Two Truths, One Lie – Finance Style

Have you ever played the icebreaker game, “Two Truths, One Lie?” 

As far as icebreakers go, this is a good one and eye opening! In fact, there is a current game show with the premise.

This is how it works:

Everyone goes around the room and says three statements. Two are true, and one is false. Today, let’s play with a couple of different hot topics in finance and see if you can spot the lie.

 

Mortgages

  1. If you have no FICO score, you can still get a mortgage
  2. Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) does not protect me (the buyer)
  3. As a rule of thumb, you should be 80 or older in order to get a reverse mortgage

Credit Cards

  1. Buying with credit makes us feel the same as buying with cash
  2. Credit cards were invented in 1950
  3. Credit cards are considered unsecured debt

Estate Planning

  1. Over 50% of Americans have no estate plan, no will and no medical directives
  2. Dying without a will is known as “an intestinal death”
  3. Not everyone needs to hide their money from the “death tax”

—————————————————————————————————————————

Mortgages

  1. If you have no FICO score, you can still get a mortgage
    True; it is a lot easier with a credit history, but manual underwriting is an option
  2. Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI) does not protect me (the buyer)
    True, PMI protects the lender from you (the buyer) not ponying up
  3. As a rule of thumb, you should be 80 or older in order to get a reverse mortgage
    False, it’s age 62…still old, though.

Credit Cards

  1. Buying with credit makes us feel the same as buying with cash
    False; with credit cards, we focus on benefits and cash makes us focus on cost
  2. Credit cards were invented in 1950
    True; the first credit card (as it is known today) was created in 1950 with the Diner Club card
  3. Credit cards are considered unsecured debt
    True; unsecured debt means that they can’t come get your stuff (unlike a mortgage or car loan, which are secured)

Estate Planning

  1. Over 50% of Americans have no estate plan, no will and no medical directives
    True; what is your estate plan?
  2. Dying without a will is known as “an intestinal death”
    False; an estate would be “intestate” and has nothing to do with death-by-Taco-Bell
  3. Not everyone needs to hide their money from the “death tax”
    True; only estates worth more than $5.25M (for 2013) need to be thinking about estate taxes

Want to learn more fun finance facts? Go to DanHinzCoaching.com, and follow me on Twitter and Facebook.

As a financial coach, I am focused on increasing the financial literacy of Bay County and Florida. If you, or someone you know, would like to get out of debt, avoid bankruptcy, or become more responsible with money, contact me for more information on personal coaching, classes, and seminars.

Fed Lowers a Half Point – I Have a Better Idea

The Federal Reserve’s Open market Committee announced Wednesday it was lowering the federal funds rate to 1%, it’s lowest level since 2004. Yet mortgage rates rose on the news and continue to rise today. Though, on the surface, this may seem contradictory it exposes a symptom of the larger financial crisis we face. Since seizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and passing the bailout plan, the Federal government has committed hundreds of billions of dollars in an attempt to thaw frozen credit markets and get the economy back on track. Unfortunately, all of that money is essentially borrowed.

Now the Feds are forced to sell billions in government bonds to fund their various bailouts and bank rescues flooding the market with an oversupply and thus driving down bond prices and driving up rates. This has a ripple effect throughout the capital and debt markets and increases the cost of borrowing for Fannie and Freddie. The higher borrowing costs are reflected in higher mortgage rates for consumers.

The bigger problem facing the Federal Reserve is that higher mortgage rates will have the effect of further weakening demand in the housing market. This will further amplify what is at the heart of this whole mess – declining home prices. As mortgage rates rise and home prices decline further, the rate of foreclosure is sure to rise putting even greater strain on banks and credit markets as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the value of their assets depreciate and their ability to raise capital becomes more tenuous. To stop this vicious cycle the Fed and the Treasury must find a way to halt, and eventually reverse, the decline in home prices rather than continuing to merely react to each emergency caused by it. So how could they do it?

There have been a lot of proposals floated in recent weeks that aim to shore up the housing market, stop home price decline and prevent foreclosure. Some of these sound bizarre but viewed in the context of this historic financial crisis I’m willing to entertain anything.

One suggestion has been for Fannie and Freddie as well as banks taking part in the government bailout to offer mortgagors the option of a sixty year amortization. This would dramatically lower payments while not reducing the principal owed and provide an incentive to lenders in the form of greater interest income. Others say to allow everyone to refinance to some set fixed rate such as 5.25% that would provide payment stability and offer most borrowers some relief in the form of lower payments.

Still others have called for an outright principal reduction to lower mortgage balances to a point where borrower’s are no longer upside down in their homes. All of these ideas may have some merit but, in my opinion still do not address the root of the problem. We must create demand in the housing market so home prices will stabilize. How might that be done?

With thirty year mortgage rates creeping upward towards 7% for many borrowers, it is time the Feds start using some of the bailout money to back a program that would allow for a dramatically lower interest rate for all home-buyers coupled with a federally backed mortgage insurance plan to allow for lower down payments and longer amortizations. The lower rate, say 5.00% fixed for 40 years, along with a required down payment of 5% offset by a federal mortgage insurance premium of .75% annually but paid monthly would surely bring reluctant buyers back into the market. The increased demand for housing would drive up prices thus creating a win-win for the government in that the value of the bank stocks they now own would rise along with the portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s mortgage backed securities. Banks, not wanting to miss out, would begin lending again and the resulting competition would increase liquidity in the credit markets and benefit the economy as a whole and reduce the number of foreclosures.

This plan would not be a reward for bad behavior, would not punish homeowners who have paid their mortgages on time and could be easily implemented through the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Yes, it would be expensive in the short-run. But given the impotent attempts by the Feds to stop this snowballing housing crisis by hoping banks will lend again by throwing more at them are obviously not working. We need a better idea.

For this and more, visit my blog at www.activerain.com/blogs/hpalmer

Hunter Palmer