What economic, political and other factors influence mortgage rates (and how)?
"If you owned a bank how would you invest the bank's money?  Typically banks are involved in loaning out money to businesses, people, and government at a higher interest rate then what they are paying to depositors.  This is the spread and how they make money. If the bank determines that the yields on government bonds is more attractive then loaning the money out to businesses and people then the bank will purchase government bonds.  It can also decide the other way.  In this manner the mortgage and bond markets are always competing for capital and tend to offer very similar yields. Certain banks have the unique privilege of being able to borrow money from the FED at the Federal Funds rate and use this money to purchase government debt or loan it out to other banks or purchase other debt products. In this manner you see a high correlation between the FED funds rate, mortgage rates, and treasury yields.    Other political factors include legislation that encourages mortgage lending (see Community Reinvestment Act) where banks may not have made the loans without said legislation. In short, keep your eye on the FED and ask yourself: ""Does the FED want rates to rise?"" and ""Can the US government afford rising rates?""  The answer to these two questions is no.  However, the FED may be pressured to ""stop the presses"" if inflation becomes unwieldy and the FED actually starts to care about food and energy prices.  So far this hasn't been the case." Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates.  Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower.   You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie.  If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.  Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in.
While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change.  If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell.  Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does. Perhaps the world does not like a Global economy dominated by a Fucking Moron, Perhaps the world does not see a future in a Jew dominated Fed that can print whatever it thinks sounds like fun and then lend it to the US treasury in an insurmountable mountain of debt.  Gosh . . .isn't the FED supposed to be pretending to unwind all  that 0 market valuation crap from 2008 ?  I wonder if there are even any houses after a decade "The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average ""spread"" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more.  How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either.  Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right." When I read that part of his post, it reminded me more of credit companies rather than banks. People default on credit all the time. I have no idea what the regulations are on the amount of credit that a company can issue, though.  And this is sort of part of what actually happened in the beginning of the economic crunch. A bunch of people began to trade for credit (debt) against what they thought the *future* value of their house or other real estate would be. After a while, people stopped being able to afford property at its future value, so they stopped buying it. When people then tried to sell their property for the future value that they had borrowed against, they couldn't, so they couldn't pay back their debt.  Because real estate had become a popular investment vehicle for the middle class, this was able to reach a kind of critical mass, and shortly afterward the effects rippled back into the credit market, which also had its own crunch -- a bunch of credit just disappeared overnight because so many people had assumed a level of debt that they could not actually fulfill their promises on once the future value of their home became completely imaginary. "The logic ""the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy"" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord." Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation.  I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role.  This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find.  EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course. The Fed controls the base interest rate for lending to banks. It raises this rate when the economy is doing well to limit inflation, and lowers this rate when the economy is doing poorly to encourage lending. Raising the interest rate signals that the Fed believes the economy is strong/strengthening.   Obviously it's more complicated than that but that's the basic idea. "I suspect this is a function of deregulated banks' desire to write and flip as many mortgages as possible. The best targets for this sales push were naturally those with the most education, who tended to have the best credit ratings and most secure jobs.   The last time I bought a house, the mortgage salesman practically lit up when looking at my income and credit score, pushing me hard to borrow more. ""You could buy a lot more house than this!"" he said. ""You could buy apartments as an investment or for resale!""  I resisted temptation, thank heaven, but it's all too easy to see how millions of others didn't." "Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: ""What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!"", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years.  From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value." The government started the crisis and the banks concluded it.    Barney Frank and the House Committee on Financial Services continually pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue new mortgages with the intent of increasing home ownership.  The House set goals for mortgage issuances; thus Fannie and Freddie lowered the requirements for obtaining a new mortgage.  Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages.  Then, the banks realized they were holding a lot of risky mortgages on their books, so they found a way to spread the risk among other banks and investors.  Through financial ingenuity to reduce risk and maximize return, they created a new investment (securitized the debt) where risky mortgages were bundled, the earnings tranched, and resold to investors.  In this way, they transformed hard-to-sell subprime mortgages into salable AAA and AA debt.  This depended on the fact that the risk of default on each mortgage was *independent* of the others.  This scheme reduced risk and increased returns for banks and investors.  However, the securitized mortgages contributed to a higher overall *system* risk.  As long as there weren't mass defaults, everyone was better off.  Well, clearly there were mass defaults on risky mortgages, which destroyed the securitization scheme and brought down the banks.    The missing element in all this was a strong, competent regulatory body that looked out for the country's welfare.  Everyone else was looking out for themselves: Barney Frank &amp; the House looked out for their voters' agenda to push home ownership.  Home buyers were taking advantage of the favorable credit.  The banks satisfied mortgage demand.  The banks also figured out a way to sell risky mortgages to investors so more could be issued.  However, no one looked out for the system-wide risk. "The setting of interest rates (or ""repurchase rates"") varies from country to country, as well as with the independence of the central bank. There are a number of measurements and indices that central bankers can take into account: This is a limited overview but should give an indication of just how complex tracking inflation is, let alone attempting to control it.  House prices are in the mix but which house or which price? The choice of what to measure faces the difficulty of attempting to find a symmetrical basket which really affects the majority regularly (and not everyone is buying several new houses a year so the majority are ring-fenced from fluctuations in prices at the capital end, but not from the interest-rate end). And this is only when the various agencies (Statistics, Central Bank, Labour, etc.) are independent.  In countries like Venezuela or Argentina, government has taken over release of such data and it is frequently at odds with individual experience. Links for the US: And, for Australia:" There are two impacts: First, if the pound is dropping, then buying houses becomes cheaper for foreign investors, so they will tend to buy more houses as investments, which will drive house prices up. Second, in theory you might be able to get a mortgage in a foreign country, let's say in Euro, and you might hope that over the next few years the pound would go up again, and the Euros that you owe the foreign bank become worth less. So am I to understand that giving AAA ratings to financial instruments backed by toxic mortgages had nothing to do with this problem?  That selling mortgages with one hand and betting on those mortgages to fail with other is a reasonable business practice?    No doubt the push to give more poor people government backed loans exacerbated the problem, but making that claim that that was the only problem seems about as valid as claiming that Goldman Sachs was responsible for everything. Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting.  And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.boeckler.de/pdf/p_imk_wp_178_2017.pdf) reduced by 100%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Economic activity may affect the development of credit through credit demand and credit supply channels.  &gt; 3.1 Credit expansion and financial crises The empirical literature on the determinants of excessive credit expansion and financial instability has mostly analyzed the large build-ups of bank credit to the private non-financial sector since these data are available over a long time period.  &gt; The positive correlation between economic activity and credit may result from the effect of economic activity on credit demand and credit supply but also from the effect of credit availability on economic activity.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kt8rs/imk_macroeconomic_factors_behind_financial/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~157450 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **income**^#2 **financial**^#3 **test**^#4 **household**^#5"