brokers giving them out like candy to people they knew would default. As a lawyer making (I hope) a decent wage with long term prospects of continuing to do the same... I don't think your demographic is the problem with ARMs, so I'm with you in not seeing what the problem would be. 

but again... not an expert at all.
Yeah if I recall people were getting approved for like 50% more than their income would normally be approved or something....but I too could be wrong

 
Yeah if I recall people were getting approved for like 50% more than their income would normally be approved or something....but I too could be wrong


Or not verifying income or assets while allowing borrowers to pay less than the monthly interest amount.

Edit to add: With bad credit too back then.
 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s a pretty straightforward decision for someone like Woz. Is the initial savings worth the risk of keeping the loan and rates being higher in seven years.

 
I had an 11.5% ARM back when I purchased my first house in 1984 when fixed rates were in close to 14%.    I was only in the house for 11 months before being transferred to another city so never went through an adjustment.

 
not a mortgage professional so take it with a grain of salt...

as long as your dept to income ratio is OK, the only risk is uncertainty in what your payments will be 7 years out.  If rates skyrocket, your monthly payments will increase.  If you are on a fixed income, that could be a big problem.  If rates drop, it's not a big deal...may even be possible for lower rates.

so it comes down to this - do you think rates will be higher in 7 years than they are today?  Also, will you be in the same house in 7+ years?  (I think people move on average every 5-8 years).

ETA: your wife and extended family are probably against it because uncertainty can cause stress.  That's rational and something to keep in mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s a pretty straightforward decision for someone like Woz. Is the initial savings worth the risk of keeping the loan and rates being higher in seven years.
Yeah, I think it pretty much comes down to where you see rates going.

Personally, I think rates will continue to climb over the next decade but at a much slower pace compared to 2022.

@Chadstroma 

should have a good take on this.

 
a quick look and it seems that 7 year ARMs have about the same rate as a 30 year fixed.  On a long enough time line, IMO rates are still historically low.  I'd go with the 30.

 
a quick look and it seems that 7 year ARMs have about the same rate as a 30 year fixed.  On a long enough time line, IMO rates are still historically low.  I'd go with the 30.


7 year arm normally rates as a fixed 30.  The ballsy move is push to a shorter arm.  I reserve the right to be laughed at by @chadstroma

 
7 year arm normally rates as a fixed 30.  The ballsy move is push to a shorter arm.  I reserve the right to be laughed at by @chadstroma
so what's the benefit of a 7 year ARM?  Is that a hedge that rates will be lower in 7 years, and save you refinancing?

 
5/1 arm would be the way to go.  3.9%.  Worse case you're in the green for roughly 9.5 years.  If you make payments based as if it were a 30 year fixed that would push the green time frame out even further.  Another thing to consider is that if your in the home long enough for the worst case scenario to hit, things must be going well in your life on every other front.  Based on your career track, 10% interest on the remaining balance in 10 years will be sofa money for you.

 
so it comes down to this - do you think rates will be higher in 7 years than they are today?  Also, will you be in the same house in 7+ years?  (I think people move on average every 5-8 years).
Exactly the questions he needs to think about. Given the relatively small spread between a 7-year ARM and 30 year fixed, I'd probably take the 30 year fixed. But I'm fairly risk averse. 

As to the bolded, I think I saw this has climbed up to 10-12 years now.

Actually, just looked it up. Per this website: "As of 2018, the median duration of homeownership in the U.S. is 13 years1. Compared to previous years, homeowners opt to spend more time holding onto their residences. Median tenure has increased by 3 years since 2008." 

 
a quick look and it seems that 7 year ARMs have about the same rate as a 30 year fixed.  On a long enough time line, IMO rates are still historically low.  I'd go with the 30.
I think we save ~3/4s of a point on the ARM. 

 
so what's the benefit of a 7 year ARM?  Is that a hedge that rates will be lower in 7 years, and save you refinancing?
In that 7 year span, about $28k. But we're basically locked in to then needing to refinance within that time period. 

 
not a mortgage professional so take it with a grain of salt...

as long as your dept to income ratio is OK, the only risk is uncertainty in what your payments will be 7 years out.  If rates skyrocket, your monthly payments will increase.  If you are on a fixed income, that could be a big problem.  If rates drop, it's not a big deal...may even be possible for lower rates.

so it comes down to this - do you think rates will be higher in 7 years than they are today?  Also, will you be in the same house in 7+ years?  (I think people move on average every 5-8 years).

ETA: your wife and extended family are probably against it because uncertainty can cause stress.  That's rational and something to keep in mind.
1. I don't know and would prefer to defer to the professionals. 

2. This is planned to be our "forever" home. We are buying it solely because this is the house in our exact dream location* and the intention is for us to be in it until we physically can't climb the stairs/keep it up. So, ideally, at least 30 years. 

*It's on hole one at my golf club and in perhaps the most desirable neighborhood in our city. 

 
I am NOT an expert on this... but I thought the problem with them in the aughts was less the mortgage, and more the brokers giving them out like candy to people they knew would default. As a lawyer making (I hope) a decent wage with long term prospects of continuing to do the same... I don't think your demographic is the problem with ARMs, so I'm with you in not seeing what the problem would be. 

but again... not an expert at all.
I think I can safely say that my income (FBG money) should stay where it is for at least another 15 years - at which time I'm hoping I can "downsize" and take on a less stressful law job (judge/head a PDO) while having maximize my partnership. 

 
It’s a pretty straightforward decision for someone like Woz. Is the initial savings worth the risk of keeping the loan and rates being higher in seven years.
Right. And I don't know the answer. :)

My wife's strong preference is the fixed because she knows it'll work for us. I prefer the ARM because I like the odds of essentially saving ~$28k. 

 
Right. And I don't know the answer. :)

My wife's strong preference is the fixed because she knows it'll work for us. I prefer the ARM because I like the odds of essentially saving ~$28k. 
Expanding further, I think there's a >50% chance (based on what our broker has said) that we can successfully refi to a lower fixed number within the 7 year timeframe and that saves us not a life-changing same but a nice number. I see that as +EV. 

My wife sees it as, "our mortgage payment on the fixed is X and we can safely afford X" so she doesn't want to mess with it. 

 
Right. And I don't know the answer. :)

My wife's strong preference is the fixed because she knows it'll work for us. I prefer the ARM because I like the odds of essentially saving ~$28k. 
Do the math and see how fast that savings gets eaten up if rates are higher in 7 years. What's the payment at 7%, 8%, etc. 

A $750k loan (just spitballing since you said you bought a $1M property) at 5% is a $4,026 payment. At 6% its $4,497. At 7% its $4,990. It's anybody's guess what rates will be like, but that savings could go quick. 

 
Do the math and see how fast that savings gets eaten up if rates are higher in 7 years. What's the payment at 7%, 8%, etc. 

A $750k loan (just spitballing since you said you bought a $1M property) at 5% is a $4,026 payment. At 6% its $4,497. At 7% its $4,990. It's anybody's guess what rates will be like, but that savings could go quick. 
This is very close to the loan amount. So, yeah, that makes sense. 

 
This is very close to the loan amount. So, yeah, that makes sense. 
I did a 10 year interest only loan for $820k 20 months ago at 2.625%.  My thought was similiar to yours that I would have an opportunity to refi down the road but the combination of the savings now as well as the possibility of moving within 10 years drove my decision away from the 30 year.

 
so what's the benefit of a 7 year ARM?  Is that a hedge that rates will be lower in 7 years, and save you refinancing?


Basically.  You factor the break even cost against a future refi.   Your black swan event I suppose is rates going to like 12% 

 
At the bank I used for my loan current rates range from 3.625% to 4% for a 7 year ARM depending on how much assets you have at bank for a $750k loan.

 
If this is addressed to me, I'm not well-learned enough to answer. Hence the thread.
I figured the guy nudging you toward the ARM must have given you some reasoning on this.   We've been at historic lows and even at 5% we're lower than say, 20 years ago.   I'd lock in the fixed rate and gamble on your golf game instead.

 
I figured the guy nudging you toward the ARM must have given you some reasoning on this.   We've been at historic lows and even at 5% we're lower than say, 20 years ago.   I'd lock in the fixed rate and gamble on your golf game instead.
He thinks there's a recession coming and the fed will lower the rates in ~3 years. 

 
Chad will have the intelligent answer. 
 

here’s mine 😂 5/1 ARM  or an interest only. Your wife will still want the 30. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My wife sees it as, "our mortgage payment on the fixed is X and we can safely afford X" so she doesn't want to mess with it. 
Listen to your wife.  We all know it. The rest of the guys here deep down giving you all this extra advice know it too.  

Because if you don't listen to her, something will backfire and 7 years from now when all hell breaks loose she will be saying "I told you so" for eternity. Spending that extra 28K is well worth the money. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Listen to your wife.  We all know it. The rest of the guys here deep down giving you all this extra advice know it too.  

Because if you don't listen to her, something will backfire and 7 years from now when all hell breaks loose she will be saying "I told you so" for eternity. Spending that extra 28K is well worth the money. 
I may or may not have already decided this about 30 minutes ago. 😎

 
ARM is generally the smart decision.  Fixed rates are like a call option on interest, and call options always come with a premium.  You're paying for the peace-of-mind and avoiding the wife's "I told you so" possibility.  If you can afford to self-insure, the highest EV is almost always to do just that.

The savings on the payments could be invested in the market, or in additional principal payments.

My last three mortgages have all been ARMs, and all were the right decision in the end.

 
Listen to your wife.  We all know it. The rest of the guys here deep down giving you all this extra advice know it too.  

Because if you don't listen to her, something will backfire and 7 years from now when all hell breaks loose she will be saying "I told you so" for eternity. Spending that extra 28K is well worth the money. 
This is actually the best reasoning in here.

 
This is actually the best reasoning in here.
Essentially the conversation:

Me: "Let's talk about it. I am in favor of the ARM because it seems like there's a reasonable likelihood that we can save ~$28k provided we just stay on top of monitoring the market. It's fixed for seven years and if we hang on for three and refi it seems like a safe gamble."

Her: "I'm not saying no to you, but I strongly favor the fixed. I care about the monthly mortgage and the monthly payment is manageable."

Me: "Okay..."

Her: 😐

Me:  "All right, we'll do the fixed." 

Her: "Good decision. I'm emailing the broker now." 

:shrug:  

 
The answer to the question of ARMs is.... it depends. 

First, the risk, the only real risk to ARMs is potential for interest rate risk going higher. There is more assumption of risk to some who don't really understand personal finance and/or mortgages and remember 2008 and how evil ARMs are (more on that later). The starting point to understand your exposure to risk on an ARM to figure out if it is right for you or not is your intentions for the property, the product itself and expectations of rates in the future. 

1) What are you intention for the property? 
The longer you expect to have the property or the loan is the main driver to figuring out risk. The reality is that the vast majority of mortgage loans do not live past 7 years in term. This is due to people selling the homes, refinancing the loan or even paying off the loan. If you plan on selling in a shorter time span then the more an ARM makes sense. The longer you expect to have the loan, the less it makes sense for you. 

2) What product is right? 
ARMs use to be 3/1, 5/1, 7/1, 10/1 etc... the first number being how long the initial rate was locked in for. 3 being 3 years or 5 being 5 years etc. The 1 behind it being that after that initial period, the rate would adjust annually afterwards. The mortgage would have an index (it use to be most would have LIBOR at the index but after some scandals with LIBOR it has been removed) and a margin. The margin is fixed and the index is what goes up or down. When the index goes up on your change period, then your rate goes up. However, if the index goes down, your rate goes down as well. As mentioned, LIBOR has been replaced with SOFR and now the adjustments are every six months after the initial period, so the ARMs are 3/6, 5/6, 7/6 and 10/6 as the most common. It is also important to know the caps on these adjustments. There are 4 types of caps: 1) Initial Cap- the most the rate can change on the first adjustments 2) Adjustment Cap- the most the rate can change each adjustment period 3) Lifetime Cap- the most the rate can change over the life of the loan and 4) Payment Cap- the most the payment can change each adjustment. These help to limit your risk and you would want to know the specifics of these. 

3) What will rates do in the future? 
This is the driving force right now. Rates have gone up over the last few months but there is a strong expectation that rates will come back down in the not too distant future. I, along with others who watch these things, believe that in a year or two, rates will be dramatically down from where they are now. This means doing an ARM now with a lower rate can be an aggressive way to save money with the expectation of doing a refinance in the not too distant future that would lower your rate and get you into a fixed rate loan. 

As mentioned before, the big reason people have this "OH NO! NOT THAT!!! THEY ARE EVIL!" response to ARMs is due to the 2008 RE meltdown. ARMs really got a bad rap as being the reason for causing the RE meltdown. The reality is that there were numerous things that had much more impact on what lead to the eventual collapse of the RE in 2008 but what ended up as the poster child was Option ARMs. Options ARMs were a product that gave you an "option" on making a payment each month. 1) 30 yr amortized payment 2) 15 yr amortized payment 3) Interest only payment and 4) Minimum payment. The minimum payment being negative amortization. Now, there was nothing wrong with the product itself. It was ideal for a consumer that was had a commission based or otherwise highly adjustable income where they could have great months and little or no income other months. This allowed them to be more flexible. The PROBLEMS with the Options ARMs were two things- First, they were sold to many people who didn't understand what they were and not a good fit. Second, the underwriting would qualify them on the lower of payments from the initial rate and that was it. With people who thought, "great, I can make this minimum payment" and not realize it was negative amortization because they were never told or explained and they were not the real fit for the customer and then a big movement on property values in the decline, these people quickly ended up under water on their homes. Option ARMs were kind of the red herring of bank problems for the media which started with IndyMac. IndyMac was a big player with Option ARMs and it's failure along with the long lines in front of the branches of people trying to get their money out is what really kicked off the 2008 meltdown. Once that happened, the media started asking who is next? Well, if IndyMac was known for Option ARMs... who else does them? WaMu! Then that lead to a bank run on WaMu losing about 10% of it's deposit based in about 11 days I believe. Every single bank would fail with that kind of run on deposits. So, WaMu was handed to Chase for pennies on the dollar. The next up after that was Word Savings and then the Feds brokered a deal to sell that for pennies on the dollar to Citi as a way to shore up Citi but Wells Fargo came in with a much more attractive offer and the Feds couldn't force the deal through, so World Savings went to WFC, by that time, the RE meltdown was well underway. Bears had already failed and we all know the rest.

Option ARMS died back in 2008. ARMs are fine, if used correctly. In fact, I have personally advised many clients to do an ARM with the expectation of refinancing or them selling the property in the near future over the years and this current rate environment is a great example of when it makes sense. If I was buying a home right now, it would be with an ARM. However, yes, there is a little more risk. If I am wrong and rates do no retreat then instead of saving money, you may end up spending more money. You need to realize that and move forward or not with that knowledge. 

 
Is the ARM amortized or is it interest only?
It can be either depending on the product. IO is more common in Jumbo loans. You can't have an IO on an ARM and it still be a conventional loan. I have not priced out a IO ARM that was not a Jumbo but my guess is that the rates would not make it make sense versus a conventional ARM. 

 
Essentially the conversation:

Me: "Let's talk about it. I am in favor of the ARM because it seems like there's a reasonable likelihood that we can save ~$28k provided we just stay on top of monitoring the market. It's fixed for seven years and if we hang on for three and refi it seems like a safe gamble."

Her: "I'm not saying no to you, but I strongly favor the fixed. I care about the monthly mortgage and the monthly payment is manageable."

Me: "Okay..."

Her: 😐

Me:  "All right, we'll do the fixed." 

Her: "Good decision. I'm emailing the broker now." 

:shrug:  
In the end, all the info, data, logic, or whatever else may not matter. As mentioned by others... the financial risk is nothing compared to the marriage risk.  :lmao:

 
7 year arm normally rates as a fixed 30.  The ballsy move is push to a shorter arm.  I reserve the right to be laughed at by @chadstroma
That is a big factor of course. No laughing here. If the rate on the 7/6 and a 30 yr is the same and the 5/6 isn't an option then it makes no sense at all. The pricing isn't always like that though. 

 
It can be either depending on the product. IO is more common in Jumbo loans. You can't have an IO on an ARM and it still be a conventional loan. I have not priced out a IO ARM that was not a Jumbo but my guess is that the rates would not make it make sense versus a conventional ARM. 
I don't think I ever did an ARM that wasn't I/O before it adjusted.

 
so what's the benefit of a 7 year ARM?  Is that a hedge that rates will be lower in 7 years, and save you refinancing?
If Jumbo, the only pro over an fixed is the interest only option. I wouldn't expect an ARM that is of conforming amounts to be worthwhile as an ARM as I am sure the rates on an IO non-jumbo are ugly. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top