I think 30-year fixed mortgages are somewhat of an American phenomenon (perhaps due to the luxury of having the global reserve currency). They are not generally available in Canada or UK, where 5-year fixed rates are the norm.
When I bought (UK) five years ago, I went for a 10-year fixed rate, which was the longest I could find. Currently very happy with that choice. Shorter fixes were available at slightly lower rates, but at this point I still have 5 years of 2.64% in hand, by which time the house will be close to paid-off.
In my case I went for a 5 year fixed because if I save at the same rate in those 5 years as I have in the last 5 years (which given my mortgage repayments are 75% of the rent I was paying prior, for much more house, shouldn't be too challenging, even with the inflation), then if rates are shit in 5 years I can pay off like 40% of the mortgage after the fixed rate and still have lower payments than I do today.
I almost grabbed an ARM on one refinance because the maximum amount it could jump at each adjustment was 1%.
Years ago my dad took an ARM at 18% because the anti-usury laws limited the maximum it could go to 20% and it turned out to drop each adjustment period after that (80s wheeee)
20 year fixed interest rates are a thing in Germany. With an option for mortgage owner to buy out the lender after 10 years without additional costs. 5-10 years fixed rates are cheaper but way to risky IMHO.
The lending bank finances the mortgage on the financial markets, the spread between their interest rate and the one the bank clients get is the banks profit. Part of the terms and conditions are that those profits for the bank are what you, as the oerson taking the mortgage, owns the bank for the duration of the interest rate fix. That is capped so, by law, at 10 years. Partial down payments are negotiable, e.g. 10% of the initial loan per year. Anything above that, and prior to that 10 years, will incure the clients obligation to cover the banks lost profits (part of what you agreed to pay the bank). If the explanation makes sense.
Canada is similar - usually you can prepay up to 15%/year, but any more than that and you need to pay a penalty (which seems to be calculated based on the interest they would lose). Also the yearly prepay amount is use it or lose it.
20% lose-it-or-lose-it yearly is my experience in Canada, and I believe that's on top of being allowed to make double payments.
And yes, the prepay penalty is generally based on the interest they would lose or a few month's interest, whichever is better for the bank at the time of payment.
But also note that if you paid the extra for a 10-year, Canadian federal law says you can prepay 100% at any time after 5 years with no penalty (or virtually no penalty?). Which is part of why longer-term mortgages are markedly more expensive.
Another interesting aspect of Canadian mortgages (as opposed to US ones) is that you can't just walk away if the mortgage is underwater (which is what a pot of people in the US did after the GFC). The bank can come after you for the difference between house value and mortgage.
> In the US, I have never read about not being able to pay or a penalty for paying the entire mortgage at anytime.
My parents (we're all American) were always very careful to check that early repayment didn't come with a penalty, on mortgages and all other loans, so I assume it used to be a thing. I've always asked (following their example) and not once had the answer be "yes, there's an early-repayment fee" so maybe it's a whole lot less common than it used to be.
If I'm not mistaken US mortgage rates are several percentage points above what they would be if prepaiment was not "free". You have to pay for that option some way or another.
You can find them but they’re rare, because it messes up the resale of the loan.
Our 80/20 loan back in the countrywide heyday had a prepayment penalty on the 20 which also had a balloon. We structured our refinance to avoid the penalty.
If so, I wonder why the option is not offered when shopping for a mortgage. I have a 2.5% 30 year fixed, so it is hard to imagine a 0.5% loan, with an early repayment penalty since I would have no incentive to pay it off early anyway.
Negative interest rates were hard to imagine a few years ago but they have been a reality in many parts of the world for several years. Maybe it's not multiple percentage points and it's around one, I don't know the specifics of the calculations. But the prepayment risk in principle has to be compensated. Otherwise lenders would have no incentive to lend money to you - if you can pay it off early anyway.
"The prevalence and handling of prepayment risk differs in two respects between Europe and the US. First, while in the US prepayment costs may be priced into the interest rate, in many European countries lump-sum prepayment penalties are induced by statutory requirements. Often banks impose charges on homeowners for early repayment. These fees force households to bear part of the prepayment risk and, if the fees are sufficiently high, may deter homeowners from prepayment, thereby nullifying the prepayment risk faced by banks. An exception to this is the Danish mortgage market, where long-term fixed-rate mortgage loans with an embedded option of a penalty-free prepayment are typically offered, as in the US."
If a government wanted to encourage home ownership, it would either incentivize building more homes to bring down price, and/or give cash to people so they are able to buy. The latter option would require government taking from richer to give to poorer, or issuing new money, which is sort of the same by reducing purchasing power of money,
The long term fixed rate mortgage is where no wealth gets redistributed today, but rather from future taxpayers or users of the currency.
if government wants to encourage buying, it must make take private equity and wallstreet out of property speculation. They leave swaths of properties empty just for the purpose of land banking.
Secondary step would be to make landlord-ing less attractive by giving tenants a lot of rights, naking them hard to evict, thank kind of thing.
This would make houses less atractive as an investment asset.
Lastly you could increase property taxes, again driving down atteactivenes of hiuses to investment.
Beinging down price of houses is easy. The question is what do you do with all the people who bought a house for 500k and now its worth 250k and they are stuck
Reports 30 year fixed is about 7.32% and 5 year ARM is about 6.75%. A 10 year would be somewhere between that, but if I was choosing with less than a 52 basis point difference, I would go with 30 year fixed due to less downside risk of my mortgage blowing up.
At 30 year mortgages of 2% to 4%, no brainer to just go with 30 year even though you might pay a $1k more in interest every year. But you might not, and you definitely will not pay more than a $1k extra in interest since it is locked in.
If the 10/1 ARM was 5% and 30 year was 7%+, I would think about the 10/1 ARM.
When everyone is invested into society, we have incentives to defend the status quo, thus making our society stable. In the next generation or two we'll get to see what happens when half of the men of the nation don't own anything of substance and have no meaningful connections to society.
Yeah there’s a secret dark opposite of NIMBY - WGASA (who gives a shit anyway) and that can end up much worse in the long run.
Part of the problem for communities starts when not all participants live in the community - if the grocers and workers and police are “imports” from the suburbs or other areas you start to get divergent goals and WGASA starts to take hold.
Homeownerism sounds like a regional form of nationalism where an us Vs them conflict is actually the point. The problem is that once you understand the problem as a politician the only thing you can do is do even more nationalism by including the formerly excluded and doing an us vs the world because not having an enemy and cooperating with everyone else is unimaginable.
How is that money laundering? You'd have to buy ethereum with cash, but at that point why bother with the NFT? Just sell the Ethereum on coinbase and you've laundered the money.
Edit: besides that, the point of 'laundering' money is basically to get it into a form where it is officially yours, in the light, with taxes paid. The NFT is a conceivably 'legitimate' transfer of value. I made a thing and sold it for money, and declared and paid tax on the capital gain - boom, legitimate.
3 parts oat bran, 1 part psyllium husk - mix and put through a flour mill. Add some baking powder. Store this mixture and then at breakfast time add 1 egg and milk and fry as a pancake. I eat it with honey and butter. You'll probably want to make sure to have a glass of water with it, as the psyllium is soluable fiber.
Really tasty, and also an enjoyable experience 24 hours later.
Buying shares doesn't necessarily mean you "support the company". You can be an activist and vote against current management. In many cases, activist investors have a big impact.
Realistically, it won't matter either way, but at least as an unhappy shareholder you have infinitesimally more power to influence the company than a grumbling outsider. Certainly more than the tiny amount of "support" that your stock purchase will cause should they issue more shares.
Christ almighty, you are so totally wrong. Sorry to be blunt.
First of all, buying a stock generates upward impact (that is, contributes to an increase in market cap) and puts volume/liquidity on the tape, two things that generally benefit a company.
Activists push for shareholder returns, so that they can turn a profit on their investment. Do you know who else tends to hold shares? Board members and executives. But those activists don't generally accomplish their goals by voting their shares. No, they publicize their views, putting pressure on the board by making open arguments for why their plans are more profitable for shareholders. In reality, shareholder votes are generally not dominated by retail investors, who lack the clout to sway other shareholders.
Note also that many short-sellers do the same thing: position themselves quietly, publicize their short thesis, wait for the price to move, and then cover slowly. In either case, in my view it's hard to argue that this is market manipulation -- so long as the arguments are simple revelations of fact, or otherwise in the best interest of shareholders. But the fact remains, a retail investor is not in a position to make either such move.
I don't see what share issuance has to do with any of this. You generally buy shares in the secondary market, on an exchange. Companies don't have to issue new shares for you to buy part of the float.
The greater risk is probably that if you succeed, it will cause the oil company's share price to decline dramatically. Which means you're essentially committing to losing the money. If you're willing to do that you might as well just donate the entire amount to advocating for a carbon tax to begin with, instead of only the dividends.
When you buy share in a company you are either handing them capital to expand directly, or making it easier for them to raise capital by lifting the stock price. Weigh that against voting that share to change their business model. The net result will be highly contingent on the details.
Not an expert but the processing cost of insurance is supposedly very high. Question: how high compared is the cost of processing insurance on some meaningful basis?
Worth pointing out that at the time the article was written in 1980, it was the 100-year high in interest rates, possibly north of 20% in many countries.
While this is true, most of the aforementioned relatives in farming have had their farms going since before mid-2000s. So not the heady days of 16% and above, but still high single digits.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of "Noble House"? That's the one that takes place in the sixties. In it, Casey Tcholok tells her boss she's looking for "drop dead" money, which is once also referred to as "screw you" money.
Tai-pan is the original story of Dirk struan in the 1800's, and I didn't think the concept came up there at all.
Is there a suggested way to get a list of keys based on wildcard? I note that the infamous KEYS command is not listed as supported (and fair enough). Is there a suitable non-Redis backend command that can get this info?
> this browser does not have SharedArrayBuffer support enabled
It was disabled for Spectre safety reasons, but it can be re-enabled by navigating to "about:config", searching for "javascript.options.shared_memory" and toggling it to enabled. (But it was obviously disabled for good reason, so might want to enable it temporarily)
Thanks! That fixed that problem. Except now I get "this browser does not support passive wasm memory". There aren't any obvious javascript.options.* options for that.
Oh dear sorry about this, it's a little too non-obvious how to see the demo! I've [pushed a small commit](https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-bindgen/commit/f016ae5846bf...) to update the demo to include information about browser requirements. Today this demo requires Firefox Nightly (64) and requires the `javascript.options.shared_memory` feature to be enabled. Other browsers will likely soon be able to run the demo as well!
