A prospective client called me a few days ago. We discussed his situation for fifteen minutes and I told him flat out the best option for him was an adjustable rate mortgage.
I've spent enough time around the old block to know that If I'm going to say something to a senior like, "you need an adjustable rate mortgage" I better explain myself in no uncertain terms.... And post haste.
The adjustable already isn't in good standing with the general public. With a conservative group like seniors it's even worse. I better start making sense and quick-like.
I lost the race. This guy was like Speedy Gonzalez. He immediately held up the proverbial stop sign and made it clear, in no uncertain terms, he wanted the fixed rate.
I know when I'm right. This guy was letting his own rather uninformed opinions get in the way of logic. Without a doubt he could save thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars by listening to me. Not happening.
My would be customer refused to hear what I had to say, as if I was introducing a vampire into his home. Since you can't shut me up, perhaps you can read on and get a feel why the ARM is typically the better choice.
Quite simply, the fixed rate does not have a line of credit option and the ARM does.
Lenders qualify the senior to receive an available sum of cash equal to 50% to 75% of the home's value. Most only need a portion of this money. This makes the ARM and line of credit more viable.
The ARM allows the borrower to pull out needed moneys and leave the remainder as a line of credit. The borrower can draw from the line of credit at the borrower's leisure.
What is most notable about this is the interest accrues against the borrower's equity only on money drawn out and used. While it's sitting in the line of credit it's not working against the borrower's equity.
Unlike the ARM, the fixed rate option allows only one draw of funds. So, the borrower better make it count. And interest starts accruing immediately on the entire sum.
The guy above owned his home outright and only needed supplemental income. It would be foolish for him to go with the fixed because he'd have to pull out a bunch of money, and put it into an investment or a bank.
The problem is his interest rate on the fixed rate would eat into his equity faster than the money in a bank or some other investment would grow (at least the investment I see today). The ARM in this case, ironically, is the better more conservative choice.
I've spent enough time around the old block to know that If I'm going to say something to a senior like, "you need an adjustable rate mortgage" I better explain myself in no uncertain terms.... And post haste.
The adjustable already isn't in good standing with the general public. With a conservative group like seniors it's even worse. I better start making sense and quick-like.
I lost the race. This guy was like Speedy Gonzalez. He immediately held up the proverbial stop sign and made it clear, in no uncertain terms, he wanted the fixed rate.
I know when I'm right. This guy was letting his own rather uninformed opinions get in the way of logic. Without a doubt he could save thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars by listening to me. Not happening.
My would be customer refused to hear what I had to say, as if I was introducing a vampire into his home. Since you can't shut me up, perhaps you can read on and get a feel why the ARM is typically the better choice.
Quite simply, the fixed rate does not have a line of credit option and the ARM does.
Lenders qualify the senior to receive an available sum of cash equal to 50% to 75% of the home's value. Most only need a portion of this money. This makes the ARM and line of credit more viable.
The ARM allows the borrower to pull out needed moneys and leave the remainder as a line of credit. The borrower can draw from the line of credit at the borrower's leisure.
What is most notable about this is the interest accrues against the borrower's equity only on money drawn out and used. While it's sitting in the line of credit it's not working against the borrower's equity.
Unlike the ARM, the fixed rate option allows only one draw of funds. So, the borrower better make it count. And interest starts accruing immediately on the entire sum.
The guy above owned his home outright and only needed supplemental income. It would be foolish for him to go with the fixed because he'd have to pull out a bunch of money, and put it into an investment or a bank.
The problem is his interest rate on the fixed rate would eat into his equity faster than the money in a bank or some other investment would grow (at least the investment I see today). The ARM in this case, ironically, is the better more conservative choice.
About the Author:
Make sure you get myths and pitfalls concerning the California Reverse Mortgage click me. An excellent question and answer spot for the California reverse mortgage is at this little fella.