practicality of 30 year fix mortgage at 55 years of ageIs it better to use a 401k loan to make a down payment or to put less than 20% down?Can lose everything even when house is almost paid off?For qualifying for a mortgage, is it better to have a small business showing a loss or a pay stub with short history in the company?What kind of resources are there for children taking care of their aging parents?How do private reverse mortgages work?Preparing for a mortgage application in a year and a halfRelationship between down payment and mortgage interestSafe to work for an LLC with an owner involved in lots of things?alternative to reverse/Balloon mortgage
What benefits does the Power Word Kill spell have?
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... 33?
I reverse the source code, you negate the input!
Hiking with a mule or two?
Does Sitecore have support for Sitecore products in containers?
looking for citation, pīti and sukha of 4 jhānas compared to dying of thirst, seeing water in distance, and drinking it
My Project Manager does not accept carry-over in Scrum, Is that normal?
Palatino font (newpxmath) misaligns text in fraction numerators
Conflict with hidden names
How to say "cheat sheet" in French
Extruding snaps back
Does wetting a beer glass change the foam characteristics?
Going to France with limited French for a day
Is this Portent-like spell balanced?
Strange Sticky Substance on Digital Camera
How to deal with my team leader who keeps calling me about project updates even though I am on leave for personal reasons?
On the meaning of 'anyways' in "What Exactly Is a Quartz Crystal, Anyways?"
Does HTTP HSTS protect a domain from a bad-actor publically-trusted-CA issing a illegitimate valid certificate?
Is "ln" (natural log) and "log" the same thing if used in this answer?
Is this a Sherman, and if so what model?
What can a pilot do if an air traffic controller is incapacitated?
Can I take NEW (still in their boxes) PC PARTS in my checked in luggage?
How to deal with a Homophobic PC
practicality of 30 year fix mortgage at 55 years of age
practicality of 30 year fix mortgage at 55 years of age
Is it better to use a 401k loan to make a down payment or to put less than 20% down?Can lose everything even when house is almost paid off?For qualifying for a mortgage, is it better to have a small business showing a loss or a pay stub with short history in the company?What kind of resources are there for children taking care of their aging parents?How do private reverse mortgages work?Preparing for a mortgage application in a year and a halfRelationship between down payment and mortgage interestSafe to work for an LLC with an owner involved in lots of things?alternative to reverse/Balloon mortgage
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
But suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), my question is what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
united-states mortgage retirement-plan
add a comment
|
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
But suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), my question is what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
united-states mortgage retirement-plan
2
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
But suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), my question is what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
united-states mortgage retirement-plan
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
But suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), my question is what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
united-states mortgage retirement-plan
united-states mortgage retirement-plan
asked 10 hours ago
RajRaj
1,1831 gold badge4 silver badges20 bronze badges
1,1831 gold badge4 silver badges20 bronze badges
2
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
2
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago
2
2
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
I am 56. One year ago, I applied for a HELOC. The terms were 15 year draw, and then a 10 year amortized payoff. In effect, a 25 year loan.
I started the conversation (all done over the phone, not live) by saying I was retired, and had no W2s to offer.
I was nearly instantly approved, the bank did do a drive by appraisal, and that was it. Ignoring the early retirement, the loan ends when I’m 80, well past even normal retirement.
While this was for a HELOC, most banks write a mortgage and quickly sell it to the secondary market. The bank cares about having the details correct and not the age of the applicant. In my case, the low LTV (loan to value) was enough. For a home purchase, that’s key, along with the buyers debt to income.
add a comment
|
You asked two questions. First,
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
Considering your United States tag, it's worth noting that the Equal Opportunity Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Housing Act,and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were intended to prevent discriminatory lending practices. As part of those regulations, lenders are required to report data about loan applicants (both those who were approved and those who were not) and regulators essentially look for patterns in the data to determine if there is any wholesale discrimination. The Federal Reserve Bank makes annual reports to congress, these reports include analysis of the reported data - which is probably the closest thing you'll get to data supporting whether or not lenders discriminate based on age.
You also asked,
suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
The pros and cons don't have any inherent link to your age - all else being the same, they should be the same as the pros and cons at any other age.
Of course, there are some obvious things that probably won't be equal - many people live off retirement savings or other investment income later in life, versus working for a salary. If this means you will be on a fixed income, a mortgage may actually make slightly more sense than other forms of housing, since your payment is fixed for the duration of the loan (versus, say, renting - where the landlord may increase rent to match inflation over time.)
There's also an increased chance that an older person may die before the loan is paid off, compared to someone of a younger age. How this impacts your estate as it's passed on to your heirs may be worth considering, too.
In terms of the mortgage process, lenders typically need proof of income in order to show that you will be able to pay the loan off over time. For someone who is working, this is easily done by providing pay stubs or tax returns. If you are retired, or will retire soon, you may need to work with your lender to make sure you're providing proof of your income and proof that it will be stable over time. Generally speaking, having lots of assets isn't inherently taken as proof of income - especially if the assets are liquid (i.e. cash in a savings account). The lender will want to know that you will have a stable cash flow, whereas just having a pile of money may be more risky since there's nothing stopping you from blowing it all in the first year of the mortgage.
add a comment
|
Every mortgage bank in the country is required to send the government information about every loan application they take, every decision they make, and the demographic characteristics of every borrower (or potential borrower) as part of HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act). All that data is publicly available and the government itself uses the data to ensure that banks aren't discriminating on the basis of age or any other protected characteristic.
As for the pros and cons, those don't really change much with age. Many people build their retirement plan around the idea that they'll have their mortgage paid off before they retire so that they need less income in retirement. But it's equally reasonable to plan to have a mortgage payment in retirement and to ensure that you have enough assets to handle that payment once you stop working. Beyond that, it's a matter of personal preference and a question of what alternative(s) you're considering.
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
add a comment
|
Remember that mortgages are secured loans. Most 30-year mortgages are paid off early when the homes are sold in less than 30 years. So the expectation that the borrower is going to make the last payment 30 years later is not part of the equation. The lender mainly cares whether (1) the borrower can currently afford the monthly payments and (2) the down payment is large enough to protect against the home going "underwater" in a downturn, which could impose a loss on the lender. In the latter case, even borrowers who could keep paying often walk away instead (strategic default). The downsizing 55-year-old probably has funds for a large down payment, and the risk in the mortgage would be minimal even though the borrower is likely to retire or die within 30 years.
add a comment
|
Frame Challenge
The whole point of "downsizing the home" is to sell the current bigger house and buy a smaller house.
While that smaller house might be some place expensive, you still won't need a 30 year mortgage.
add a comment
|
It used to be that having tax deductable mortgage interest was an important advantage of a mortgage. However, deducting mortgage interest is no longer viable for many taxpayers because the interest rates are very low and the new higher standardized deduction means that the standard deduction may be more than your interest payments and other deductions. (This obviously varies a lot depending on
your location and how big a house you need. Where I live you can buy a house for $35K, but if you live somewhere that starter homes cost $500K it's different.)
If you do use a mortgage you could invest the extra cash that you didn't spend on your home in hopes of earning a higher rate of return than your mortgage interest rate. However, the mortgage interest rate is fixed (unless you take an adjustable rate mortgage) and the return that you would get on your investments is variable, so you could end up paying more in mortgage interest than you make on your investment of the cash not spent on the house.
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "93"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f114895%2fpracticality-of-30-year-fix-mortgage-at-55-years-of-age%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I am 56. One year ago, I applied for a HELOC. The terms were 15 year draw, and then a 10 year amortized payoff. In effect, a 25 year loan.
I started the conversation (all done over the phone, not live) by saying I was retired, and had no W2s to offer.
I was nearly instantly approved, the bank did do a drive by appraisal, and that was it. Ignoring the early retirement, the loan ends when I’m 80, well past even normal retirement.
While this was for a HELOC, most banks write a mortgage and quickly sell it to the secondary market. The bank cares about having the details correct and not the age of the applicant. In my case, the low LTV (loan to value) was enough. For a home purchase, that’s key, along with the buyers debt to income.
add a comment
|
I am 56. One year ago, I applied for a HELOC. The terms were 15 year draw, and then a 10 year amortized payoff. In effect, a 25 year loan.
I started the conversation (all done over the phone, not live) by saying I was retired, and had no W2s to offer.
I was nearly instantly approved, the bank did do a drive by appraisal, and that was it. Ignoring the early retirement, the loan ends when I’m 80, well past even normal retirement.
While this was for a HELOC, most banks write a mortgage and quickly sell it to the secondary market. The bank cares about having the details correct and not the age of the applicant. In my case, the low LTV (loan to value) was enough. For a home purchase, that’s key, along with the buyers debt to income.
add a comment
|
I am 56. One year ago, I applied for a HELOC. The terms were 15 year draw, and then a 10 year amortized payoff. In effect, a 25 year loan.
I started the conversation (all done over the phone, not live) by saying I was retired, and had no W2s to offer.
I was nearly instantly approved, the bank did do a drive by appraisal, and that was it. Ignoring the early retirement, the loan ends when I’m 80, well past even normal retirement.
While this was for a HELOC, most banks write a mortgage and quickly sell it to the secondary market. The bank cares about having the details correct and not the age of the applicant. In my case, the low LTV (loan to value) was enough. For a home purchase, that’s key, along with the buyers debt to income.
I am 56. One year ago, I applied for a HELOC. The terms were 15 year draw, and then a 10 year amortized payoff. In effect, a 25 year loan.
I started the conversation (all done over the phone, not live) by saying I was retired, and had no W2s to offer.
I was nearly instantly approved, the bank did do a drive by appraisal, and that was it. Ignoring the early retirement, the loan ends when I’m 80, well past even normal retirement.
While this was for a HELOC, most banks write a mortgage and quickly sell it to the secondary market. The bank cares about having the details correct and not the age of the applicant. In my case, the low LTV (loan to value) was enough. For a home purchase, that’s key, along with the buyers debt to income.
answered 6 hours ago
JoeTaxpayer♦JoeTaxpayer
153k25 gold badges254 silver badges492 bronze badges
153k25 gold badges254 silver badges492 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
You asked two questions. First,
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
Considering your United States tag, it's worth noting that the Equal Opportunity Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Housing Act,and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were intended to prevent discriminatory lending practices. As part of those regulations, lenders are required to report data about loan applicants (both those who were approved and those who were not) and regulators essentially look for patterns in the data to determine if there is any wholesale discrimination. The Federal Reserve Bank makes annual reports to congress, these reports include analysis of the reported data - which is probably the closest thing you'll get to data supporting whether or not lenders discriminate based on age.
You also asked,
suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
The pros and cons don't have any inherent link to your age - all else being the same, they should be the same as the pros and cons at any other age.
Of course, there are some obvious things that probably won't be equal - many people live off retirement savings or other investment income later in life, versus working for a salary. If this means you will be on a fixed income, a mortgage may actually make slightly more sense than other forms of housing, since your payment is fixed for the duration of the loan (versus, say, renting - where the landlord may increase rent to match inflation over time.)
There's also an increased chance that an older person may die before the loan is paid off, compared to someone of a younger age. How this impacts your estate as it's passed on to your heirs may be worth considering, too.
In terms of the mortgage process, lenders typically need proof of income in order to show that you will be able to pay the loan off over time. For someone who is working, this is easily done by providing pay stubs or tax returns. If you are retired, or will retire soon, you may need to work with your lender to make sure you're providing proof of your income and proof that it will be stable over time. Generally speaking, having lots of assets isn't inherently taken as proof of income - especially if the assets are liquid (i.e. cash in a savings account). The lender will want to know that you will have a stable cash flow, whereas just having a pile of money may be more risky since there's nothing stopping you from blowing it all in the first year of the mortgage.
add a comment
|
You asked two questions. First,
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
Considering your United States tag, it's worth noting that the Equal Opportunity Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Housing Act,and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were intended to prevent discriminatory lending practices. As part of those regulations, lenders are required to report data about loan applicants (both those who were approved and those who were not) and regulators essentially look for patterns in the data to determine if there is any wholesale discrimination. The Federal Reserve Bank makes annual reports to congress, these reports include analysis of the reported data - which is probably the closest thing you'll get to data supporting whether or not lenders discriminate based on age.
You also asked,
suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
The pros and cons don't have any inherent link to your age - all else being the same, they should be the same as the pros and cons at any other age.
Of course, there are some obvious things that probably won't be equal - many people live off retirement savings or other investment income later in life, versus working for a salary. If this means you will be on a fixed income, a mortgage may actually make slightly more sense than other forms of housing, since your payment is fixed for the duration of the loan (versus, say, renting - where the landlord may increase rent to match inflation over time.)
There's also an increased chance that an older person may die before the loan is paid off, compared to someone of a younger age. How this impacts your estate as it's passed on to your heirs may be worth considering, too.
In terms of the mortgage process, lenders typically need proof of income in order to show that you will be able to pay the loan off over time. For someone who is working, this is easily done by providing pay stubs or tax returns. If you are retired, or will retire soon, you may need to work with your lender to make sure you're providing proof of your income and proof that it will be stable over time. Generally speaking, having lots of assets isn't inherently taken as proof of income - especially if the assets are liquid (i.e. cash in a savings account). The lender will want to know that you will have a stable cash flow, whereas just having a pile of money may be more risky since there's nothing stopping you from blowing it all in the first year of the mortgage.
add a comment
|
You asked two questions. First,
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
Considering your United States tag, it's worth noting that the Equal Opportunity Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Housing Act,and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were intended to prevent discriminatory lending practices. As part of those regulations, lenders are required to report data about loan applicants (both those who were approved and those who were not) and regulators essentially look for patterns in the data to determine if there is any wholesale discrimination. The Federal Reserve Bank makes annual reports to congress, these reports include analysis of the reported data - which is probably the closest thing you'll get to data supporting whether or not lenders discriminate based on age.
You also asked,
suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
The pros and cons don't have any inherent link to your age - all else being the same, they should be the same as the pros and cons at any other age.
Of course, there are some obvious things that probably won't be equal - many people live off retirement savings or other investment income later in life, versus working for a salary. If this means you will be on a fixed income, a mortgage may actually make slightly more sense than other forms of housing, since your payment is fixed for the duration of the loan (versus, say, renting - where the landlord may increase rent to match inflation over time.)
There's also an increased chance that an older person may die before the loan is paid off, compared to someone of a younger age. How this impacts your estate as it's passed on to your heirs may be worth considering, too.
In terms of the mortgage process, lenders typically need proof of income in order to show that you will be able to pay the loan off over time. For someone who is working, this is easily done by providing pay stubs or tax returns. If you are retired, or will retire soon, you may need to work with your lender to make sure you're providing proof of your income and proof that it will be stable over time. Generally speaking, having lots of assets isn't inherently taken as proof of income - especially if the assets are liquid (i.e. cash in a savings account). The lender will want to know that you will have a stable cash flow, whereas just having a pile of money may be more risky since there's nothing stopping you from blowing it all in the first year of the mortgage.
You asked two questions. First,
I understand that lenders cannot discriminate based on age, but is there really a data to support that lenders do not do that ?
Considering your United States tag, it's worth noting that the Equal Opportunity Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Housing Act,and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were intended to prevent discriminatory lending practices. As part of those regulations, lenders are required to report data about loan applicants (both those who were approved and those who were not) and regulators essentially look for patterns in the data to determine if there is any wholesale discrimination. The Federal Reserve Bank makes annual reports to congress, these reports include analysis of the reported data - which is probably the closest thing you'll get to data supporting whether or not lenders discriminate based on age.
You also asked,
suppose if one gets the mortgage when he/she is 55 Years or older and has job and sufficient assets ( and is downsizing the home), what is a pros and cons of taking a mortgage from financial perspective ?
The pros and cons don't have any inherent link to your age - all else being the same, they should be the same as the pros and cons at any other age.
Of course, there are some obvious things that probably won't be equal - many people live off retirement savings or other investment income later in life, versus working for a salary. If this means you will be on a fixed income, a mortgage may actually make slightly more sense than other forms of housing, since your payment is fixed for the duration of the loan (versus, say, renting - where the landlord may increase rent to match inflation over time.)
There's also an increased chance that an older person may die before the loan is paid off, compared to someone of a younger age. How this impacts your estate as it's passed on to your heirs may be worth considering, too.
In terms of the mortgage process, lenders typically need proof of income in order to show that you will be able to pay the loan off over time. For someone who is working, this is easily done by providing pay stubs or tax returns. If you are retired, or will retire soon, you may need to work with your lender to make sure you're providing proof of your income and proof that it will be stable over time. Generally speaking, having lots of assets isn't inherently taken as proof of income - especially if the assets are liquid (i.e. cash in a savings account). The lender will want to know that you will have a stable cash flow, whereas just having a pile of money may be more risky since there's nothing stopping you from blowing it all in the first year of the mortgage.
answered 10 hours ago
dwizumdwizum
6,20014 silver badges24 bronze badges
6,20014 silver badges24 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Every mortgage bank in the country is required to send the government information about every loan application they take, every decision they make, and the demographic characteristics of every borrower (or potential borrower) as part of HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act). All that data is publicly available and the government itself uses the data to ensure that banks aren't discriminating on the basis of age or any other protected characteristic.
As for the pros and cons, those don't really change much with age. Many people build their retirement plan around the idea that they'll have their mortgage paid off before they retire so that they need less income in retirement. But it's equally reasonable to plan to have a mortgage payment in retirement and to ensure that you have enough assets to handle that payment once you stop working. Beyond that, it's a matter of personal preference and a question of what alternative(s) you're considering.
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
add a comment
|
Every mortgage bank in the country is required to send the government information about every loan application they take, every decision they make, and the demographic characteristics of every borrower (or potential borrower) as part of HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act). All that data is publicly available and the government itself uses the data to ensure that banks aren't discriminating on the basis of age or any other protected characteristic.
As for the pros and cons, those don't really change much with age. Many people build their retirement plan around the idea that they'll have their mortgage paid off before they retire so that they need less income in retirement. But it's equally reasonable to plan to have a mortgage payment in retirement and to ensure that you have enough assets to handle that payment once you stop working. Beyond that, it's a matter of personal preference and a question of what alternative(s) you're considering.
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
add a comment
|
Every mortgage bank in the country is required to send the government information about every loan application they take, every decision they make, and the demographic characteristics of every borrower (or potential borrower) as part of HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act). All that data is publicly available and the government itself uses the data to ensure that banks aren't discriminating on the basis of age or any other protected characteristic.
As for the pros and cons, those don't really change much with age. Many people build their retirement plan around the idea that they'll have their mortgage paid off before they retire so that they need less income in retirement. But it's equally reasonable to plan to have a mortgage payment in retirement and to ensure that you have enough assets to handle that payment once you stop working. Beyond that, it's a matter of personal preference and a question of what alternative(s) you're considering.
Every mortgage bank in the country is required to send the government information about every loan application they take, every decision they make, and the demographic characteristics of every borrower (or potential borrower) as part of HMDA (Home Mortgage Disclosure Act). All that data is publicly available and the government itself uses the data to ensure that banks aren't discriminating on the basis of age or any other protected characteristic.
As for the pros and cons, those don't really change much with age. Many people build their retirement plan around the idea that they'll have their mortgage paid off before they retire so that they need less income in retirement. But it's equally reasonable to plan to have a mortgage payment in retirement and to ensure that you have enough assets to handle that payment once you stop working. Beyond that, it's a matter of personal preference and a question of what alternative(s) you're considering.
answered 10 hours ago
Justin CaveJustin Cave
3,5291 gold badge10 silver badges17 bronze badges
3,5291 gold badge10 silver badges17 bronze badges
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
add a comment
|
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
It looks like we posted similar answers at the same time. I upvoted yours for including the link to the HMDA data since I missed that.
– dwizum
9 hours ago
add a comment
|
Remember that mortgages are secured loans. Most 30-year mortgages are paid off early when the homes are sold in less than 30 years. So the expectation that the borrower is going to make the last payment 30 years later is not part of the equation. The lender mainly cares whether (1) the borrower can currently afford the monthly payments and (2) the down payment is large enough to protect against the home going "underwater" in a downturn, which could impose a loss on the lender. In the latter case, even borrowers who could keep paying often walk away instead (strategic default). The downsizing 55-year-old probably has funds for a large down payment, and the risk in the mortgage would be minimal even though the borrower is likely to retire or die within 30 years.
add a comment
|
Remember that mortgages are secured loans. Most 30-year mortgages are paid off early when the homes are sold in less than 30 years. So the expectation that the borrower is going to make the last payment 30 years later is not part of the equation. The lender mainly cares whether (1) the borrower can currently afford the monthly payments and (2) the down payment is large enough to protect against the home going "underwater" in a downturn, which could impose a loss on the lender. In the latter case, even borrowers who could keep paying often walk away instead (strategic default). The downsizing 55-year-old probably has funds for a large down payment, and the risk in the mortgage would be minimal even though the borrower is likely to retire or die within 30 years.
add a comment
|
Remember that mortgages are secured loans. Most 30-year mortgages are paid off early when the homes are sold in less than 30 years. So the expectation that the borrower is going to make the last payment 30 years later is not part of the equation. The lender mainly cares whether (1) the borrower can currently afford the monthly payments and (2) the down payment is large enough to protect against the home going "underwater" in a downturn, which could impose a loss on the lender. In the latter case, even borrowers who could keep paying often walk away instead (strategic default). The downsizing 55-year-old probably has funds for a large down payment, and the risk in the mortgage would be minimal even though the borrower is likely to retire or die within 30 years.
Remember that mortgages are secured loans. Most 30-year mortgages are paid off early when the homes are sold in less than 30 years. So the expectation that the borrower is going to make the last payment 30 years later is not part of the equation. The lender mainly cares whether (1) the borrower can currently afford the monthly payments and (2) the down payment is large enough to protect against the home going "underwater" in a downturn, which could impose a loss on the lender. In the latter case, even borrowers who could keep paying often walk away instead (strategic default). The downsizing 55-year-old probably has funds for a large down payment, and the risk in the mortgage would be minimal even though the borrower is likely to retire or die within 30 years.
answered 10 hours ago
nanomannanoman
8,9431 gold badge17 silver badges21 bronze badges
8,9431 gold badge17 silver badges21 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Frame Challenge
The whole point of "downsizing the home" is to sell the current bigger house and buy a smaller house.
While that smaller house might be some place expensive, you still won't need a 30 year mortgage.
add a comment
|
Frame Challenge
The whole point of "downsizing the home" is to sell the current bigger house and buy a smaller house.
While that smaller house might be some place expensive, you still won't need a 30 year mortgage.
add a comment
|
Frame Challenge
The whole point of "downsizing the home" is to sell the current bigger house and buy a smaller house.
While that smaller house might be some place expensive, you still won't need a 30 year mortgage.
Frame Challenge
The whole point of "downsizing the home" is to sell the current bigger house and buy a smaller house.
While that smaller house might be some place expensive, you still won't need a 30 year mortgage.
answered 8 hours ago
RonJohnRonJohn
22.2k6 gold badges42 silver badges88 bronze badges
22.2k6 gold badges42 silver badges88 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
It used to be that having tax deductable mortgage interest was an important advantage of a mortgage. However, deducting mortgage interest is no longer viable for many taxpayers because the interest rates are very low and the new higher standardized deduction means that the standard deduction may be more than your interest payments and other deductions. (This obviously varies a lot depending on
your location and how big a house you need. Where I live you can buy a house for $35K, but if you live somewhere that starter homes cost $500K it's different.)
If you do use a mortgage you could invest the extra cash that you didn't spend on your home in hopes of earning a higher rate of return than your mortgage interest rate. However, the mortgage interest rate is fixed (unless you take an adjustable rate mortgage) and the return that you would get on your investments is variable, so you could end up paying more in mortgage interest than you make on your investment of the cash not spent on the house.
add a comment
|
It used to be that having tax deductable mortgage interest was an important advantage of a mortgage. However, deducting mortgage interest is no longer viable for many taxpayers because the interest rates are very low and the new higher standardized deduction means that the standard deduction may be more than your interest payments and other deductions. (This obviously varies a lot depending on
your location and how big a house you need. Where I live you can buy a house for $35K, but if you live somewhere that starter homes cost $500K it's different.)
If you do use a mortgage you could invest the extra cash that you didn't spend on your home in hopes of earning a higher rate of return than your mortgage interest rate. However, the mortgage interest rate is fixed (unless you take an adjustable rate mortgage) and the return that you would get on your investments is variable, so you could end up paying more in mortgage interest than you make on your investment of the cash not spent on the house.
add a comment
|
It used to be that having tax deductable mortgage interest was an important advantage of a mortgage. However, deducting mortgage interest is no longer viable for many taxpayers because the interest rates are very low and the new higher standardized deduction means that the standard deduction may be more than your interest payments and other deductions. (This obviously varies a lot depending on
your location and how big a house you need. Where I live you can buy a house for $35K, but if you live somewhere that starter homes cost $500K it's different.)
If you do use a mortgage you could invest the extra cash that you didn't spend on your home in hopes of earning a higher rate of return than your mortgage interest rate. However, the mortgage interest rate is fixed (unless you take an adjustable rate mortgage) and the return that you would get on your investments is variable, so you could end up paying more in mortgage interest than you make on your investment of the cash not spent on the house.
It used to be that having tax deductable mortgage interest was an important advantage of a mortgage. However, deducting mortgage interest is no longer viable for many taxpayers because the interest rates are very low and the new higher standardized deduction means that the standard deduction may be more than your interest payments and other deductions. (This obviously varies a lot depending on
your location and how big a house you need. Where I live you can buy a house for $35K, but if you live somewhere that starter homes cost $500K it's different.)
If you do use a mortgage you could invest the extra cash that you didn't spend on your home in hopes of earning a higher rate of return than your mortgage interest rate. However, the mortgage interest rate is fixed (unless you take an adjustable rate mortgage) and the return that you would get on your investments is variable, so you could end up paying more in mortgage interest than you make on your investment of the cash not spent on the house.
answered 6 hours ago
Brian BorchersBrian Borchers
1211 silver badge6 bronze badges
1211 silver badge6 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f114895%2fpracticality-of-30-year-fix-mortgage-at-55-years-of-age%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Can you be more specific? Are you asking why a 55-year old would take a 30-year mortgage? I'm not sure what you're asking that has to do with age (or "retirement-plan").
– D Stanley
10 hours ago
I got a 30 yr mortgage at age 74 and age was not a factor to the bank.
– blacksmith37
7 hours ago