Hello folks. It's not so much I can't do this problem, it's that I don't quite understand what they're saying.
This is the problem. I'm being asked to compare two mortgages. They're both for the same amount, split into two mortgages, but with different terms. Here's what they say:
The 2nd option (the other mortgage I'm comparing the 1st one to) is set up in a similar way. If I understand what I've quoted above, I will understand this one too. Thanks.
Oh, by the way, I'm being asked to compare the two options and decide which one is the better one.
Thanks.
This is the problem. I'm being asked to compare two mortgages. They're both for the same amount, split into two mortgages, but with different terms. Here's what they say:
I understand the first part; the part with the straight forward mortgage. $400K @ 4.5% for 30 years. Easy. Simple. Straight forward. But what about the second part? The part with the "interest-only" mortgage? Are they saying that this is also a 30-year mortgage, with the first 10 years being "interest-only", after which it turns into a mortgage like the $400K (where you pay principal+interest)? I think that's it. But what about the part that begins, "...but with the intent..." Are they saying that the second mortgage will be paid off in 5 years? Not 30, not 10, but 5? I'm confused. Can you guys please help?1st option (the total being borrowed is $500K):
A first mortgage of $400K @ 4.5% amortized over 30 years, with a second mortgage of $100K @ 5%, interest only for 10 years, but with the intent of paying off with equal annual lump sum payments over 5 years.
The 2nd option (the other mortgage I'm comparing the 1st one to) is set up in a similar way. If I understand what I've quoted above, I will understand this one too. Thanks.
Oh, by the way, I'm being asked to compare the two options and decide which one is the better one.
Thanks.