Why the 'lock-in' phenomenon is gripping American homeowners
More than half of U.S. homeowners said they would be uncomfortable selling their home this year no matter what the mortgage rate is, an increase of 12 percentage points from last year's survey, according to Bankrate.
Homeowners with low, fixed-rate mortgages may be reluctant to sell their homes because they would have to give up their low interest rates. This is known as the "lock-in" phenomenon, according to the report.
'Mortgage rates haven't been below 6% in nearly three years, so buyers and sellers alike have reluctantly adjusted to high rates," said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst for Bankrate.
Current homeowners aren't looking to buy. Why not?
Nearly 40% of homeowners say mortgage rates would need to drop below 6% for them to be comfortable buying a home this year, the survey found.
'While many would-be buyers are holding out for lower mortgage rates, what constitutes 'lower' has evolved. Many that were pining for a return to 3% or 4% rates would probably jump for joy if rates fell into the fives," McBride said in a statement.
'With so many homeowners having bought or refinanced at sub 5-percent rates prior to 2022, there isn't much of an appetite or incentive to refinance at today's comparatively high rates,' McBride added.
The bank of mom and dad: Parents are helping their adult children become homeowners
What is the current mortgage rate?
In the week ending July 17, 30-year fixed-rate mortgages averaged 6.75%, Freddie Mac announced. That's close to the fixed-mortgage rate from a year prior. Those figures don't include fees or points, and rates in some parts of the country may be higher or lower than the national average.
CONTRIBUTING Rachel Barber, Andrea Riquier, USA TODAY
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Boston Jury Hits Johnson & Johnson with Record $42M Verdict in Asbestos Baby Powder Case
Dean Omar Branham Shirley attorneys secure verdict by linking mesothelioma to asbestos in J&J talc products BOSTON, July 29, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A Boston jury has sided with Paul and Kathryn Lovell in a lawsuit against cosmetic behemoth Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) that asserted Mr. Lovell's mesothelioma was directly caused by the company's iconic, asbestos-laced baby powder. The jury awarded $42,609,300, making it what lawyers believe to be the largest mesothelioma verdict in Massachusetts history. During the two-week trial, jurors heard compelling arguments from Dean Omar Branham Shirley attorneys Aaron Chapman and Danny Kraft, who detailed how Johnson & Johnson and its affiliated entities knowingly concealed for decades the health risks associated with their talc products. The attorneys presented internal documents showing the company's awareness of asbestos contamination, its failure to adopt safer alternatives and systematic manipulation of scientific testing methods. The jury agreed that the company not only failed to warn consumers, but also actively misled the public and regulators by suppressing test results and spreading false assurances about product safety. "This verdict is not just about Paul Lovell. It's about every consumer who was told these products were safe," said Mr. Chapman. "For years, Johnson & Johnson ignored its own internal warnings and scientific evidence about the presence of asbestos in its talc. The jury has sent a strong message: Corporate misconduct will not be tolerated." Mr. Lovell, 69, and his wife have been married for 45 years. A father of four, he used Johnson's Baby Powder on himself and his children, trusting it was safe. They have lived in the same home in Melrose, Massachusetts, for decades. "Paul never worked in a factory, never used joint compound, and never had any occupational exposure to asbestos. Instead, like untold millions of Americans, he was a lifelong user of J&J's Baby Powder," said Mr. Kraft. "He trusted the product on himself and on his children." The jury found the company's actions amounted to negligence and breach of warranty. The Lovell family was also represented by Leslie-Anne Taylor of Thornton Law Firm LLP. The case is Paul Lovell and Kathryn Lovell v. Johnson & Johnson, Civil Action No. 21-2086, filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts. Dean Omar Branham Shirley, LLP, is a nationally recognized trial firm that handles cases across the country for individuals who have suffered catastrophic injuries or have died as a result of irresponsible conduct of others. For more information, please visit View source version on Contacts Media Contact:BeLynn Hollers800-559-4534belynn@
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Breaking down the slight July rise in consumer confidence
New numbers show Americans have a slightly more positive outlook on the economy. The Consumer Confidence Index rose two points in July compared to June. CBS News MoneyWatch correspondent Kelly O'Grady has the details. Solve the daily Crossword
USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
How Social Security privatization could change the role of IRAs in your portfolio
Social Security privatization refers to a proposal that shifts the current government-run system to one where a portion of the money you normally pay in Social Security taxes would be diverted to a personal investment account that you would be responsible for managing. The goal is to allow Americans to maximize Social Security dollars. Although the idea has been around for decades, it's taken on new heat as some worry DOGE cuts to the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the first steps in forcing privatization. There's no denying that saving for retirement as we know it would change if Social Security were ever privatized. Also impacted would be the value we put on other methods of savings, like individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Here's how some of those changes might present themselves. IRAs could become even more important There's nothing like the knowledge that your Social Security benefits aren't going to be as much as expected to inspire you to find another way to build retirement savings. Chances are, IRAs will become even more critical as a primary vehicle for saving, helping you bridge the gap between income needs and resources. Some may make IRAs their primary retirement funding source, as IRAs tend to provide more investment options than 401(k)s and other employer-sponsored retirement plans. Contributions could be increased If lawmakers do ever decide the current Social Security system needs an overhaul, there's a good chance they'll at least discuss increasing IRA contribution limits as a way for individual investors to bolster their retirement funds. While they're at it, Congress could consider enhancing catch-up options for older workers. You'd have access to a more diverse investment strategy IRAs offer such a wide range of investment options, you may base your investment decisions on what works best in tandem with other investment types, like a 401(k) and annuities. It's easier to come up with a balanced portfolio when you spread assets across several investment types. For example, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan that's heavy on higher-growth assets like stocks or real estate, you may want to balance those with a bond-heavy IRA. The point is, no matter how your specific investment strategy works, IRAs give you one more tool to work with. You might become a bit of an IRA whiz Even if you've been investing for years, don't be surprised if taking greater control of investment decisions leads to a higher level of financial literacy and a deeper knowledge of how to make the most of an IRA. As you take on more responsibility for retirement savings, there's likely to be a heightened focus on financial education, investment options, and how to make the most of strategic withdrawals. In addition, it's possible your employer will get on board by providing you with easier access to financial advisors and resources – a move sure to add to your knowledge base. Long-term growth would take on greater importance For the casual investor (particularly a new investor), the focus is often on short-term gains. However, knowing that your Social Security benefits will be less than expected may be enough to turn your focus to long-term growth instead. In turn, depending on your age, you may find that you have a larger appetite for taking risks with IRA investments to make up for any shortfalls in Social Security. As mentioned, it's also possible that an IRA will be your "safe space" — a place to invest in lower-risk assets. No matter how you use it, it's likely that it will be with an eye on the future. You could decide to integrate annuities With the knowledge that you're making up for lost Social Security benefits, you could decide to integrate annuities into your IRA. Annuities can be a good way to create steady, predictable income that complements other retirement investments. In short, if Social Security privatization ever comes to pass, it's a good bet that IRAs will become an even more important part of the average investor's portfolio. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
