I am sorry but I completely disagree with the winners here, while I am not  trying to sound like sour grapes here, of course I gave it my best shot.  But each winner is fundamentally wrong in there mathematical analysis and their conclusions are based on improbable mathematical analysis.  This contest is not merely based upon which is better a fixed rate or adjustable rate is better.  This contest is what is best for the individual home buyer or refinancier and explaining why.  The posts above are good but lack any depth beyond the typical broker mentality.  They do not have as a foundation the performance as it relates to payment history or real life economic decisions that need to be made day in and day out. 

As a banker who sees these loans on a performance basis I can tell you that most if not all missed the mark.  ARMs when compared to servicing statistics might pan out well for others and not so good for most.  Some posts pointed out that it is the independent consumer who has the ultimate choice, none in fact ever concerned themselves with post closing performance., or the pros and cons to each

Maybe I am taking a banker vs broker mentality, I suppose that is because I see things that a broker will not see, Like long term loan viability, payment history, payment shock when rates go up and the addition of prepayment penelties.  Having been on both sides of the fence, I  currently have to wear two hats.  Balancing long term risk versus best interest of the customer/client.  I am not saying that any of the post are wrong or factually skewed.  What I am saying is that mathmatically speaking to compare a 2/28 or 3/27 sub prime adjustable rate to a FNMA or FHLMC Arm to each other in the same breath is not only incorrect but leads a consumer to make false assumptions.  While the sub prime market is virtually gone, most of the posts continue to quote those loan terms as if they are still in existence,  where as the FNMA and FHLMC are and have been viable instruments over the long term.  While I must admit and rightfully so that each post recommended that it is ultimately the consumers decision.  None of the post accurately pointed out the mathmatical break down of the two (fixed rate vs ARM), which is crutical to the topic.  In so much as I am disappointed in the outcomes not so much because I did not win but more because so much was left on the table.

We can argue the fundamentals of the banker vs broker thing all day long, the fact remains it is my risk to take and mine alone.  The broker after closing has no financial interest in the outcome, unless you have a buy back agreement (of course with DU and LP findings the buy back is less than 6 months). 

YOu are correct that the out come is subjective and I do not want to diminish the hard work by the judges * I certainly do not want to be one).  However based upon most of the posts and comments read the topic should have been more of what is better a fixed rate or sub prime adjustable rate mortgage, because most all the posts centered on the sub prime features of ARMs.  To the typical Banker sub prime does not exist except in whole sale, we actually believe sub prime to be an unwise lending practice, which further deepens the gap between banker vs broker.  However Wall STreet wanted it so they got it, case closed, we all suffer the same poison pill.

Most of the posts eliminated the mathmatical element from the topic which ultimately hurts the consumer, because how are they supposed to know.  Instead the focus is on the yield curve, or what type of loan officer you are dealing with and to a large extent the sub prime fiasco.  In my view the bringing up of the yeild curve is way to technical for a blog post to consumers(that is to whom we are writing too), the type of loan officer you are dealing with is a topic in and of itself and the sub prime fiasco was not the topic (but some how it became the underlying issue).  So my disappointment is not in the post themselves perse, but that a huge opportunity was lost.  Because I am a banker and see things from a totally different view does not dimish the value in risk versus rewards and explaining things in mathmatical and common language with out the fluff and with out the sales pitch, that is of course what I thought the purpose was of the contest.

That is simply how I view it.