StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org to News@lemmy.world · 1 year agoA 30-Year Trap: The Problem With America’s Weird Mortgageswww.nytimes.comexternal-linkmessage-square102fedilinkarrow-up1172arrow-down125
arrow-up1147arrow-down1external-linkA 30-Year Trap: The Problem With America’s Weird Mortgageswww.nytimes.comStrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org to News@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square102fedilink
minus-squaregrue@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·1 year ago The only potential “loser” is the investor that buys the [mortgaged backed security], but that’s just the nature of investing. You say that, but we don't have to allow that kind of predatory shit to exist.
minus-squareTaringano@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoThat's actually a mechanism to inject more liquidity to the market. And therefore allow more loans, for more people. The opposite would mean rates would for sure increase because there would be very limited pool of capital to be loaned.
minus-squaregrue@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoYou say that as if we didn't have mortgages at reasonable rates back in the day before mortgage-backed securities were invented.
minus-squareTaringano@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoI didn't quite say that. I said it would be limited from now on.
You say that, but we don't have to allow that kind of predatory shit to exist.
That's actually a mechanism to inject more liquidity to the market. And therefore allow more loans, for more people.
The opposite would mean rates would for sure increase because there would be very limited pool of capital to be loaned.
You say that as if we didn't have mortgages at reasonable rates back in the day before mortgage-backed securities were invented.
I didn't quite say that. I said it would be limited from now on.