If rates are this low would 40 year fixed be even better than 30? any help would be appreciated. by FranHolsom from Bend, Oregon. Jun 10th 2010
30 year would be better if you can afford it. Spreading your payments out another 10 years would just increase the amount of interest you would pay. Where are you looking to buy?Nic Nethertonwww.nicnethertonloans.com
40 year rates are generally higher than 30 year rates, so the added interest and higher rate don't end up saving you much at all. Stick with the 30.
Payment would be lower because it is a longer term, BUT the savings may not be worth it long term beacuse a) you are spreading your payments out another 10 years which equals more total interest paid and b) in most parts of the country the 40 yr is considered a specialty product and the rate is higher than a 30yr. Give a call if you want to discuss in detail.... Casey 262.264.5462
The wise choice would be to go with a 30 year fixed rate and try to get your rate as close to 4% as possible. Were you considering an FHA loan? We are Nationwide Direct Lenders and would love to give you a FREE quote. www.mortgage-FHA-Rates.com
We have 40 year term at 30 year rates & fees. Although, I would not recommend this, primarilly because the loan will amoratize much slower. We both know you won't have this loan 40 years. So, the downside for you is it will have a higher balance than a 30F, when you refinance or sell. .... Happy funding, Rudi
Ask our community a question.