Connect with us

Business

A risky mortgage instrument that helped spark the Global Financial Crisis is on the rise, but 3 things are different this time around

Published

on



A risky mortgage instrument that helped spark the Global Financial Crisis is on the rise, but three things are different this time around.

Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), once the villain of the subprime meltdown, are surging in popularity as homebuyers look for savings in a high-rate era. The share of ARMs reached nearly 13% of all mortgage applications this fall, per the Mortgage Bankers Association, the highest level since 2008.

​For buyers today, the lure is clear: ARMs offer starting rates about a full percentage point lower than fixed-rate loans, making the difference between buying a home or staying sidelined. The typical 5/1 ARM has an interest rate in the mid-5% range, compared with the 30-year fixed rate’s 6.3% and above. On a $400,000 loan, that initial discount translates into $200 or more in monthly savings, enough to tip the scales for first-time buyers or those seeking a larger property.

But every ARM, by definition, is a wager: After the initial fixed period—often five, seven, or 10 years—the interest rate resets, adjusting with the broader market. Today, that means buyers are betting the Federal Reserve will cut rates before their loan recalculates. If the Fed delivers on anticipated rate drops in December, customers could see payments shrink further or at least avoid big jumps when the adjustment arrives.

Back in the mid-2000s, adjustable-rate loans contributed to a financial calamity. Easy credit, teaser introductory rates, and lack of oversight meant millions of Americans took out loans with initially low payments, only to see costs soar when interest rates reset. ARMs then accounted for as much as 35% of mortgage originations, fueling both a housing bubble and the crash that followed. Fast-forward to 2025, and some are justifiably anxious at the product’s resurgence.

Borrowers aren’t just gambling with their own fortunes, though. This time, banks and regulators have changed the rules. Today’s ARMs come with strict documentation standards, borrower protections, and built-in caps designed to prevent the shock resets that hammered millions of families in the last crisis. Lenders scrutinize income, debt, and credit quality, and loans are calibrated to ensure that, even if rates go up, buyers won’t be caught entirely off guard. Pre-crisis, some ARMs changed rates almost overnight, but most modern loans fix the initial rate for several years and limit increases through legal ceilings.

Risks this time around

Still, the instrument carries risk—especially if the Federal Reserve changes course. If rates rise unexpectedly, those low initial payments can balloon, exerting pressure on household budgets just as the broader economy absorbs the impact.

Unlike the pre-crisis era, buyers are appearing to use ARMs as financial tools for specific strategies, rather than gambling on ever-increasing home values. The trend centers on affordability: With 30-year fixed rates still elevated (averaging near 6.3%), ARMs offer an initial fixed period at rates nearly a full percentage point lower, sometimes saving hundreds per month. And the current vogue appears to reflect an educated guess—or a gamble, depending on your position—that interest rates, and therefore mortgage rates, will continue to decline in the near future.

Michael Pearson, senior VP of business development at A&D Mortgage, told Realtor.com earlier this month that “the common wisdom is that interest rates will continue to dip lower, slowly over the next couple of years. So although ARMs offer only short-term fixed interest rates, there may be more opportunities to lock into long-term lower rates in the coming years.” For many, this lower payment is seen as a bridge until rates drop, jobs relocate, or life changes; borrowers are actively planning to refinance, move, or pay off loans before the adjustable period kicks in.

In high-cost markets, the pressure to choose ARMs is strong. With fixed mortgage rates remaining stubbornly high after years of Fed rate hikes, buyers are willing to roll the dice on interest rates. Some see ARMs as the only path to homeownership, wagering that central bankers will cut rates as inflation cools off.

The harsh reality is that prospective homeowners don’t have much of a choice. A recent Redfin analysis found that America hasn’t been this stuck in terms of housing mobility for at least 30 years, with just roughly 28 out of every 1,000 homes changing hands between January and September. “It’s not healthy for the economy that people are staying put,” said Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin. The so-called home sales turnover rate through the first nine months of this year is down about 30% from the average rate over the same time periods between 2012 and 2022. ​

Ultimately, the surge in ARM loans is both a sign of tight economic times and renewed risk-taking. While regulatory guardrails may prevent the kind of crash seen in 2008, the outcome for individual borrowers still depends on what the Fed does—and whether buyers truly understand the gamble they’re taking. For now, a controversial loan product is back in the spotlight, and the housing market is holding its breath for the next move from the central bank.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

On Netflix’s earnings call, co-CEOs can’t quell fears about the Warner Bros. bid

Published

on



When it comes to creating irresistible storylines, Netflix, the home of Stranger Things and The Crown, is second to none. And as the streaming video giant delivered its quarterly earnings report on Tuesday, executives were in top storytelling form, pitching what they promise will be a smash hit: the acquisition of Warner Brothers Discovery.

The company’s co-CEOs, Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters, said the deal, which values Warner Brothers Discovery at $83 billion, will accelerate its own core streaming business while helping it expand into TV and the theatrical film business. 

“This is an exciting time in the business. Lots of innovation, lots of competition,” Sarandos enthused on Tuesday’s earnings conference call. Netflix has a history of successful transformation and of pivoting opportunistically, he reminded the audience: Once upon a time, its main business entailed mailing DVDs in red envelopes to customers’ homes. 

Despite Sarandos’ confident delivery, however, the pitch didn’t land with investors. The company’s stock, which was already down 15% since Netflix announced the deal in early December, sank another 4.9% in after-hours trading on Tuesday. 

Netflix’s financial results for the final quarter of 2025 were fine. The company beat EPS expectations by a penny, and said it now has 325 million paid subscribers and a worldwide total audience nearing 1 billion. Its 2026 revenue outlook, of between $50.7 billion and $51.7 billion, was right on target.  

Still, investors are worried that the Warner Bros. deal will force Netflix to compete outside its lane, causing management to lose focus. The fact that Netflix will temporarily halt its share buybacks in order to accumulate cash to help finance the deal, as it disclosed towards the bottom of Tuesday’s shareholder letter, probably didn’t help matters. 

And given that there’s a rival offer for Warner Bros from Paramount Skydance, it’s not unreasonable for investors to worry that Netflix may be forced into an expensive bidding war. (Even though Warner Brothers Discovery has accepted the Netflix offer over Paramount’s, no one believes the story is over—not even Netflix, which updated its $27.75 per share offer to all-cash, instead of stock and cash, hours earlier on Tuesday in order to provide WBD shareholders with “greater value certainty.”) 

Investors are wary; will regulators balk?

Warner Brothers investors are not the only audience that Netflix needs to win over. The deal must be blessed by antitrust regulators—a prospect whose outcome is harder to predict than ever in the Trump administration.

Sarandos and Peters laid out the case Tuesday for why they believe the deal will get through the regulatory process, framing the deal as a boon for American jobs.

“This is going to allow us to significantly expand our production capacity in the U.S. and to keep investing in original content in the long term, which means more opportunities for creative talent and more jobs,” Sarandos said.

Referring to Warner Brothers’ television and film businesses, he added that “these folks have extensive experience and expertise. We want them to stay on and run those businesses. We’re expanding content creation not collapsing it.”

It’s a compelling story. But the co-CEOs may have neglected to study the most important script of all when it comes to getting government approval in the current administration; they forgot to recite the Trump lines. 

The example has been set over the past 12 months by peers such as Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. The latter, with his company facing various federal regulatory threats, began publicly praising the Trump administration on an earnings call last January. 

And Nvidia’s Huang has already seen real dividends from a similar strategy. The chip company CEO has praised Trump repeatedly on earnings calls, in media interviews, and in conference keynote speeches, calling him “America’s unique advantage” in AI. Since then, the U.S. ban on selling Nvidia’s H200 AI chips to China has been rescinded. The praise may have been coincidental to the outcome, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

In contrast, the president went unmentioned on Tuesday’s call. How significant Netflix’s omission of a Trump call-out turns out to be remains to be seen; maybe it won’t matter at all. But it’s worth noting that its competitor for Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance, is helmed by David Ellison, an outspoken Trump supporter. 

It’s a storyline that Netflix should have seen coming, and itmay still send the company back to rewrite.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Americans are paying nearly all of the tariff burden as international exports die down, study finds

Published

on



After nearly a year of promises tariffs would boost the U.S. economy while other countries footed the bill, a new study shows almost all of the tariff burden is falling on American consumers. 

Americans are paying 96% of the costs of tariffs as prices for goods rise, according to research published Monday by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank. 

In April 2025 when President Donald Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, he claimed: “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike.” But the report suggests tariffs have actually cost Americans more money.

Trump has long used tariffs as leverage in non-trade political disputes. Over the weekend, Trump renewed his trade war in Europe after Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland sent troops for training exercises in Greenland. The countries will be hit with a 10% tariff starting on Feb. 1 that is set to rise to 25% on June 1, if a deal for the U.S. to buy Greenland is not reached. 

On Monday, Trump threatened a 200% tariff on French wine, after French President Emmanuel Macron refused to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, which has a $1 billion buy-in for permanent membership. 

“The claim that foreign countries pay these tariffs is a myth,” wrote Julian Hinz, research director at the Kiel Institute and an author of the study. “The data show the opposite: Americans are footing the bill.” 

The research shows export prices stayed the same, but the volume has collapsed. After imposing a 50% tariff on India in August, exports to the U.S. dropped 18% to 24%, compared to the European Union, Canada, and Australia. Exporters are redirecting sales to other markets, so they don’t need to cut sales or prices, according to the study.

“There is no such thing as foreigners transferring wealth to the U.S. in the form of tariffs,” Hinz told The Wall Street Journal

For the study, Hinz and his team analyzed more than 25 million shipment records between January 2024 through November 2025 that were worth nearly $4 trillion.They found exporters absorbed just 4% of the tariff burden and American importers are largely passing on the costs to consumers. 

Tariffs have increased customs revenue by $200 billion, but nearly all of that comes from American consumers. The study’s authors likened this to a consumption tax as wealth transfers from consumers and businesses to the U.S. Treasury.   

Trump has also repeatedly claimed tariffs would boost American manufacturing, butthe economy has shown declines in manufacturing jobs every month since April 2025, losing 60,000 manufacturing jobs between Liberation Day and November. 

The Supreme Court was expected to rule as soon as today on whether Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legal. The court initially announced they planned to rule last week and gave no explanation for the delay. 

Although justices appeared skeptical of the administration’s authority during oral arguments in November, economists predict the Trump administration will find alternative ways to keep the tariffs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Selling America is a ‘dangerous bet,’ UBS CEO warns as markets panic

Published

on



Investors are “selling America” in spades Tuesday: The 10-year Treasury yield is at its highest point since August; the U.S. dollar slid; and the traditional safe-haven metal investments—gold and silver—surged once again to record highs.

The CEO of UBS Group, the world’s largest private bank, thinks this market is making a “dangerous bet.”

“Diversifying away from America is impossible,” UBS Group CEO Sergio Ermotti told Bloomberg in a television interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Tuesday. “Things can change rapidly, and the U.S. is the strongest economy in the world, the one who has the highest level of innovation right now.” 

The catalyst for the selloff was fresh escalation from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened a 10% tariff on eight European allies—including Germany, France, and the U.K.—unless they cede to his demands to acquire Greenland.

Trump also threatened a 200% tariff on French wine and Champagne to pressure French President Emmanuel Macron to join his Board of Peace. Trump’s favorite “Mr. Tariff” is back, and bond investors are unhappy with the volatility.

But if investors keep getting caught up in the volatility of day-to-day politics and shun the U.S., they’ll miss the forest for the trees, Ermotti argued. While admitting the current environment is “bumpy,” he pointed to a statistic: Last year alone, the U.S. created 25 million new millionaires. For a wealth manager like UBS, that is 1,000 new millionaires a day. To shun that level of innovation in U.S. equities for gold would be a reactionary move that ignores the long-term innovation of the U.S. economy. 

“We see two big levers: First of all, wealth creation, GDP growth, innovation, and also more idiosyncratic to UBS is that we see potential for us to become more present, increase our market share,” Ermotti said. 

But if something doesn’t give in the standoff between the European Union and Trump, there could be potential further de-dollarization, this time, from Europe selling its U.S. bonds, George Saravelos, head of FX research at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note Sunday. Indeed, on Tuesday, Danish pension funds sold $100 million in U.S. Treasuries, allegedly owing to “poor” U.S. finances, though the pension fund’s chief said of the debacle over Greenland: “Of course, that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision.” 

Europe owns twice as many U.S. bonds and equities as the rest of the world combined. If the rest of Europe follows Denmark’s lead, that could be an $8 trillion market at risk, Saravelos argued. 

“In an environment where the geo-economic stability of the Western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part,” he wrote. 

Back in the U.S., the markets also sold off as the Nasdaq and S&P both fell 2% Tuesday, already shedding the entirety of Greenland’s value on Trump’s threats, University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers noted. Analysts and investors are uneasy, given the history of Trump declaring a stark tariff before negotiating with the country to take it down, also known as the “TACO”—Trump always chickens out—effect. Investors have been “burnt before by overreacting to tariff threats,” Jim Reid of Deutsche Bank noted. That’s a similar stance to the UBS bank chief: If you react too much to headlines, you’ll miss the great innovation that’s pushed the stock market to record highs for the past three years.

“I wouldn’t really bet against the U.S.,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.