|
|
|
|
|
by mhomde
2978 days ago
|
|
People often fail to take into account that risk has a value. I did some quantitative analysis (most of that is BS but that's another story) for a gig and it was big eye opener. People talk like: "Well property praises will always go up. It's a good investment yada yada" but there is a risk that they won't (which often is a sore point). There's even a risk they'll crash. Many people (at least in Sweden) is so over leveraged that it wouldn't take that much for the bank to require a mortgage holder to put in more money to cover the decreased value of the property. How large risk for a "catastrophic decrease" varies but taking that risk is a cost in itself. It's the same as with insurance, the less healthy/more risk you are the more it costs. With renting you might not have the upside of investment, but you also don't have to bear the "cost" of that risk |
|
That's an interesting contract. For a primary mortgage that would be very unusual in the US. (For a secondary line of credit against the home, the bank would likely freeze the line of credit if the value dropped too far.)