As must be obvious to anyone who has read a number of my posts, I am the last person to hold brief for lenders, banks and the banking system or the one percenters. I also share the belief that business, including capitalism, must wear a human face. However, the pricing of credit, including mortgage, is more complex than merely comparing a millionaire to a pennynaire.
Tavis and Cornel are not off point to draw attention to the seeming oddity in Mark's 1% mortgage rate, but the issue has to be explored beyond the surface. Barring any evidence to the contrary, the lender might rightly rate Mark Zuckerberg's $6 million mortgage a very low risk (of default). Pricing varies with assessed risk level. That is not to say that some lenders do not abuse rate allocation. In fact. some lenders have been known to steer borrowers of certain races to more expensive loans even when such borrowers match their peers from other races. Countrywide even created "Friends of Angelo" mortgage beneficiaries with ridiculously low rates. Those beneficiaries were largely politicians on the Hill and some of their staff.
Zuckerberg could have had other profit-generating relationships with the lender or affiliates; checking accounts with free daily balances and turnover, term deposits, other business accounts established by other parties as a multiplier effect of the lender's relationship with Facebook and/or Mark Zuckerberg. Student loans may not come anywhere close to competing with such preferred credit bookings as Mark Zuckerberg's. This should not be taken to mean that everything is alright with student loans, but that is a topic for another day. Mark Zuckerberg's 1% mortgage and students' 6% (or greater) loans are apples and oranges. Until there is a people-sponsored OMBUDSMAN that can stand solidly and directly for the people's interest and, where feasible, collaborate with serious consumer agencies, it may not be Uhuru.
hobama has failed