Although variable rates are riskier, they do tend to be lower
than fixed rates historically.
Not exact matches
Fixed income assets
historically have had a much lower
rate of return
than stocks (equities).
historically, given that prime
rate was x %, what was the probability that
fixed would fare better
than variable over the next finite time period?
And so this lengthening of maturities and lengthening of duration has caused these indices to be more interest
rate sensitive and some cases, more interest
rate sensitive
than they've
historically ever been, and so by being flexible and not using that as the basis for thinking about the risk of one's investments, what you can do is reduce the interest
rate sensitivity of your
fixed income portfolio.
Five - year adjustable
rate mortgages, or ARMs, have
historically carried lower baseline interest
rates than the common 30 - year
fixed -
rate mortgage.
Most Reverse Mortgage borrowers have chosen the adjustable
rate option for the simple fact that the
fixed rates have
historically been quite a bit higher
than the adjustable
rates, the borrowers qualified for less money with
fixed rates and since the borrowers have to take a full draw on the
fixed rate loans, it just did not make sense for many senior borrowers.
Historically, variable annuities have offered better returns
than fixed rate annuities.
Since today's interest
rates are
historically low, it seems likely that in the next 15 - 30 years a CD will earn more in interest
than a
fixed mortgage costs today.
Whole life insurance has also consistently performed at a higher
rate of return
than highly
rated bonds, but it
historically has been an extremely secure investment just like a highly
rated fixed income product.