• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are you paying extra on your mortgage?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Budmantom
The only guaranteed "investment" is my 6% mortgage.


Tom
Your mortgage is not an investment. It is a liability. Please put it in the appropriate accounting column.

The writer has some good points. I see lots of people who have large amounts of equity in the home but tens of thousands in credit card debt, and yet still refuse to refinance. That is simply foolish.
And he is right that people should not pay so much extra on their mortgage that they have no rainy day fund. Even lenders know this: having capital asset reserves (at least 2-6 month's of mortgage payments in the bank) can greatly strengthen a weak loan application. Even your lender would advise you not to make "Pat's" mistake.

However, someday you want your mortgage paid off. Not too soon, preferably not before retirement, but not too long after either, when the tax deduction is going to become less of a benefit while the mortgage payments become more of a burden.

And I disagree strongly when he said that a mortgage is a loan against your income and not against your house. It is possible to obtain a mortgage without an income, one just needs good equity and a high credit score. And when you stop making your mortgage payments, they don't take your income from you, they take your house.

Consider the source here, folks. He has some good points, one I've heard a hundred times before from financial planners (the idea he espouses is generically known as "equity preservation"), but basically what he is selling is for old folks to cash out their home equity and dump it in the market. That's how he gets paid.

My mortgage is not the investment, the amount that I apply over my mortgage is.

Tom

 
Originally posted by: conjur
True, but paying down $100 of a 12% interest debt will save you more than paying down $100 of a 6% interest debt.

His arctical only makes sense if you have a higher interest debt or a gerunteed way to make more interest than you pay on your house.
I'll agree with your second statement. 😉

You should agree with his first statement as well.
 
I used to make extra mortgage payments to draw down the principle but it always bothered me that at tax time I couldn't claim the extra as a deduction.

Interest potentially saved by paying extra on the mortgage was less than the dough I was paying in CC and auto loan debt:

1. I quit paying extra on the mortage and got my credit cards paid off in one year (two years ago).
2. I quit paying extra on college loans (3.5% & 4% loans) and used that to pay off other higher debt and projects.
3. A 7% auto-loan is now receiving 'extra' to get it out of the way.
4. A diversified 401k is receiving some of that 'extra' as well.

My 30 year fixed Mtg is at 5.5%. I decided it was much more responsible at this point in life to eliminate the debt that incurred higher percentage of non-value added cost. Sure, I'd like to reduce my overall mortgage payment and long term debt. I also want to make sure that if I find myself without a job that I don't incur a heart attack when the bills still come in every month and i can't cash out my equity or get a home loan to cover it because I suddenly am not a viable credit candidate.



 
Of course it makes sense to eliminate debt with higher interest first. Nobody will doubt that or say anything against it. Simple fact is taht 80% of people don't know how to handle money and even if they where debt free today they would have another credit card balance in 6 month. On the flip side, if you make it a habit of paying an extra 50-100$ per month into the morgage you save yourself roughly 9-11 years on a 30 year morage, something you won't feel or it hurt you.

His ideas are sound, for someone that is 100% responsible with his money!
 
Originally posted by: RossMAN
It's just amazing how much you can save by paying an additional $50 - $100 per month.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/mortgage-calculator.asp

It's also amazing how much you can save by investing $100 per month.

If I paid an extra $100 a month on my mortgage, I'd save 37,000 in interest and have my mortgage paid off in 23 years instead of 30. But if I could make 8% by investing that 100 a month, at the end of the 23 years, I'd have 78,873 in that account. So if I wanted, I could pay off the balance of the mortgage after 23 years with that investment and still have 16k left.
I didn't consider taxes on the investment or deductibility of interest on the mortgage. The point is just that the author makes some good points and you can't just say he's completely off base.
 
Originally posted by: DT4K
Originally posted by: RossMAN
It's just amazing how much you can save by paying an additional $50 - $100 per month.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/mortgage-calculator.asp

It's also amazing how much you can save by investing $100 per month.

If I paid an extra $100 a month on my mortgage, I'd save 37,000 in interest and have my mortgage paid off in 23 years instead of 30. But if I could make 8% by investing that 100 a month, at the end of the 23 years, I'd have 78,873 in that account. So if I wanted, I could pay off the balance of the mortgage after 23 years with that investment and still have 16k left.
I didn't consider taxes on the investment or deductibility of interest on the mortgage. The point is just that the author makes some good points and you can't just say he's completely off base.

Paying that extra $100 towards your mortgage is a sure bet, but earning 8% isn't.


Tom

 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: rh71
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The author is also assuming that if you do this, you'll invest the extra $ or pay off high interest CC debit.

Most consumers do neither and wouldn't.
You missed his point about rising salaries while your interest remains the same.


The author assumes your salary will always rise, it's easy to get 8% on your investments and that your house is a great tax shelter.

My income increased much in the last 5 years, my investments have taken a beating(not real estate) and even when I owned 3 houses the tax benefit was not substantial (even if you include depreciation).


Tom

It's very easy to earn 8% on your investments over a 30 year period. Just put it in Ticker symbol: SPY.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

Not true, and that's the whole crux of this article.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

So you'd rather have no debt and live in an apartment until you're 60 years old rather than buy a house with a mortgage at 25?
 
Originally posted by: FlyLice
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

So you'd rather have no debt and live in an apartment until you're 60 years old rather than buy a house with a mortgage at 25?

I didn't say that at all, read all my posts, I said paying off the house is the way to go then invest what was the payment. Buying a house is a good idea, buying one with the intention of never paying it off is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by: FlyLice
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: rh71
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The author is also assuming that if you do this, you'll invest the extra $ or pay off high interest CC debit.

Most consumers do neither and wouldn't.
You missed his point about rising salaries while your interest remains the same.


The author assumes your salary will always rise, it's easy to get 8% on your investments and that your house is a great tax shelter.

My income increased much in the last 5 years, my investments have taken a beating(not real estate) and even when I owned 3 houses the tax benefit was not substantial (even if you include depreciation).


Tom

It's very easy to earn 8% on your investments over a 30 year period. Just put it in Ticker symbol: SPY.


It is easy but is it guaranteed?


Tom

 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: FlyLice
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: rh71
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The author is also assuming that if you do this, you'll invest the extra $ or pay off high interest CC debit.

Most consumers do neither and wouldn't.
You missed his point about rising salaries while your interest remains the same.


The author assumes your salary will always rise, it's easy to get 8% on your investments and that your house is a great tax shelter.

My income increased much in the last 5 years, my investments have taken a beating(not real estate) and even when I owned 3 houses the tax benefit was not substantial (even if you include depreciation).


Tom

It's very easy to earn 8% on your investments over a 30 year period. Just put it in Ticker symbol: SPY.


It is easy but is it guaranteed?


Tom

It's not guaranteed in real estate either
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: FlyLice
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: rh71
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The author is also assuming that if you do this, you'll invest the extra $ or pay off high interest CC debit.

Most consumers do neither and wouldn't.
You missed his point about rising salaries while your interest remains the same.


The author assumes your salary will always rise, it's easy to get 8% on your investments and that your house is a great tax shelter.

My income increased much in the last 5 years, my investments have taken a beating(not real estate) and even when I owned 3 houses the tax benefit was not substantial (even if you include depreciation).


Tom

It's very easy to earn 8% on your investments over a 30 year period. Just put it in Ticker symbol: SPY.


It is easy but is it guaranteed?


Tom

It's not guaranteed in real estate either


My savings is guaranteed.



Tom
 
"Investing" and "finances" is different from "accounting" - the two former have to do with value-over-time, whereas the latter is concerned only with reconciling all moneys goint to/from an entity.

So, looking at the numbers, it is possible for a mortgage to actually be an investment tool. Let's take a look at a somewhat typical middle class situation:
140k in Mortgage @ 6% (first year will pay ~8400 in interest. Since it's deductible and the family is in the 15% bracket, they save $1260 in taxes the first year, making the effective yield 5.1%)

So any investment that returns better than 5.1% is a better place for your money. It doesn't matter how great the loan, liability or asset is, all that matters is rate of return and the amount invested:
1) Most people have credit card balances. Our example family has $29k at an average rate of 13.5%. This is their best investment, as this is guaranteed returns. In fact, if they have variable APY, it could save them more than that.
2) Car Loans? Other than promotional financing, most auto loans will be greater than 5.1%. Another good "investment".
3) Roth IRA. If you expect to retire in the 25% tax bracket (remember, they eliminated the 18% bracket this year), then a 4.08% guaranteed return (CDs or whatever) in a Roth IRA will exceed your mortgage investment by .001%. Anything higher than that makes it a better investment. This is due to the tax-free growth of a Roth. 15% bracket would require a 4.43% return-rate.
4) 401(k) or Traditional IRA: tax deductions on your contributions effectively increase the return-rate. A traditional IRA would still need the 4.08% of a Roth (tax savings now v. tax savings later), but good employer matching effectively increases the return-rate of 401(k)s. With 50% matching plus pre-tax earnings, 401(k) growth is effectively 65% larger for 15% bracket, and 75% larger for 25% bracket. Even at 2.25%, the effective growth would be around 76.3% for the first year of growth. (To be taxed later, of course; plus it would continue to compound at 2.25%, so 15 years down the road it is down to 6.48% - but still better than 5.099% for the mortgage).

This is not to mention those willing to take higher risks on the stock market for potentially higher gain (over a long enough term, it will work out). I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of the American public cannot take advantage of at least some - if not all - of these simple investments instead of paying for a house.

It is brash of the author to say that this is unequivocally best for everyone, but it is a valid point that is probably best for most people if they have the willpower to implement it. And if they don't, then they probably won't have the willpower to pay down the mortgage, either.

And there will always be people who are better off not having a mortgage. Not everyone has a steady income from year-to-year...
 
Originally posted by: isasir
The author does make some good points. If you're putting extra money towards your mortgage, while carrying a balance on a 12% interest rate credit card, then you're wasting money.

It's funny though how the author automatically assumes that everyone who invests money gets an 8% or more rate of return on their investment. I guess he didn't know anyone from the last few years (or even longer than that) who lost thousands in the stock market.
If they held a market index for as long as a person holds a mortgage, they'd get 8% easy

Short-term trading =! investing
 
This has been cited in the Poor/Dad Rich Dad books. It works out well if you have the discipline to invest the money that you are not putting toward the extra payments, but I believe most ppl pi$$ it away by buying stuff, going on vacations, and buying more of a car than they need. The author actually mentions buying a car which I disagree with (it's a depreciating asset).

I think sounder advice would be don't put extra payments toward your mortgage unless you are debt free (I don't count 0% BTs in this unless I don't have money in the bank to cover it) since your other debt is bound to be at a higher rate and not tax deductible.

also to comment on conjur's statement, if you have a $2000 to pay off your 12% credit card or pay additional payments off your mortgage, you would pay off the credit card.
yearly credit card interset savings = 2000 * 12% = $240
mortgage interest savings that year if you put toward mortgage = 2000 * 6% = $120
Plus you get a tax deduction on the interest on the mortgage.
 
I pay a little extra, 25 to 100 bucks a month depending on where I'm at each month, however I'm in no hurry to pay my 101,000, 30 year mortgage off because,

A. It's at a low interest rate, 5.4%
B. I like the tax decuction
C. Any extra money I have that could go into paying down my house faster, I invest.
 
Originally posted by: Budmantom
dcwilbur posted this article in the finance forum @ FW:



Interesting read but to say that his thinking is flawed would be an understatement.


Tom

his thinking is not flawed.

Get a groupd of experienced CPAs in a room and there will be a holy war of whether to pay down a house or finance it for as long as possible. There is no stead fast answer and many CPAs agree with the approach of fincancing as much as you can for as long as you can.
 
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

Not true, and that's the whole crux of this article.

exactly. There are times when debt is good, and house is one of them.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

Not true, and that's the whole crux of this article.

exactly. There are times when debt is good, and house is one of them.

Debt on a house is not good, its merely acceptable....but NOT good. A paid for house is better then a mortgaged house.
 
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Jzero
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Never paying off a house is one of the worst ideas ever...debt sucks no matter what its on. No debt>debt everytime.

Not true, and that's the whole crux of this article.

exactly. There are times when debt is good, and house is one of them.



If I borrow a $1 from you and I have to pay you back $3, that's not a good thing.

This however is a necessary evil in getting ahead in the real estate market.


Tom

 
Back
Top