07-08-2012, 04:34 PM
I am surprised that the govt is actually against 50 years loan.
1. The govt has been advocating that "affordability" depends on the % of your household salary that you use to service your monthly mortgage payment. Wouldn't the 50 year loan make homes more "affordable"?
2. The govt has been advocating that increasing home prices are beneficial to home owners. Hence, if more people take up such loans, wouldn't that increase the assets of home owners?
IMO, I find loans of more than 20 years ridiculous. Affordability should be a function of the home price to medium income, and not a function of monthly mortgage payment to monthly household salary. If the govt wants to stick to their definition of affordability, then they should have the cojones to support the 50 years loan. Else, they should do something about the current ridiculous govt housing prices.
(Not vested in property)
1. The govt has been advocating that "affordability" depends on the % of your household salary that you use to service your monthly mortgage payment. Wouldn't the 50 year loan make homes more "affordable"?
2. The govt has been advocating that increasing home prices are beneficial to home owners. Hence, if more people take up such loans, wouldn't that increase the assets of home owners?
IMO, I find loans of more than 20 years ridiculous. Affordability should be a function of the home price to medium income, and not a function of monthly mortgage payment to monthly household salary. If the govt wants to stick to their definition of affordability, then they should have the cojones to support the 50 years loan. Else, they should do something about the current ridiculous govt housing prices.
(Not vested in property)
www.joetojones.com - Helping the average Joe find the winning companies to invest in.