float vs. lock

float seems more fun

I'd lock. If rates go down enough you can pay to re-lock at the lower rate (in my case Wells let me relock 25bps lower at effectively no cost).

Lock with a provision to float down at no cost if the rate drops more than 25 bps.

lock

Rates can't go much lower. Lock it in.

Things to keep in mind, which is FACT not opinion; Average life of a mortgage is 6.25 years.

Therefore, for all of you who have recommended that the OP get it locked, you have "PROBABLY" costed the OP an extra 0.50pts.

For the people who argue that rates will generally not get lower, well... I offer the argument that rates will EQUALLY unlikely go higher! Banks are not stupid!

Please don't misunderstand me, I DO believe locked rates are excellent for those who need a STRUCTURED financial gameplan with little ability to be flexible from a locked rate payment schedule. BUT, IMO, most people don't fall into this category.

Why is PROBABLY in caps and quotation marks? All of the other words you chose to emphasize in your well reasoned post are just in caps.

Cuz it's my way of recognizing exceptions to my opinion. (My disclaimer)

If the OP goes with a fixed, it is highly likely he will have overspent 0.50pts on his mortgage,, and he will highly likely have a mortgage which will last approx 6.25 years.