As one friend of mine put it, "Any book will tell you what a bad idea a adj. rate mortgage is in the short term. They all say keep it steady for as long as you intend to live in the house." This is from somebody who doesn't even own property. Obviously, shouldn't everybody know this?
From what I understand, there were two schools of thought (in addition to the one mentioned above) related to variable-interest rates:
1) "Savvy" investors during the low-interest boom years thought that they could save on monthly payments by buying variable-rate loans, then switching out of them once rates started to rise too high. This allowed them to get bigger loans for the same cash down.
2) Home buyers who wanted more house than they could really afford would go in for near-100% financing schemes, known as 80/20 splits. They would get a mortgage to cover 80% of the cost of the house at a fixed rate, then a second mortgage to cover the remaining (up to 20%) at a variable rate. When you're talking about a $500k property, 20% can be a cool 100k. That's a lot of loan to be variable, and you can see how easy it might be to get into trouble - -especially if the property fails to appreciate significantly in comparison to interest rates. For these buyers, however, it would have been difficult to purchase that property for that price without that particular finance mechanism.
So, the variable rate loan really allowed a lot of buyers to get into the market for properties at prices that they otherwise might not have been able to afford. In essence, variable rate financing allowed the bubble to expand faster and get bigger than it might have otherwise.
...and now, it does have the potential to allow it to pop faster, too...
source article on defaults:
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
Thursday, August 3, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Mortgage defaults increase
David Tong, Chronicle Staff Writer
A growing number of homeowners in the Bay Area and throughout California
fell behind on their mortgage payments in the second quarter.
In the Bay Area, 2,910 homeowners received default notices from their
lenders for the April-to-June quarter, up 37.1 percent from 2,123 notices
in the same quarter a year ago, according to DataQuick, a La Jolla (San
Diego County) real estate research company. That increase is the highest
since the first quarter of 2001, when there was a 46.5 percent rise.
The swell was bigger statewide as 20,752 default notices were sent out --
up 67.2 percent from the same quarter in 2005 and the highest increase for
any quarter since DataQuick began tracking foreclosures 14 years ago.
The default notices, filed by lenders with county recorder offices, mark
the first step in the foreclosure process, which usually takes about nine
months to complete.
Defaults have risen as home sales slow. The steady decline in price
appreciation has left financially struggling homeowners insufficient
equity to either sell or refinance their homes to pay off their mortgages.
"We hear a lot of talk about rising payments on adjustable-rate loans
triggering borrower distress," said DataQuick President Marshall Prentice.
"While there's no doubt some of that is going on, as far as we can tell
the spike in defaults is mainly the result of slowing price appreciation.
It makes it harder for people behind on their mortgage to sell their homes
and pay off the lender."
DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage said the current foreclosure figures are
still below the historical norm. On average, lenders have filed 32,762
notices each quarter for the past 14 years, according to the research
Some of the highest increases in default notices in the past quarter were
in the Central Valley, where household incomes are lower and unemployment
higher, LePage said. Sutter County saw a 229 percent rise in default
notices, while notices in Placer County jumped 126 percent.
E-mail David Tong at firstname.lastname@example.org. Home default notices on the rise
County 2006 2005 Change
Alameda 649 458 41.7 %
Contra Costa 725 531 36.5
Marin 58 64 -9.4
Napa 47 27 74.1
San Francisco 127 89 42.7
San Mateo 222 147 51.0
Santa Clara 530 463 14.5
Solano 350 212 65.1
Sonoma 202 132 53.0
Bay Area 2,910 2,123 37.1
California 20,752 12,408 67.2
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle