News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says I... by jdmichal on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @02:27PM (#12737276)
A mortgage is generally not a negotiation because most people have no leverage against the bank. When the options are get a mortgage or you don't get a house, the bank gets to dictate the terms. A millionaire who wants to finance a house that they could buy outright for reasons has leverage. They can and do have actual negotiations.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mor...

Re:Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says I... by FireBeyond on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @02:46PM (#12737448)
I have to say I have a fairly decent moral objection to this:

"When you can borrow at a rate below inflation, you're borrowing for free," McBride said. "This is the concept of using other people's money and it preserves financial flexibility for the borrower."

If you're borrowing at under market rates, we, the market are effectively subsidizing you. Does Zuckerberg need subsidies in order to have a mortgage?

Re:Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says I... by jdmichal on Tuesday October 18, 2016 @03:28PM (#12737858)
Almost guaranteed that this was not a subsidy. Even for the extremely wealthy, banks are not in the business of giving away money for nothing.

The mortgage was likely only one piece of the deal negotiated. It costs the bank nothing to write an at-cost mortgage, but gives Zuckerberg value though additional liquidity. Items that cost nothing yet provide value to the other side are excellent things to throw on the table during negotiations to help seal the deal. One example: The bank may have the adjustable rate tied to the balance in an asset management account -- if Zuckerberg takes his money elsewhere, the mortgage also becomes profitable.