By: John Krajsa
AFC Reverse Mortgage
Last week in our post on “Cost of a Reverse Mortgage” we commented on how some analysts tend to focus on the dollar cost when evaluating Reverse Mortgages. When you think of it, isn’t it really impossible to evaluate whether the dollar cost of a loan is reasonable without knowing the annual rate associated with that cost? For example, what if a lender said, “I’ll charge you $50,000 to borrow $100,000 for 10 years.” That $50,000 is 50% of the $100,000 borrowed, but does that mean that $50,000 is too much to pay for this loan?
What if a lender said, “I’ll charge you $10,000 to borrow $20,000 for 5 years. Is that a fair charge? The $10,000 is 50% of the $20,000 borrowed, just as the $50,000 is 50% of the $100,000 borrowed. Does that tell you anything about whether the amount charged is fair?
What if you knew that $50,000 is the total amount you would owe if you borrowed $100,000 at a 5% annual rate for 10 years ($5000 per year x 10)? What if you knew that $10,000 is the amount you would owe if you borrowed $20,000 at a 10% annual rate for five years ($2000 per year x 5)? Now you know that the first loan is a 5% annual rate loan, and the second is a 10% annual rate loan, you have a means to evaluate the dollar charge.
You may agree that the periodic charge (the annual rate) works, but why? The reason is that a loan is a rental, not a purchase transaction. In a rental transaction you pay a fee for use of an item for a period of time, and a rental transaction is evaluated by the periodic charge, not the total charge over time. As would be true in any rental transaction, the total dollar charge for a loan is the total of all of the periodic charges for the time you have borrowed (or rented) the money. The longer you borrow the money, the higher the dollar charge, but no matter how long you borrow (or rent) the money, isn’t it the periodic charge that determines if the price is fair?
More to follow next week.
Read Full Post »