«mortgage rates down and come close to the pre-crisis levels," - such an optimistic statement titled his recent article by journalist Julia Pogorelov (see "Money", January 31, 2011). I agree, and even one-off this wonderful idea: according to the latest statistics of the Central Bank, our mortgage pre-crisis average rates abroad have already overcome. But this is nit-picking, irrelevant to the essence of the issue. The main message, which led me to this time, "take up my pen," Ms. Pogorelov presents in the first sentence of that article. "But - she writes - mortgage payments on standard loans are still more than twice the rent payments." And this is generally correct, it is important as it is interpreted. So, it is treated with the author of the article using the phrase, which is appropriate would be for the solemn funeral prematurely deceased Russian mortgage: "It is obvious that from an economic point of view is preferable to hire a mortgage." That this would like to argue. How would it delicately explain to me the distinguished journalist, that a head-on comparison of annuity payments mortgage with rental payments not correct? In any annuity, are known to have two components: one that goes to paying interest, and one that repays the principal. We also know that the first component, which, in fact, referred to as overpayment for housing to be purchased on credit, dominates only in the early stages of service credit. If you look over the entire period, it is not yet known what charges there will be more. It depends on the timing and rates for a particular loan. But in any If the mortgage on these values are quite comparable. Then the question is: Is that the correct component of the annuity which is paid by the debtor to repay the loan into account when comparing this annuity with rent payments? I think not. After all, this is payment for the borrower's own home. At the very least, these money is always possible to return by selling the "asset", and with a gain. To put it again in a scientific way, it means that going to increase the "capitalization" of the family. But no fee for residential premises. As such, the right to consider only the interest component of the annuity. And it just - compared with rental rates. At times it seems that the author understands it a test article. In any case, the word "overpayment" in the article mentioned. And even attempt to find her. "studio apartment area of 33 square meters. m fabricated house in a cheap sleeping area on the outskirts of Moscow - assures us zhurnaslist - worth 4.5 million rubles. Rent an apartment will cost 20-23 thousand rubles. If you receive a loan with the first payment 20% at 14% per annum for 15 years, monthly loan payment will be about 48 thousand rubles. and overpayment to the bank on interest over the life of the loan - more than 5 million rubles. 'Calculated correctly, so what? The calculations do not have a single action that will put everything in its place. We make this action themselves. multiply 23 000 lease payments for 12 months and at the same 15 years. It turns out more than 4 million. The difference with the lease - less than a million, do not know how anyone, but I would at this nekatastrofichnoy difference did such radical conclusions about the apparent preference to lease mortgage. Especially when you consider that the medium-term outlook for rents for housing - is clearly upward (author agrees). But at the rate of 14 pa our virtual borrower credit, all 15 years, certainly not usidit . Or the same bank will lower this rate, under pressure from increased competition in the lending market, or the borrower refinances the loan with another bank. So in the long run (which starts today) will probably be renting handicap "eaten" by a mortgage or perhaps it will break even on. Then, perhaps, the decisive arguments in favor of the lease should be considered a "lyrical" about the future of labor mobility of our population? They say it is good to live closer to work. According to the author and cited its experts, the mobility (which I honestly speaking, not yet noticed) make someone else's house more attractive than their own. So I'm with you, dear reader, leave, give a dozen as "lyrical" arguments to the contrary thesis. For example, "two are equal to the moving fire" "beloved of the region do not want to leave," "children - the same school," "own house - unlike the others'," "in a rented apartment and can not score a nail", "dog do not take," etc. Our reeling until the end of the mortgage market and already is in a position where the demand for loans in times less than the possible supply. And last but not least because of inadequate perception of the pros and cons of mortgage, even those who can afford it. your thoughts on this sad topic, I explained in detail in the article "Do not be angry with you for a mortgage," published in the first issue of "Mortgage and credit" for this year. So you do not want to repeat. And I would like to call the journalist community to be careful with large-scale conclusions and estimates. Sure, take on lease certain premises will be cheaper than buying it on the mortgage. Cheaper, but not profitable. Mortgage expensive lease is obtained only because of its ending in the borrower's property is fully paid accommodation. And at the end of lease is just zilch, with happy prospects for further investment of money is not a commodity, and service. So that the lease is probably better for those who simply can not afford the mortgage. And if you can, then my advice to you is taking such a momentous decision , recall the great saying about the fact that we are not rich enough to pay for the cheap stuff. And then your decision will be correct.
No comments:
Post a Comment