|
|
|
|
|
by robertlagrant
1171 days ago
|
|
Ah - yes. I see the difference now. I don't really understand why the US does it that way, then. Why not do shorter-term mortgages that price in risk? Or is it doing that in a way I don't understand? (But then why is the government involved?) |
|
It’s great for the borrower, which means it’s bad for the lender. There’s some spread of interest over treasuries that might make it worth it for them anyway—like if it was the 30 year bond rate plus 10% or something, but the spreads are narrow.
That’s why I said I don’t think it would exist accept for extensive government intervention, because it’s such a good deal.
As for why the government decided to get so involved, it goes way back to before my time. Now they’d have a hard time extracting themselves without making a lot of homeowners very mad.