DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mortgage rates top 7% again

Oh silly man. Because it was in 1971 that they started tracking and keeping records of average mortgage rates. But you just keep digging that hole for yourself....

The 1970s and 1980s

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, more commonly known as Freddie Mac, began tracking average annual rates for mortgages starting in 1971. In the first few years of recording, rates started out between 7% and 8%, but by 1974, they climbed up to 9.19%. We finished out the decade by finally entering double digits with 1979’s annual average of 11.2%.

https://www.atlanticbay.com/knowledge-center/history-of-mortgage-rates/

Freddie Mac started keeping records of mortgage rates in the US in 1971. Since then, historical mortgage rates have averaged 8%. The fluctuations from historic highs and historic lows during that time, however, has been dramatic.

https://www.mpamag.com/us/mortgage-...-usa-highest-high-and-lowest-lows/433237

Since 1971, historical mortgage rates for 30-year fixed-rate loans have hit historic highs and lows due to various factors. We’ll use data from Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS) to do a deep dive into what’s driven historical mortgage rate movements over time, and how rate fluctuations affect buying or refinancing a home.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/mortgages/historical-mortgage-rates

But of course rather than you supplying data to support your assertions, you try and diminish what the person you oppose posted when you obviously didn't even try to find out why 1971 was used. But carry on.

I'm not digging crap. You think you're the keeper of all knowledge and protocol on DT and shoot down any alternative viewpoint like you know something.


NOBODY BUYING A HOUSE CARES ABOUT THE MORTGAGE RATE IN 1971.

Certainly not anyone trying to put historical interest rates into perspective. Certainly not someone who wishes to isolate certain points in time to portray a narrative. Perspective is obviously something someone such as yourself isn't a fan of.

So first you questioned why I used that time frame. Tried to make that look like it was skewed. Once that was shown not to be the case you make up yet another argument to try and dismiss that in historical context the current mortgage rate isn't really out of line. And actually, if you bothered to care about the facts, the mortgage rates were at their highest in 1981 at 16.663%. But then I forgot, people such as yourself don't care about that either.

And trying to convince others they shouldn't care about it either doesn't surprise me at all. Because for those actually willing to look at historical context, they wouldn't be able to run around screaming like their hair was on fire.

But that does help explain why people think that things which happened in the 1960's were ancient times and we really shouldn't be talking about those things anymore.

You know what I just realized?

NOBODY BUYING A HOUSE CARES ABOUT THE MORTGAGE RATE IN 1971. [/quote]

No, you realize that you don't care about it. Then you try to make the absurd claim that nobody else does either. And your hope is they don't. Because if they don't they can play the victim card.

Victim card?

That's your daily m.o. when every thread can't be redirected to your specifications.


Mortgage rates are over 7%, you want it to be about our grandparent's mortgage rates. You cite "evidence" and "facts", declare all other statements as irrelevant, and then want to act like 50 years ago has some bearing on the conversation.

Get your Last Word Larry... In a thread you decided should be about 1971 mortgage rates.

But first, some other fun things that happened in 1971...


The list of rock bands formed in 1971 include the Eagles, Queen, Foghat, New York Dolls and Roxy Music

Radio & TV adverts for cigarettes were banned in the USA

The first ever email was sent

Apollo 14 landed on the moon

The Nasdaq Index Made its debut on Wall Street

Evel Knievel set a world record

The Ed Sullivan Show aired its last episode

Jim Morrison died

Mariner 9 entered Mars orbit

Intel launched the world’s first commercially available microprocessor

Charles Manson and 3 of his followers were convicted

Starbucks opened their first store

Idi Amin became the president of Uganda

Walt Disney World was opened in Florida

The Soviet Union launched the first space station into orbit

I'm not the one trying to use "specifications" here. I'm using all of the available data. You are the one trying to eliminate the historical data by only using specific parts of it. And as per usual, you wish to lie about it. The figures I'm using aren't "about 1971". It includes all interest rates for that year and every year since. I include all mortgage rates over history. You wish to select only the parts of it to suit your agenda. That's what being using specifications mean. And BTW, my dad was buying houses as early as the beginning on the 1960's. He is not my grandfather.

Sorry that being upfront about the history of interest rates both you. But there's no need to throw a temper tantrum on a message board about it Squeaky2.

Maybe some chamomile tea will help.

And that changes the historical interest rates how? It doesn't. You've become desperate.

Good doggy.

"History means nothing!" You make this too easy.

Too easy. lmao

And then in another thread where someone is talking about the year 2023


The jokes just keep writing themselves.

What were the mortgage rates from 2016--2020?

Shhhhhh!

It doesn't matter, Pit was still paying off his Radio Flyer on his Diner's Club card.

LOL

Good doggy. Hmmmm, as Maury would say, The lie detector test has determined that was a lie!

As a teacher I thought you valued historical data? I guess not. So now you're a part of the "History means nothing!" movement. But I'm not surprised because as long as I'm involved you'll take the opposite side no matter how wrong it is. Poor, poor, sad little man.

Once again, you are twisting words [telling a lie] about what I actually said. Show me the quote where I said I don't care about historical data? You can't. Once again, your untrustworthy self is misquoting people in an attempt to shame them and win an argument.

Good thing for you that your Guardian Angel Ref will delete my post and leave your lie standing.

These were my actual words:

Yes, and anyone following the thread isn't moronic enough to see that you are clearly ruling out anything before that date. Stop playing stupid. Or better yet stop thinking everyone else is stupid.

It is clear that it is you that thinks everyone else is stupid.

I knew you would be joining the sausage party at some point.



Better late than never.

"Honey, can we afford a boat?"

"I don't know, let's call Pit and see how much England paid for the Mayflower."

You obviously can't seem to understand the difference in prices and interest rates. And you claimed 1971 was a long time ago. There's no length some people won't go to in order to dismiss historical data.

Which one of you brought the tape measure to the sausage party?

LOL......

Anyway, I was asking a serious question. We bought our last house in September of 2016. The rates were 3.5 something. Now, they are over 7%? I was wondering if they were higher or lower in 2019 or 2020 before the election?

Curious..........is inflation also up? How about crime rates? Cost of living? Is it easier or harder for employers to fill job vacancies? Groceries? Gas?

But, you know.........we have more "rights." Well, at least some of us do. Wanna not work and get paid enough where you can afford marijuana and housing, father children out of wedlock and walk away w/out paying a dime, act like a thug and don't worry too much about it because of all the public attention on police brutality, etc.........meanwhile complaining about how unfair life is for you in the the United States..........it's all cool.

For others, not only do we have to support your lazy, entitled selves......we gotta hear how we are to blame for your problems.

And it seems your response is as useful and thought provoking as most of what you post.

Historical data. The earth cools and warms, over centuries, and thousands upon thousands of years.

Historical data: In the 70's an 'imminent' ice age was predicted.

Yet the interest rates over that time period is factual data and not a scientific prediction.

What are you trying to prove with interest rates from 51 years ago?

In comparison to this gem of yours?


Please continue.

I'm putting into perspective home interest rates over time. It's not just interest rates "from 51 years ago". Rather than accepting that, people wish to ignore all of the data and isolate particular time periods. It's simply to show that since keeping track of home interest rates, which began in 1971, the current rates are about average. And everyone is acting like their hair is on fire about it.

Trope

Excuse.

If more banks collapse interest rates will go to 20%


Our economy is very fragile right now.

So you lack the comprehension of how stupid that sounds too. No surprise there.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/ec...st-rate-hike-may-2023-how-much-rcna82277


Federal Reserve raises interest rates to 16-year high as fight to tame inflation persists
The central bank faces signs of weakening economic growth even as the labor market remains robust.

The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday it was raising its key federal funds rate to more than 5% — a 16-year high — as it continues its firefight against persistent inflation.

In a statement announcing the hike — the 10th-consecutive one since March 2022 — it omitted previous language that signaled more hikes are likely.

While inflation remained elevated, higher borrowing costs for households and businesses "are likely to weigh on economic activity, hiring, and inflation," the central bank said, adding that the extent of these effects "remains uncertain."

It added that job gains had been "robust" in recent months and noted that the unemployment rate remained low.

In an emailed statement following the announcement, Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride said this moment could prove a "last call" for savers and anyone else looking to take advantage of attractive deposit-rate offerings from banks.

"CD yields on maturities of one year and longer have peaked and now is the time to lock in," he said. "A slowing economy coupled with the Fed moving to the sidelines mean CD yields will start pulling back soon.”

The latest decision comes at a fraught moment as high prices, high interest rates and slowing growth would all seem to spell an economic downturn.

Indeed, many consumers would agree that between inflation and tighter credit conditions — and with no more pandemic financial assistance in sight — this is the worst they’ve felt about their finances since the pandemic broke out and upended everything.


Yet, as the Federal Reserve readied to make its latest interest rate announcement, financial commentators continued to disagree about how it should be responding to economic conditions.

According to data from the CME Group, Wall Street traders were betting that the Fed would announce another 0.25% rate hike — but that it will be forced to cut rates at least twice before the end of the year as economic growth slows to a crawl.

Others disagreed about how exactly this all plays out. In an emailed statement, Seema Shah, the chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, said that with inflation still elevated and sticky and with the broad economic picture still looking "fairly robust," the Fed would be more likely than not to keep additional rate hikes on the table.

"Provided the economic data slows only gently and inflation remains elevated, and the banking sector volatility is fairly contained, we think a June hike is still possible," she wrote. "Indeed, we believe there is a higher risk of a rate hike in June than what the market is currently pricing in."


That is largely the view of economists at the Citigroup, as well. In a note to clients published Sunday, the group said it expected the Fed to strike a “hawkish” tone in its latest language announcing the expected rate hike — meaning it will indicate inflation has not yet been tamed and, therefore, interest rates must remain elevated for longer.

The Citi analysts cite recent price-level data that has continued to come in higher than expected. The graphic below from the Atlanta Federal Reserve illustrates this:


"Rather than signaling a pause, the committee will want to preserve the option for further rate hikes," the Citi economists write. "In our base case the Fed will raise rates by 25bp [0.25%] this week and again in June and July."

Those forecasts were countered elsewhere. Heading into Wednesday, the chorus of voices calling for the Fed to pause kept growing. On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to halt rate hikes entirely, warning that too many increases would cost a growing cohort of people their jobs.

"We believe that continuing to raise interest rates would be an abandonment of the Fed’s dual mandate to achieve both maximum employment and price stability and show little regard for the small businesses and working families that will get caught in the wreckage,” they wrote.

Analysts at Nomura global financial services group offered something of a middle ground: While they forecast the Fed would raise the rate by the expected 0.25%, they said it will prove a “dovish hike” as the central bankers replace previous language that signaled additional hikes will be necessary, planning to take a more wait-and-see approach.

Perhaps the best summation of the economic crosswinds facing the Fed was found in an anonymous response to the monthly report from the Institute for Supply Management, which showed a modest increase in sentiment among producers for April.

"We seem to be in a season of contradictions," said the respondent, identified only as an executive at a metals manufacturing firm. "Business is slowing, but in some ways, it isn’t. Prices for some commodities are stabilizing, but not for others. Some product shortages are over, others aren’t. Trucking is more plentiful, except when it isn’t. There’s uncertainty one day, but not the next. The next couple of months should provide answers — or not. It’s hard to make projections at the moment.”

For Shah, the prevailing crosscurrents signal the worst outcome of all.

"The most dangerous risk for financial markets currently is stagflation — the risk of the Fed failing to deliver sufficient tightening, permitting a resurgence in inflation later on in the year," she wrote.

Interest probably needs to jump 2-3 points higher.