Ask the Readers: Is It Better to Invest or to Prepay a Mortgage? Print
Friday, 1st June 2007 (by J.D.)This article is about Ask the Readers, House and Home, Investing, Real-Life
Paul writes with a common question that illustrates how challenging personal finance can be, even when you’re doing the right things. Sometimes it’s difficult to choose between several good options. Here’s his dilemma:
I refinanced my house a few years ago at a great rate (5-3/8%). At the time, we had a lot of equity in the house so we borrowed against it in order to build an addition.
After we were finished, we had a significant amount of money left over, which is currently sitting in “callable” CDs. The CDs are collecting an average of 5.25% APY. I’ve been calling this our “emergency fund”. Doing the math, you’ll see that I’m losing 0.125% on this money (5.375% mortgage rate - 5.25% CD interest).
My financial planner recommended putting it back into the mortgage. I’m leaning more towards investing it (in index funds or something else).
- If I leave the money where it is, I’m losing money.
- If I plonk down this entire lump sum on my mortgage right now, it takes ten years off the loan, but it means I have no emergency fund.
- If I invest this money at an average return rate of just 9% for the 26.5 years left on my mortgage, I end up with almost 10x the amount of money I have now! (Plus the money is easier to liquidate in case I need it.)
This seems like an easy choice, but it’s not. There’s no guarantee of a 9% return, but I feel that these numbers are fairly conservative and support the idea of investing the money vs. putting it back into the mortgage, which is why I’m very surprised at the recommendation to do so by my financial advisor. What’s the best choice here?
This question has stumped smart people for years. Is it better to invest or to prepay a mortgage? Neither answer is wrong — there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But is one choice less wrong than the other? When I covered this subject a year ago, I shared advice from several personal finance books. Here’s what they said:
- Ric Edleman (Ordinary People, Extraordinary Wealth): Never own your home outright. Instead, get a big 30-year mortgage and never pay it off — regardless of your age and income. “Every time you send an extra $100 to your mortgage company, you deny yourself the opportunity to invest that $100 somewhere else.”
- Suze Orman (The Laws of Money): Invest in the known before the unknown. Paying off your mortgage offers a guaranteed return on investment. “You cannot live in a tax return. You cannot live in a stock certificate. You live in your home.”
- Elizabeth Warren (All Your Worth): Save 20% of your income. Use 10% for retirement savings, 5% to accelerate your mortgage, and 5% to save for future dreams. “Paying off your home also does something many financial planners neglect to mention: It gives you freedom. Once that mortgage is gone, just imagine all the freedom in your wallet.”
- Dave Ramsey (The Total Money Makeover): Prepay your mortgage if you can, but only after you’ve saved an emergency fund, and only if you’re putting at least 15% of your income toward retirement. Don’t use a program designed by a broker; use your own self-discipline.
Charles Givens (Wealth Without Risk): “On the first of the month when you write your regular mortgage check, [include extra] for the ‘principal only’ portion of the next month’s payment.” For example, if you have a $1000 payment with $200 designated for principal, pay an extra $200 (for a total of $1200). This effectively cuts the term of the loan in half. Note that Givens’ advice was written in the 1980s when interest rates were much higher.- Dominguez and Robin (Your Money or Your Life): “Pay off your mortgage as quickly as possible.” This book, too, was written when interest rates were higher. Also, the authors emphasize frugality over investing.
Financial authors don’t agree on this subject. Maybe the personal finance gurus writing for the web can clear things up?
- Liz Pulliam Weston at MSN Money: Don’t rush to pay off the mortgage. “You’ve got better things to do with your money, like saving for retirement, building an emergency cushion or even living it up a little.”
- Walter Updegrave at CNN Money: If you’ve funded your retirement, and if it will make you happy, then pay down the mortgage. Otherwise, it makes more sense to invest.
- Laura Rowley at Yahoo! Finance: Using very conservative figures, investing instead of prepaying the mortgage yields an extra $400 per year. If you feel compelled to pay down your mortgage, do it. But realize you’re paying a price to do so. (She offers more details at her blog, as well as tips on how to estimate the investment return you need to earn to make it worthwhile.)
- Bankrate: Pay down your mortgage if your investments would be conservative. Invest if you’re planning to do so for the long term.
- USA Today: It depends on your income, your monthly expenses, your risk tolerance, and your desire to own your home free and clear.
- Kiplinger’s: Invest unless you’re near retirement
- The Dollar Stretcher: Mathematically, it makes more sense to invest, but it all depends on your risk tolerance.
- My fellow pfbloggers, Blueprint for Financial Prosperity and Million Dollar Journey, recommend that a person do a little of both: pay down the mortgage some and invest some. Free Money Finance says: “If you have the discipline to save/invest the money you would be using to pay off the mortgage, it’s likely that saving/investing is the better option. But if you’re more the “average” person out there managing your money, I still believe it’s a better option to pre-pay your mortgage.”
The Rowley article offers some interesting background to this debate:
Why do so many people choose to put extra money into a mortgage when other options would likely increase their wealth? “This is really remnant of Depression mentality that has persisted from generation to generation,” says [one expert]. At the time, most mortgages had one- to five-year terms, with a lump sum payment due at the end.
“Any shock to income meant you couldn’t afford your payment — mortgages were much more susceptible to economic uncertainty,” [the expert says], and roughly one-quarter of Americans were unemployed during the Great Depression. “It’s fine to pay down your mortgage if it gives you peace of mind, but you should recognize what that peace of mind costs.”
If you’re facing a similar decision, you may find this calculator useful: prepaying your mortgage vs. investing.
Researching this entry was educational. I’d always been under the impression that it was better to prepay your mortgage. At best, I thought it was a wash. After reading advice from dozens of experts, however, it seems that unless your mortgage rate is high, it makes more sense mathematically to invest your money in an index fund. (Most experts agree that psychologically you should do what works for you.)
But doesn’t this imply that, if possible, it’s a good idea to convert home equity to stock investments? Kris and I have about $100,000 of equity in this house. Should we re-finance and put the money in an index fund? I can’t imagine doing that. What would the experts say?
Have you faced Paul’s dilemma before? Which did you choose? Which would you choose if you had the option? Why?
Note: For those of you wondering about the effect of taxes, I’m assuming that all evaluations made by these experts take them into consideration. I’m also assuming that they’ve considered inflation.

RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter

June 1st, 2007 at 5:39 am
Thanks for the referral J.D!
June 1st, 2007 at 5:52 am
I lean toward prepayment, but I see the point of investing the money. My fiance and I are just starting to get our finances in real order (i.e., opening IRAS, creating an emergency fund, etc.), but I think we’ll pay our mortgage off early because we are planning to build a house in two years that we will live in for the rest of our lives. For that reason, I think it makes sense to pay it off early, but maybe I’m wrong?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:57 am
Nice article! We have been in this dilemma for a while too. We know that based on just number crunching, it is a better idea to invest than prepay the mortgage. But when you add psychology to the equation, things aren’t so simple any more. We are both very debt-averse. The feeling of being completely debt-free is something that will mean a lot to us - I don’t know if we can put a price on that! Which makes it hard to quantify (or justify to other money savvy folks) why we choose to pre-pay our mortgage quite agressively!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:01 am
Thanks for the linklove! I think the little of both always helps to assuage fears that you’re going gung ho on the wrong option, even though there isn’t really a wrong option. Ultimately, flexibility is important and having those assets at a cost of 0.125% a year isn’t that big of a deal.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:16 am
Given current market conditions, I’m leaning towards prepaying one’s mortgages. If we were in the early 1990s, I’d be leaning towards investing.
As has been pointed out by many others, including criticisms on some of my posts, we cannot assume constant returns. So I look to the market to guage how much this assumption stands to be violated in the next 10 years. My most educated guess is that there’s either not going to be much growth or its going to be unevn, unsteady growth (perhaps even negative).
How much is the Present Day Value of the 10 years of interest saved worth? That’s important to know, because that’s the return on using the money on the mortgage.
I don’t think I’d get worried about the 1/8 difference. Maybe what you’re doing is working best for you now?
If I were in your shoes, I’d be prepaying, but I’m a very risk-averse individual.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:25 am
Great article today - and a good topic. What wasn’t covered in the scenario above (one either side) was taxes. If we assume 30% tax on investment returns, it means the actual return on 9% is 6.3%. Of course, there is also savings on the 5.75% of the same amount, making the actual cost 4.025%.
The real advantage is much closer to 2% than 3+% in the scenario given. I’m not sure 2% is worth the psychological advantage of owning my home free and clear. I can’t imagine the freedom that comes with not having a monthly payment - period.
I’d lean toward keeping 3-6 months expenses in an emergency fund and paying the rest on the mortgage. But, that’s just my psychology!
June 1st, 2007 at 6:26 am
Having been burned by investing over the last 10 years (my investment account is now worth 1/2 of what it was 8 years ago), we’re sticking our extra money in our mortgate (this doesn’t include what’s going into the 401k for retirement). Housing bubble or no, there’s not much chance of my house being worth 1/2 of what it is now. We just feel like we’ll have a lot more financial freedom with the house paid off in 15 years.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:42 am
Long time reader - First time poster.
I think the challenge of the questions is in the details of the math. There are pro’s and con’s for each approach.
Pro’s for “Pay down mortgage”: You live there, you know the return and you don’t have to decide where to put the money.
Con’s for “Pay down mortgage”: You usually can’t get the money back out if you NEED it. No return on the investment. Interest is usually deductible.
Pro’s for “Invest the Difference”: Liquidity in some investments, a cushion for bad times.
Con’s for “Investing” You have no idea what your return will be. You can’t live in a stock certificate.
On the posters comment “Doing the math, you’ll see that I’m losing 0.125% on this money (5.375% mortgage rate - 5.25% CD interest).” It could go either way when it comes to a gain. If your marginal tax is high enough he/she may be making a positive spread and may qualify for lower taxation on something like stock dividends.
IMHO the poster seems to be in a good position as long as they carry the necessary insurance to protect against a large loss.
(My dislaimer: None of this is advice, don’t do anything I have suggested, including breathing. Make your own decisions with the necessary research or advice of a professional. Past performance is no guarantee of future return.)
June 1st, 2007 at 6:43 am
I agree with many of the above posters that the psychological benefit of being completely debt-free is more enticing than the potential gains from investing.
I also believe that people often fail to add up all of the costs of creative financing on home loans. For instance, with a three or five year interest only mortgage, you win only if the house increases in value in a short time frame, which is no guarantee right now.
Additionally, you still have to pay the mortgage company to refinance in 3-5 years or sell and pay all of the costs associated with selling.
All that being said, a mortgage payment is probably the best tax shelter available, so as you concluded J.D., this question really is a toss up.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:44 am
First of all, there is a good reason why this is such an evenly divided topic, equity markets compete with debt markets for capital. If one market offers a significantly better risk adjusted return to investors, the other market suffers. So each market attempts to remain competitive with the other by pricing accordingly, whether it is stock prices or the interest rate on a new mortgage. This means, indirectly, that interest rates are such that the decision by a borrower to prepay should not be a no brainer across the board.
Sometimes, only time can tell us if one choice is “less wrong” verses another. I don’t believe there is a universally correct answer to this problem. For some the numbers may work better one way, but it is usually not an astronomical difference. This is one of those situations that I like to go with what feels good. Ask yourself which decision might you feel better about when you wake up the next morning, which one are you more comfortable with. If it ends up costing you a little bit of money if you make the wrong financial decision, but you may still benefit psychologically, there is value in being comfortable too. We all know that we can save a lot of money over the years by not running the air conditioner in the summer, but we trade that savings to feel better. The mortgage question is not that different.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:50 am
I currently have a similar situation with my school loans. I paid for college all by my lonesome and am now realizing what that means. Currently about 30% of my take home is going to the minimum payments. In my case, I am going to invest and save extra money each month because I have the goal of buying a house in mind. If there was no house in my near future, I would probably do 50-50 or so.
When I do get a house though, I will most likely be trying to get the school loans out of my hair first.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:57 am
Maybe I’m missing something, but since mortgage interest is deductible from federal income taxes, isn’t the effective rate on the mortgage more like 4%, thus making even the CD a profitable investment?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:07 am
One option here, especially if your current mortgage payments are not a financial burden to you, might be to invest the extra cash by purchasing a rental home. Making sure that you can rent out the investment property for more than the mortgage plus the other carrying costs would mean you would be gaining equity in two homes while only paying for one. If an emergency were to happen BEFORE you had a chance to build up your own emergency fund, you could borrow against the rental home equity up to the amount the rent covered and you wouldn’t be paying anything extra from your own pocket to repay the loan. Of course, this is all stated with the understanding that finding a renter wouldn’t pose a problem in your area and that you have enough “leftover” money to purchase the rental property without having to add your own cash to make the purchase.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:10 am
I think it’s better to pay down the principal on the mortgage. I don’t know if I’m nit picking, but pre-payment is not a good idea, but applying directly to the principal is.
You can’t just do the math to get the answer. You’ll be much better off paying down your debt and working your butt off to save up an emergency fund. It’s hard to put a price on the risk you’re exposing yourself to by having the debt over your head as well as the value of learning what it takes to buckle down and really save some of your income.
Learning how to budget your finances and become someone who can really save a portion of your income will pay off more than anything in the long run. Playing the numbers game will not.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:11 am
I have been on the three sides to this fence, paying a mortgage, paying more than the mortgage, and owning outright. I must say it can be rather painful to pay more than the mortgage since it takes all your money to do so (for the average person like me). Owning outright feels great since you know you are in a strong position, however, it also puts a strain on your life since all your money is tied up and not accessible (get used to driving older cars if you choose this path). The best part about owning outright versus paying the mortgage is now you no longer have the bank telling you what you can and cannot do, think of this as a lesser landlord/renter type of thing and you will understand how nice it can be when they are out of your life.
One more piece that is never considered but very related is how many people are ‘renting’ their job instead of owning their income. In other words, how many of us are slaves to the 9-5 when we could be making our own futures with our own businesses?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:18 am
Aaron is correct, and I’m surprised no one else has mentioned this yet. Once you take into account the mortgage interest deduction, its almost crazy NOT to invest somewhere else!
Not sure why the author mentions 9%, even the much written about 7% is lauded as a conservative rate of return in the market.
Get your money out of your house, actual rich people do it - any reason why you aren’t?
Rob
June 1st, 2007 at 7:24 am
I desperately want to pay off my mortgage to be rid of the payment and have less demands on my income. That said, my plan is to optimize my mortgage payment, interest payment and saving/investing funds. That is, I want the lowest mortgage possible so I can invest as much as possible while not overpaying interest during the time I’m expecting to be paying the mortgage interest. But I have a very healthy income which makes this feasible in just seven years. I think going much longer makes the decision harder.
The calculators I’ve seen seem to not offer the ability to calculate return you can achieve from your income once the mortgage isn’t consuming it. That is, I’ll have an extra $1000, $1500, $2000, … a month to invest after I’m free. And all that money is free of the ~%6 mortgage differential.
The first step is to determine exactly how much you can afford to save and invest. Next, calculate how long it’ll take you, at a reasonable return, to save the amount you need to pay off the mortgage, minus some savings and don’t forget the mortgage principle is dropping each month.
I’ve calculated that I can pay my mortgage off in seven years with a 9% return (I’m doing far better than this for now). After I’ve paid it off, I’ll be investing 100% of what was my mortgage payment plus what I was saving/investing for paying off the house. Continuing 9% return and it’ll take me 9 more years (16 total) to reach what would have taken me 18 years while retaining a mortgage. But my growth is accelerating far faster now without the mortgage. And in 20 years, a little before typical retirement age, I’ll have my retirement in the bag. It would have taken me 23 years if I retained a mortgage and after 23 years, still wouldn’t own my home.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:28 am
I don’t consider a loan to be a source of emergency funds. This is no different from using a credit card in case of emergency–it’s just a slightly better interest rate. If you take out a loan, repay it. Be glad you didn’t need the whole loan to do what you wanted. Build up your emergency fund with the money you were using to pay back the loan before you knew you had funds remaining. THEN you are in a position to start investing. You can only start to accumulate actual wealth when you have paid back what you owe.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:29 am
I work for a high tech company. When sales go down, they lay off 5-10% of the workforce. They tend to lay off people who have been there the longest. While I would like to think my performance makes me imune to getting laid off, they have laid off some of the best engineers and scientists I have worked with - it could be my turn next.
Some of my friends have found jobs quickly, some have taken 6 months to a year to find another job. If I do get laid off, I don’t want to have to grab at the first job that comes along so that I can make my fixed monthly payments. Yes, I have an emergency fund, but the monthly $1,500 mortgage payment will very quickly decimate that.
Given this uncertaintly, I want to drop my fixed monthly costs as much as I can. The only debt that I have is my mortgage. The best way that I can see to get financial security is to pay off the mortgage. Once that I paid off, I think that I can pay the rest of my monthly expenses (food, taxes, child support) with temporary or part time jobs.
If you have a job that you know is secure until retirement (teacher, police, etc) then sure, take more risks. If you have the typical job these days, where there is no job security, and finding a job with the same salary takes a while, then I would definitely try to get your mortgage paid off as soon as possible. In fact, I bought a cheaper house than most of my friends, so that I could pay it off. Once I get it paid off, I can save for a better house if I want, but I won’t risk losing the house if I get laid off.
In the millionaire next door, they talk about how long could you survive if you didn’t get any more income from your job. All of the people with the long survial times, and those with lots of capital, have thier house paid off, and paid it off as soon as they could.
I feel strongly that you should pay off your house as soon as you can.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:34 am
Whatever Paul does, he needs an emergency fund, and the stock market is not the place for it.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:34 am
This is strictly an economic psychology question. It boils down to, ‘how risk averse are you?’
If you value security and guaranteed return, prepay your mortgage.
If you value risk and the consequently higher return and volatility, pay your mortgage and invest the difference.
That’s why there’s no ‘right’ answer for everyone. Everyone has a different aversion to risk.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:39 am
That’s why there’s no ‘right’ answer for everyone. Everyone has a different aversion to risk.
What’s curious to me, though, is how my risk aversion changes based on the situation. For example, I still lean toward paying down the mortgage, despite the math. I’m willing to wager that Kris does, too. (She’s out of town, so I can’t ask her.) Why? Because the mortgage is a sure thing.
Yet given the choice between bonds and stocks, I’d choose stocks nearly every time. Why is that? It’s because the house is a physical asset, something I own. I want to own it free and clear.
I’m not saying this is logical — it’s just how my mind works.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:43 am
I would suggest that if your house payment is $1000/month, and you have the opportunity to not pay out $1000/mo anymore, why would you not jump on that and then invest. If you don’t have a mortgage to pay anymore, then you’ve got $12,000/year at least to invest without worrying as much if you lose it. What I mean is that if you own your house free and clear, you can have a higher risk tolerance. If you are set up for retirement then that $1000/mo is now money that you can do what you want with. If you invest while you still have a mortgage and you think of it as an emergency cushion, you would be crushed if you lost all that invested money. Yeah, it would still if your house was paid off, but you wouldn’t have to worry about foreclosure or bankruptcy. That’s my two cents.
Disclaimer: I don’t own a home, but I have a car payment. I am a public school educator and I am working on my Masters. I need to save $376/mo to pay cash for tuition, instead of taking out a loan. With my $300 car payment, I can only save $176. IF my car was already paid off, I would be able to save enough each month for tuition. Those are small figures, but the principal, I think, is the same. I need to pay my car off ASAP so I can stop taking out more loans for school.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:51 am
There is no right answer to this.
But seriously, here is the correct answer - run the numbers. If you can, in the stock market, beat ON AVERAGE the return you’d get by prepaying on your mortgage, you should invest.
I strenuously object to Suze Ormon saying “Invest in the known.” This is so completely shortsighted. Your house is not a known - it’s just a place to sit and eat, and sleep. It is not a retirement vehicle!
The fact is that, without even considering the mortgage interest deduction, you can beat the return you get by prepaying on your mortgage. Today’s rates are low - the stock market has an annual return that beats the return you get by prepaying on your mortgage.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:53 am
This is a question that we are also talking about and researching. Do we want to pay down our mortgage or do we want to invest that money.
Looking at the original question, I would vote to pay down the mortgage as it sounds like the money Mr. Poster is talking about is money that they already pulled out of the house via equity. I don’t think its a good idea to borrow against one’s primary home to invest. If its the more ordinary question of having extra money (not from a HELO) than I think the answer is different.
My husband and I are considering paying down the mortgage for the following reasons: (1) we are following the Dave Ramsy total money makeover plan and paying off the mortgage is one of his steps, (2) our primary home consists of a main home and a carriage house (2 structures) which living in South Florida requires 4 insurance policies (2 windstorm and 2 hazard policies) if we paid off our mortgage we would drop the insurance covering the carriage house thereby radically reducing our insurance costs.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:01 am
I think a big advantage to owning your house outright is that if you do get laid off or have other unexpected hardships, you don’t risk foreclosure if you can’t find a new job for a long time. So part of the decision should be a realistic look at your own job security and your ability to handle a long-term financial hardship.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Maybe it would help to just rephrase this question a few different ways —
“Is it better to be in debt or to be debt-free?”
“Is it better for your life to truly be your own or is it better to be harnessed to an enormous fixed expense each month?”
“Is it better to move forward or backward?”
“Is it better to have payments or no payments?”
“Is it better to pay attention to the one in a hundred financial experts who tell you not to make accelerated mortgage payments, or is it better to pay attention to the 99 out of 100 who tell you to do this and live debt-free?”
June 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
This is a fascinating post for me, because I’m constantly discussing this particular point with others.
First, let me start by saying that each of my divorced parents (raised by their own Depression-era parents) scrimped and saved and worked and paid off their mortgages early.
Now they both own fairly valuable homes outright…and they have small investment portfolios, as this was the opportunity cost of paying down the mortgage early.
This concerns me because hundreds of thousands of dollars in the walls of their homes won’t generate them any income and, as a result, won’t support them in retirement or help them to afford high future medical bills (if they still want a place to live, that is). There’s simply no way to “get the money out,” as it were, except to take out a loan. The thing about loans, though, is that a loan isn’t a loan against your home–it’s a loan against your INCOME. Try going to your banker after losing your $100K/year job and saying, “I’d like a loan, but I don’t really have an income stream to pay it back…”
Economics teaches us that inflation is the debtor’s friend. If I borrow $1000 today, ten years from now, I’ll be repaying that $1000 with inflation-adjusted wages. Of course, it can be argued that lenders build this in when they offer a loan (i.e. interest rates), but I’d much rather still owe money I borrowed 10 or 20 years ago and have a healthy portfolio that has been compounding for all those years.
I was glad to see that Ric Edelman was mentioned. He wrote something that I’ve always remembered…a mortgage is the cheapest money you’ll ever buy. Not only are the interest rates generally low (and were ridiculously low several years ago), but the interest is tax-deductible. He points out that if one can earn 10% in the market, he’d gladly give 8% from his left pocket to earn 10% in his right.
I don’t currently have a mortgage, but I do have outstanding student loans, with a fixed interest rate less than 3%. I know many recent grads, like myself, who slave to pay these loans off so they can be “debt-free,” meanwhile missing out on the incredible opportunity to be investing that extra money and letting earnings compound. I plan take the full 30 years to pay back my student loans for the same reason why I won’t prepay my mortgage. At 3% interest, the money I borrowed is a steal. And 20 years from now, I doubt I’ll bat an eye at the monthly payment thanks to inflation, salary increases, promotions, and the fact that I have enough money in my portfolio to pay off those loans at any time.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:36 am
All things being equal, I like the idea of using the money to purchase a rental unit. We currently have four units and have seen a marked change in the rental market as the bubble bursting effects of foreclosures are creating more renters who are willing to pay higher rents that are still less than their previous mortgages. But, and this is a big but, don’t ignore the part about putting extra cash into the purchase. The renter should pay your mortgage, taxes, insurance, and then some. If it doesn’t work out that way, then its just like any other long term investment - a risk.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Here are some thoughts from a Canadian perspective.
Up here, we aren’t able to deduct mortgage interest, so we have a bit of a disadvantage compared to our southern neighbors. We are, however, able to deduct interest paid on money borrowed to “invest.”
For any Canadian interested, I suggest taking a look at the Smith Manoeuvre. The basic principal is that you transfer your non-deductible interest (mortgage) to deductible interest (investments). This is done by having a dedicated line of credit, where you take out an amount from the credit line to invest in an amount equal to the principal you have paid down on your mortgage. At the end of each year, as you build up your investment portfolio, you will have paid more and more interest on the credit line, which gives you a tax refund (in theory - depending on your other tax situation). Take that tax refund and apply it to your mortgage. You eventually get the snowball effect - each year you will be able to put a larger and larger payment onto the principal of the mortgage.
Eventually, you will have taken the total principal amount of your mortgage and converted it equally to a balance in a line of credit, with the balance having been invested, and the added benefit of now owning your home much sooner.
At the end, one could then either start paying down the balance on the credit line, or could leave the balance intact so that the tax refunds continue to be generated.
For those of us who are self employed and don’t have the benefit of a company pension plan, it can be a way that we are able to invest more earlier on, while reducing our mortgage more quickly.
The hardest part that I’ve found so far is finding a bank that understands the concept and is willing to help out. It works best if you have a credit line that adds the monthly interest payments to its balance, instead of coming out of your chequing account. My banker suggested that we leave it as is, and then after the monthly interest payment comes out, take that amount back out of the credit line.
It’s a fairly simple concept, but can be a bit complicated to implement. One should definitely have a good financial planner and accountant to help with this - payments made to both are also tax deductible, of course
I haven’t yet started this myself, but will be soon. Our financial planner suggested that instead of waiting 5 - 7 years to find a larger house to start a family that we see if we could do it sooner. So we’ve just moved into a new, larger house. Now that we’re in here, we can start transferring our debt to the good kind - deductible.
For more reading on this concept, check out http://www.smithman.net - I’m not affiliated with them at all, just think that it’s a great idea for Canadians.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
I actually think that its a better idea to invest the money. Assuming that there is already a real emergency fund. When I say better, I mean better for me of course. Eventually you’re going to pay the mortgage off anyway. Are you really going to invest the extra money you save in the payment?
This is different to borrowing extra cash against the equity in the house because there is other risk involved, specifically the risk that you will not be able to afford the higher mortgage repayments should you lose your job etc.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:06 am
Great post!
I have been wrestling with this one for a long time, too…
I have chosen to split the difference and use my extra cash to partly fund the portfolio and partly fund paying off the mortgage early. I hope both turn out equally well. I like the 50-50 split so at least I am covered one way if either one falls through… I hope.
MGB
June 1st, 2007 at 9:17 am
I’d also like to mention that Liz Pulliam Weston is indeed paying off her own mortgage early. She’s just gotten a few other things out of the way first, like an emergency fund and fully funded retirement accounts. But in her article “So You Want to be a Millionaire,” here is what she says about herself and her husband:
“We chose an old-fashioned, 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage because the low payments allowed us to invest more for retirement while still allowing us to gradually pay off our debt.”
June 1st, 2007 at 9:32 am
What JD said is totally right on for me as well. I’m new in my mortgage, young, no family. I am in the probably the best possible situation to take that money and invest it, but I wouldn’t. Not because I’m risk averse. My retirement savings is almost 95% stocks (for now).
It’s because it’s debt. I hate debt, even good debt. I hate my mortage, I hate my student loans, and I really hate my credit cards. I am just guessing, but I would need at least 15% additional return. Not 15% return on my investment, but 15% additional return to the difference between market return and the dollar value of the saved 10 years of interest. That would mean I would need a garunteed investment return of 17-19%. Not likely to happen with any kind of consistency.
Like I said, it’s different because of what we are talking about. With my retirement savings I’m willing to gamble, but not gamble with using debt. Its 100% psychological, makes no sense. Its all because it’s someone else’s money I’m playing with. Which is why I will probably never take advantage of 0% interest credit cards. Even the 5-6% of savings accounts are way too low of a return for me to take more debt.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:53 am
I’d always rather gamble with someone else’s money than my own!
June 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Aaron and Rob bring up deduction of mortgage interest–Rob writes
I’m surprised no one else has mentioned this yet. Once you take into account the mortgage interest deduction, its almost crazy NOT to invest somewhere else
IMO the mortgage interest deduction is way overblown. If you run the numbers it only makes a big difference if you’re a single homeowner, or if you’ve got an enormous mortgage in the early years of amortization.
Remember that you only come out ahead if your itemized deductions are over the standard (last year, ca. $5k for single filers and $10K for married). So for married folks, $10K in mortgage interest has to leave your pocket for good before you start to see any (incremental) decrease in your taxes.
Single people have a lower threshhold. More power to you if you can afford to buy a house on your own in this day and age.
If your mortgage isn’t that big, the MI deduction is miniscule or none. If you’re more than a few years into the amortization curve, the MI deduction starts to rapidly diminish (unless you’ve got a massive, massive loan).
Not worth it.
FWIW, I’d rather pay down my mortgage. The projections on how investments are all “on paper”. Who knows how they’d actually turn out. The bill for my house comes every month, like clockwork, no hypotheticals about it.
One last thought, maybe one I’ve shared before. A friend of mine once quipped, “Buying a house is the American Dream. Paying off the mortgage is the American Fantasy.” Too true!
June 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Wow. Great post. It’s interesting to see in one summary view many of the different opinions on the matter. I was struck by Suze Orman’s comments. You can’t live in your investments. I also thought she was spot on that paying down your mortgage gives you a guaranteed return on investment whereas investing is highly subject to the investment vehicle you choose.
I’m actually planning on conducting a very large experiment relating to paying off your mortgage in the near future. I’ll be posting about it next week. I’d love to get your feedback when I do.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:50 am
I’m a young person and I have a long way to retirement. I’m fairly disciplined and believe that investing would be wiser. Clearly you net more money over the long run.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
In our house, the discretionary savings gets allocated in this order:
1) 100% to emergency fund (until at least 3 months expenses)
2) 100% to pay off high-interest debt
3) 401K to point of company match
4) monthly contribution to a “big ticket fund”, which is savings for occasional large expenses, like semi-annual insurance, vacations, etc.
5) Roth IRA to contribution limit
6) 401K to contribution limit
7) remainder: 50% mortgage prepay and 50% taxable index fund
June 1st, 2007 at 10:57 am
Dude! Do not refinance your house to invest the equity. Refinancing your house is not free, and the fees to refinance and the transaction costs associated with investing significantly cut into your returns. I would be surprised if you came out ahead in this scenario. Make sure you run the numbers carefully.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
I don’t know if this was covered, but the article fails to note the effect of having your full mortgage payment to invest after your home is paid off. Sure, you may make a few bucks extra over what you “save” in mortgage interest, but having your full mortgage payment to dump into retirement is likely to very positively impact your retirement savings.
Some did note that investments are definitely not guaranteed. Paying off the mortgage is a sure thing - you will save interest. Investments have usually made money, but we could easily end up with many down years in response to the main up years until we return to the historical mean.
That said, the note on buying investment property and using a mortgage to fight inflation is not a bad idea.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north532.html
Note the section Debtors and Creditors. He makes the argument that it would be better to buy investment real estate than to pay off your own home mortgage. I am not sure I completely agree, but it is an interesting argument.
Brad
June 1st, 2007 at 11:20 am
I meant to say 50% mortgage “payment to principal”, not 50% mortgage “prepay”.
@20 Anne:
I couldn’t agree more. Paul needs a liquid emergency fund, and that is neither mortgage prepayment or equities.
@35 ThinkingMan:
It’s only a benefit to gamble with someone else’s money if you’re willing to abandon the debt when the investment goes sour.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am
One extra consideration is that mortgage rates fluctuate over time. If your rate is locked for the full term at a low rate, then it may make more sense to invest. However, here in Canada most mortgages have a 25 or 30 year amortization but a 5 year term. If you have a low interest rate now, odds are it will be higher when you have to renew your mortgage as the rate reverts to the mean.
Over the course of the whole 25 years, I would expect your mean interest rate to be fairly close to the historical mean, which is higher than most people are paying now. Therefor, it makes sense to use the mean interest rate in any calculations you do on prepayment vs investing. Right now it may make sense to invest because mortgage debt is cheap. However, it makes less sense if you run the numbers assuming a 1-2% higher mortgage rate over the full course of the mortgage.
Therefor, my personal choice would be to pay the mortgage down as fast as possible when interest rates are low, with the expectation that they won’t stay low. When interest rates rise, I’ll have to make higher payments anyway, but this way I’m paying more on the principle.
Also, I think anyone who would not consider leveraged investing on its own shouldn’t be using a home equity loan to fund investing, because it’s the same basic principle except now your house is on the line. If you do invest with leverage, then funding it with a mortgage may be a good idea since you can generally get a better interest rate.
Finally, those of you talking about the joy of having your house completely paid off are living in a different world. Us working stiffs are talking about the difference between having it paid off in 15 years vs 25. Whatever decision you make has to make sense now, not just when the mortgage is paid off, because a lot can happen in 15 years. For example, I would opt for a low monthly payment with the option to make extra payments or lump-sum payments ever year, rather than just getting a 15 year mortgage. When I lose my job (and I consider it pretty much a certainty that I will be laid off at some point in the next 15 years) I want my monthly burn rate as low as possible.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
This is one of the most talked about subjects in personal finance. I like to focus on this statement:
“This seems like an easy choice, but it’s not. There’s no guarantee of a 9% return…”
I think it is an easy choice. Over the span of 26.5 years a return of better than 6% is very much guarenteed (if investing costs are kept down, and the investment is diversified, both things that the individual can control). The return is likely to be 8% or even 10%.
It’s also possible to deduct the interest on the mortgage from your taxes (for many people at least) and if you pay it off in advance, you lose that tax break.
In summary, the decision (as I see it) is basically between: Do I want 100% return of 4.5% (by paying off the mortgage and foregoing the tax benefits) or do I want 99.9999% return of 8-10%? I’ll take the later any day.
Put another way, if you don’t have confidence in the stock market return over the next 26 years, you should be putting your 401k and Roth IRAs in a 100% stable value fund. It’s the same thing, yet personal finance bloggers seem to think there’s a difference.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I like to keep it simple. Do I want to get rich quickly or do I want to get rich slowly.
If you want to get rich quickly, then pay off the mortgage fast, build up a cash reserve and be ready to spend that cash on investments such as stocks, business partnerships, joint ventures, capital investments or real estate.
If you want to get rich slowly, then capitalize on what ThinkingMan elluded too, compounding interest. Remember, it’s not just that you’re getting a better interest rate by investing [mutual funds for example], but you are earning interest on the interest. In the long run, this will far exceed the interest you pay on your mortgage.
So what it boils down to is what’s most important to you, get rich sooner or get rich later. Either way, you build wealth, it’s just a matter of when you want it.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I haven’t read all the replies carefully (there are a lot), so sorry if this is a repeat: RE DEDUCTIBILITY: ONLY the part over the standard deduction counts: you get the standard deduction in any case.
I paid off my house (8% loan, chose to pay off rather than refinance at lower rates) and I consider the money I’m not spending as my “bond income.”
My itemized deductions were only a few thousand over the standard deduction anyway.
That’s a point seldom mentioned.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pm
@44 Lazy Man: Thanks for putting this so articulately. You’re spot on.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Simply directly comparing return and interest rates is naive. It’s not that simple. Having debt is a risk and it must be factored into any investment decision.
If you have a paid for house, and you ask most people with common sense if they would borrow against it, just to invest, the answer is no. That should give you an indication that it’s not simply comparing numbers.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Putting an entire emergency fund in stocks (even index funds) is not a good idea. IDuring a bear market, people are more likely to face the number one emergancy the fund is for: unemployment. It sounds like it might be a pretty large emergency fund though, so it wouldn’t be a terrible idea to invest part of it in stable index funds.
You may not be able to live in paper investments, but a house doesn’t pay for retirement. Unless you sell it, but then you can’t live it in.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Over the span of 26.5 years
Who says that the last 26.5 years were a good indicator of the next 26.5 years, or any future period of that length? That pretty much ignores all significant downturns except for a blip in the late 1980s and the tech crash in 2000. Normal stock history is a little less “up” all the time.
Brad
June 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Oops, I forgot to turn that italics off.
Jason makes a good point that I had missed. How many of you would take a mortgage out on your house to invest? If you would, then paying it off early doesn’t make sense. If you wouldn’t, you should pay it off as quick as you can.
Brad
June 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Like Jason said, the reason investing has higher returns is that the risk is higher. Investing with leverage always magnifies risk and returns. Taking out a mortgage to buy a house is, in and of itself, a form of leveraged investing. A person could, if they wanted, rent and save until they had enough money to buy with cash. That would be the lowest-risk approach.
The question is, how much risk are you comfortable with? If you invest in stocks you will probably come out ahead in the end. But you could also lose everything, including your house.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
There is so much incorrect math in these comments… here are all of the factors you have to consider:
Mortgage:
-interest rate
-your tax rate (for after tax cost)
-if you qualify to itemize (and thus deduct) (will you have more than $10k worth of deductions if you are married?)
-other…
Investments:
-average rate of return you can earn, after tax and investment costs
-your tax rate
-tax rate on investments
-other…
Here’s how I see it, if you have a low interest rate (6.5% or less), do not prepay. Notice I did not immediately say invest. It depends on what you invest in. Stocks are not guaranteed. Tax-free bonds with a smaller return may do a bit better. I prefer liquidity. If you’ve got $50,000 “extra” equity in the house (versus $50,000 ’safe’ savings) it is much harder to pull it out. That equity isn’t going to pay off your mortgage like the liquid cash would.
I would much rather have $50,000 in cash in CDs or T-bills or Bonds than $50,000 equity. I’m not against paying off the house… but I think safe investments might even be a more safe choice than the ’sure thing’ of paying off the house.
Lots of random thoughts. Just my 2 cents.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Great post, and great discussion. I’ve been thinking about this a lot myself. Currently we round up our mortgage payment, so we’re paying an extra $90 a month to principal. Gotta go the kid (future 508 recipient) just got home.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I’d look at three factors that haven’t been mentioned, or have only been mentioned obliquely:
1.) How disciplined are you? That is, if you say to yourself that you’re going to put that extra $300 a month or so into an investment vehicle and keep it there, are you really going to do it? Because it’s a big pain in the tuchus to refinance it out of your house once it’s there. For some people, that’s a big deal. If you’re disciplined enough to do it, though, you will almost certainly make a lot more money with investments.
2.) Do you have any dreams of giving up your day job to pursue something non-remunerative (or speculatively remunerative)? If so, I’d definitely say pay down your house so you can get your fixed expenses as low as possible. Paying down would also give you a lot of collateral if you want to start a business. Those, to me, would probably be the two biggest compelling reasons to pay down.
3.) There’s probably no *wrong* answer here if you’ve planned well enough and been frugal enough to be in the position to be considering this dilemma. You can reasonably project a lot of your expenses into the future. Get good, portable long-term care and long-term disability insurance along with that emergency fund that you were presumably thinking about to be in the position to be making this choice in the first place. And then you can figure out what your expenses are and what they’re likely to be in the future. So long as you have enough, does it matter if you could’ve had more the other way?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I created a spreadsheet to perform a detailed analysis of the factors I think have to be considered. Feel free to have a look at the google doc or download the XLS to play with it yourself.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Forget about all the math for a second and consider all the CHOICES that suddenly open up to you once the house is paid off — you want to quit your cubicle job and try something else, maybe even something kinda crazy? Well, this is easier to do if there isn’t a house on the line. Let’s say all of a sudden your wife wants to be a stay-at-home mom. This could be doable now. Or how about this neat trick — with out a mortgage payment, you’ll have extra money each month, right? You could now buy another house and rent out the first one and use that rental money to help quickly pay off your 2nd house. Then you could use those 2 houses to quickly pay off the third … now you have a little real-estate empire that’s providing you w/ nice, steady streams of passive income.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
GG Says: “…a house doesn’t pay for retirement.”
First, I been given to understand that it’s important to minimize monthly living expenses during retirement (which is easier if you don’t have mortgage payments.) This allows you use less of your savings and extend the time they have to grow.
And also, I’ve heard that there are ways to live off your house…”reverse mortgages”, similar to a HELOC, using the house as collateral instead of income. Yes? This makes it possible to use the investment in your house as a source of income even as you live in it.
But meanwhile, I vote with the risk-averse people. Investment returns in the _long term_ may be good, but in the short term they are risky, and for most people (perhaps all), employment income is also not guaranteed. So, unless you already independently wealthy or have excellent life/disability/unemployment insurance, getting out of debt–including your mortgage–is a good risk management strategy.
If/when we finish helping the kids through college, we will probably “invest” in both the matched 401K and paying down the mortgage.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I personally prefer to invest my excess funds in judgments that I purchase at a discount. I’ve bought one recently that yields 24.99% at face value for less than the payoff. It’s a first lien on a property with 80k equity above my lien. These are out there and easy to find with a little research. It’s a far better return than prepaying my mortgages (I’m also a landlord) and it’s also equity but just not in my home. Some of these can be purchased at a massive discount in the range of 5% of face value.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Post#44 by Lazy Man - nails it for me. Could not have said it better myself.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
My current mortgage is around 5.75%. It’s actually lower than that when you consider that I get a tax break on much of that interest. So I can invest $1000 in my mortgage and get about 4.5% return on it, or I can put that $1000 in an index fund and get around 7 to 8% post tax on it. Plus the money in the fund is a lot more liquid and accessible. Seems like an obvious choice to me.
Gal
June 1st, 2007 at 2:49 pm
OK, I promise not to get overly into this discussion. I do think there is a bigger benefit to accelerating your mortgage payment even slightly so that it is paid off more quickly, so long as doing so doesn’t sacrifice other retirement savings.
However, I wanted to touch on reverse mortgages since somebody just mentioned them. These are the latest horrible scam. A reverse mortgage is exactly what it sounds like — you take a property you already own and re-mortgage it back to the bank, bit by bit. So you end up with cash in hand, but in return the bank now holds that part of your property again.
The problem with this is that when you want to sell the property (say, to enter a nursing home) or when you die, you or your estate will have to REPAY the bank whatever amount of the home you reverse mortgaged.
As far as I’m concerned, reverse mortgages are a part of the plan for those who have failed to produce a real plan (e.g., liquid cash) for their retirement.
DB
June 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
P.S. — JD, IMHO you are way better off leaving your $100K in equity alone and finding other money to invest.
DB
June 1st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
I meant to make this point in #44 above, but Paul summed up a very important point, “If I plonk down this entire lump sum on my mortgage right now, it takes ten years off the loan, but it means I have no emergency fund.”
If Paul pays off a chunk of that mortgage and loses his job the next day, he risks not being able to make the mortgage payments and losing his home. Sure he could get a HELOC (before he loses his job, after, he wouldn’t qualify), but he’d end up paying 8% a month on that sum instead of making 4-5% (by going the investing route).
However, if he invests this sum of money, he’ll still have access to it. Even if Paul loses his job and his diversified portfolio drops 50% (pretty rare, especially if he was diversified internationally), he can use the rest of the sum of money to continue to make payments on the home and put food in his mouth while he gets back on his feet and recovers.
In this case, it’s actually less risky to invest the money.
JD, if you could get that 100K out without paying interest on it to invest, then I think you should do it. Unfortunately, that’s nearly impossible to do. You’ll generally have to get a HELOC, in which case, you pay 8% to make 8%. However, if you are moving, you might be able to get access to that 100K by pocketing from the sale of your old home and only putting 20% down on the new home to avoid PMI.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
#57 by Dave is exactly why I will be paying off mine as fast as possible.
I don’t have the patience to wait around for 30 years on a stock or mutual fund nor the desire to keep my day job for that long.
I’d much rather be sipping a cold drink on a sunny beach somewhere and collecting passive income.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
[...] Is It Better to Invest or to Prepay a Mortgage? at Get Rich Slowly [...]
June 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pm
#57 Dave, and #65 Paul - If you can make 8-10% on the same money that you’d put in your home you’d be able to pay off your home much sooner. By making payments early you may be able to cut a 30 year mortage to 20 years, but by investing it (assuming the higher rate), you’ll realize that in year 15 you’ll have enough value to pay off your home if you wish.
It’s nice to not have a mortgage payment, but 30 years of 8-10% growth buys a lot of passive income as well. You could then put it in a bank earning just 4% or you could use it to buy that real estate empire.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I didn’t read through all the comments, but I got far enough down to recognize that something obvious was not being discussed, and too often it is forgotten….
If you pay off a mortgage, you now have whatever that monthly payment was in your pocket. If you pay off the mortgage and take the $1,200.00 a month (or whatever) and invest it (even half of it) - you’ve got the best of both worlds.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Lazy man — I’m talking about paying a house off in 10, 12, 13 years kind of thing, not 20. Read Dave Ramsey for how this can be done. My house will be paid off in less than 5 years from now, and I will have only had it for around 12 years. Also, I’m not really talking about getting rich here, only financially free. For example, my wife and I will probably move into a slightly nicer/bigger house once our current home is paid off, then we will rent out our current home. We will once again work like mad demons (also using the rent money from the first house) to pay off the second house in say 7 years. At that point, my wife and I would technically be financially free in the sense that if we were, God forbid, both outta work or whatever, we would have enough passive income in the form of rent money from our first house to at least equal basic spending requirements. It’s really not that hard to achieve *this level* of financial freedom. And, of course, all the while we will have kept up on our index fund investing.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I read most of the replies but not all. If I was in that position I would not pay it off. I am young, with no dependents and therefore I need to be more aggressive.
The interest rate that he has is really low. You’re borrowing the money at under 6%, which is less after deductions. I would just take that money and invest it monthly into an index fund or something more diversified.
After 10,20 years chances are your net worth is higher than if you just paid off the house. Just depends on situation.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hi,
Paul here, the original poster. I haven’t read through all the
responses to this question yet, but so far, I’m very impressed with
all the discussion.
To clear some questions up that I’ve seen so far:
- I did not pull out the money with the intention of investing it.
The money was pulled out in order to build an addition. There was
a significant amount of money left over, and it is this money which
I’m thinking about investing.
- The total amount time it takes of the 30 year mortgage is 10 years.
- The total amount of interest saved in today’s dollars is ~$3,000.00
My wife is currently no working, but has plans to return to work once
the kids are all in school. At that time, chances are, her entire
salary will go towards paying down the mortagage. At that time, given
a conservative salary for her, we’ll be able to pay down the mortgage
in 5-7 years. Which means, in my opinion, taking the 10 years off
now, and taking the $3000.00 savings in interest payments isn’t a big win.
Also, from the psychological aspect, taking $3,000 off of my overall
mortgage doesn’t do much for me. Investing this money in the long run
and being able to use it for buying a summer home in 10-15 years,
that’s a psychological boost
Thanks again, everyone, this has been (and continues to be) an
interesting discussion!
Paul
June 1st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Risk, risk, risk. You put your money in something risky enough to get the 9%, which is great in a LONG TERM investment, but you end up needing the money for an emergency, it isn’t there because it has lost principle in the SHORT TERM, and you don’t have any equity in your house to use, and you lose it. Just read the business bankruptcy in wikipedia and how well using the equity of real estate for his investments (in more real estate, but still, he supposedly knows what he’s doing in real estate…)
June 1st, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Actually, based on the information given, neither paying down the mortgage nor investing the money is a good idea. Before taking either of these step, you should prepare for the unexpected; this means having a cash reserve/emergency fund. Stocks are generally considered inappropriate for such a fund.
Also, to answer the question about doing a cash-out refinance and investing the money, while it might make sense mathematically (depending on your assumptions for return, interest rate, and taxes), it’s actually illegal, and any ethical stockbroker should tell you so. This kind of borrowing was one of the problems that lead to the Great Depression (or worsened it, depending on your reading of history). Also, because you can borrow against investments (margin), doing this could lead you to be more leveraged than margin laws allow.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 am
Even if the debt and the investment were both at 5.25% rate, and you start out with the same principal for both the debt and the investment. The investment beats the debt hands down. 100k at 5.25% returns in an investment gives you 381,417.51 in interest over thirty years. The interest on 100k debt at 5.25% for thirty years is only 98793.33. Even if you pay off your mortgage right this instance, the most amount you can save is 98793.33. Compare that to 381,417.51 that you could be earning. If you don’t believ it, use the rule of 72. An investment at 5.25% will double twice in thirty years. 100k will double to 200k and the 200k will double again to 400k. 100k is your principal. Interest earned is around 300k. But for a debt at 5%, it takes about thirty years for the total amount that you have paid to double. The investment only needs to be around 2.3% to surpass a debt at 5.25%. Crunch the numbers.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 am
Lazy Man has said it twice:
There’s nothing to stop you investing the money and then when it reaches the balance of the mortgage (or you need to reduce the payments drastically), paying the mortgage off at that point.
And also if you believe the stockmarket is a poor place to invest in over a long time period, why would you use it for your retirement accounts?
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 am
Hi,
Paul here again. Someone mentioned not having equity in my house and
this being an extremely risky proposition. My current mortgage
balance is less than half of what the house is worth. So, my equity
in the house, were I to sell it right now, even in the current market
would be > %50 of the selling price.
Also, as mentioned, the amount this money represents in interest not
paid is about $3000.00, and reduces the mortgage only by 10 years,
leaving still another 16 years on the mortgage. And also, as
mentioned in my previous post, my wife is planning on returning to
work within the next 5 years. From the point at which she returns to
work, using her salary to pay the mortgage (after all 401(k) and IRA
contributions), the time it will take to pay off the mortgage is less
than 7 years. So, she would have to not return to work for about
another 9 years for the time to pay off the mortgage to be equal to
the time when the mortgage is paid off if I pay it down now rather
than invest.
Thanks again for all the input, this is a very educational discussion!
Paul
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Ordinary people can create great wealth when they OWN their homes. By keeping your current mortgage and shortening the lenght of the time you have to pay on it, will eliminate paying interest and keep your hard earned money in your pocket. If you did not have a house payment you would use those funds for investment, also you can use the equity in your home for other investment purchases.See how this works at http://www.U1stfinancial.net/keyworth
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I did not pull out the money with the intention of investing it.
If you invest that money it will be just as if you did take that money out to invest. If your intention was not to take money out for any purpose than the addition, any extra money should go back on the principle.
The idea that money not put to prepay is the same as taking out money from a paid off house is quite valid. That is the root of the decision. Many here would seem to gladly take out the money invest it. It is possible they don’t realize this is what they are doing, but that is the root of it.
Brad
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I would invest surplus income, using [some of] the income to service an interest only loan to buy dividend paying stocks.
In Australia mortgage interest is not deductible, the dividends make the investment loan deductible.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
There are a lot of posts and I might have missed this point if it has already been brought up, when I skimmed though them…But I think the mortgage deduction is definetly over-rated.
When you pay $15k a year in mortgage interest, you do not get $15k off of your taxes, just $15k off of your AGI.
It is almost like me saying, “If you pay me $15k, I will give you a refund of $9k back”. Sound like a good deal?
That being said, I am more than happy to deduct my mortgage interest, but I would feel much better paying off my mortgage early than major investing before hand.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Post #69 talked about putting massive amounts of investment into just two non-liquid investments (houses) to gain financial freedom. Yes, this could be done. The most important part of the post was the last sentence however: “And, of course, all the while we will have kept up on our index fund investing.”
Not diversifying like this would make the housing-all-or-nothing strategy extremely risky (IMO), even when applied to the long term as in this case. (How many happy homeowners do you know with two houses in New Orleans?)
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Is it better to invest or pay off your mortgage early?…
There’s a huge discussion happening both on Lifehacker and Get Rich Slowly regarding the pros and cons of paying off a mortgage early. Contrary to my own assumptions, the numbers (assuming current interest rates around 6%) seem to strongly……
June 4th, 2007 at 5:14 am
[...] that he doesn’t have to worry about buying a home, he can invest his money rather than paying down a mortgage [Get Rich [...]
June 4th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Is it better to invest or pay off your mortgage early?…
There’s a huge discussion happening both on Lifehacker and Get Rich Sl……
June 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
[...] Is It Better to Invest or Prepaid a Mortgage? from Get Rich Slowly [...]
June 4th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Here’s my thought process on the matter:
The first math I did on this was to come up with a number I think of as the effective mortgage interest rate. I did that by looking up the 2006 tax rates, which tell me “25% of the amount over 30,650″
So if that interest rate is tax deductible and the poster earns, say, 60k a year and otherwise gets 5k in deductions that means changing his taxable income downwards from $55,000. So $1,000 in interest paid that year means not paying tax on the money from $54,000 to $55,000 which is taxed at 25%.
So I take 5.375 * ((100 - 25) / 100) and get a rate of 4.03125%
This is predicated on the poster earning a taxable income above 30,650. Below that point I’d get an effective rate of 5.375 * ((100 - 15) / 100) = 4.56875%
Personally I’m a big fan of mortgage pre-payment (assuming an emergency fund and retirement savings) since I like the idea of flexibility and options. However I think this is a slam dunk choice of keep the money invested.
Look at how many banks have simple savings account rates better than 4%! That’s FDIC insured no-chance-of-losing-a-dime return rates, something you can’t say with a home that’s subject to a variable housing market.
In the poster’s shoes I’d put 3 to 12 months of mortgage payments in the savings account and the rest in index funds. Or possibly even use it to offset income and max out my 401k to the $15,000 limit for the year.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Anyone that has mentioned that paying off your mortgage equals financial freedom is wrong, IMHO. A $5 million pile of retirement money is financial freedom. You give yourself the best chance possible to reach $5 million (or whatever a big pile of money is to you) by saving the maximum amount possible, starting at the earliest date possible.
You are not free once you own your house. Far from it!
June 4th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Q - Except that retirement money has a GUARANTEED early withdraw penalty if you’re in a 401k or IRA. Selling your house may have a cost but on a fully paid off home it’s almost certainly not the 10% penalty for a 401k.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Don - you should not make early withdrawals from your retirement accounts. And not only because there are penalties - one should let that money grow for as long as possible.
My point is that owning your home doesn’t set you free. You have to have enough liquid assets for retirement. People underestimate how much they’ll need for retirement. Right now you’re sitting in an office (at least I am!), doing nothing but work. Not a great deal to do other than just work till dusk. But if I were retired, would I just sit around? Or would I be engaged in some fun, money-expending activity? People often underestimate how much money it’s going to take to not only survive, but stay interested in life.
Do not use your house as a vehicle to drive into retirement. Use that fat brokerage account instead!
June 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Don> So if that interest rate is tax deductible and
Don> the poster earns, say, 60k a year and
Don> otherwise gets 5k in deductions that means
Don> changing his taxable income downwards from
Don> $55,000. So $1,000 in interest paid that year
Don> means not paying tax on the money from $54,000
Don> to $55,000 which is taxed at 25%.
Don> So I take 5.375 * ((100 - 25) / 100) and get a
Don> rate of 4.03125%
Can you please explain to me how you arrived at this? I understand the 25% from the tax-table lookup, but how does that figure into the formula used to calculate the effective interest rate of 4.03125% ?
Are you saying that the formula is actually:
InterestRate * ((100 - TaxRate)/100)
And if that’s the case, are you further saying that:
TaxableIncome = Gross - MiscDeductions - MortgageInterest
?
I’m having trouble understanding how you made the leap from $55K after deductions to $54K. $1000 deduction in paid mortgage interest isn’t the same as being taxed on $1000 less income, is it?
Thanks,
Paul
June 4th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Paul,
If you itemize on your taxes, and you incrementally add $1,000 in paid mortgage interest, you are then taxed on $1,000 less income.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Paul, I am coming up with that 4% as a reflection of the actual number of dollars paid. If you pay 5% interest on the loan but it gets you a tax break equal to 1% then that’s an effective rate of 4%
Q answered the second question. People throw around the “you can deduct the interest!” so much that I feel it important to point out that exactly what this saves you is highly dependent on your income and the top of your tax bracket.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Q,
Are you saying that $1000 paid in interest really *is* the same as a $1000 deduction?
June 4th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
If you’ve got time, don’t prepay your mortgage. Invest the extree in index funds like the SPY and DIA. Cheers.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Yes, mortgage interest paid is a tax deduction, as long as you itemize.
That’s why, when comparing prepaying on your mortgage to investing, you have to run the numbers. To do so, you need the following info:
Your mortgage interest rate
Your tax rate
Your expected rate of return on investments
The location of those investments (in taxable accounts or retirement accounts)
Run the numbers side by side. Investing will likely beat prepaying by several percentage points, which would mean that investing is a better use of your money.
June 5th, 2007 at 8:43 am
[...] The last one is a little different for some though, at least for certain debts. Some are just fine with a little — or, more likely, a lot — of debt if it’s on your house. Or your student loans. Good debts. Debts on assets that earn. [...]
June 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
[...]Get Rich Slowly asked “Is it better to invest or to prepay a mortgage?”[...]
June 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
generally speaking mortgage interest and taxes are deductible on your primary residence, but what are the arguments for prepaying on a rental?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Several people have noted that the effective interest rate on a mortgage is lower than the quoted rate due to the tax deduction on mortgage interest. Very true, and it definitely lowers the appeal of paying down a mortgage rather than investing.
What I haven’t seen is the even bigger benefit investing it can bring: if you invest via your 401-K you are investing with PRE-TAX DOLLARS. You pay down your mortgage with AFTER-TAX DOLLARS.
As long as you have a good fixed-rate mortgage, invest in your 401-K. The advantage of investing tax-deferred makes it a much better move than paying down the mortgage.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I think that either paying down the home mortgage (I’ve done some extra paying on my home mortgage) OR investing (I’ve done some Roth contributions also) is just fine. The people who lose are the ones that don’t do either of these options which would indicate that they are uneducated on the subject or living above their means…