This guest post from Caitlin of ClutterCubed (a blog about ridding clutter from your life) is part of a new feature here at Get Rich Slowly. Every Sunday will include a reader story (in the new “reader stories” category). Some will be general “how I did X” stories, and others will be examples of how a GRS reader achieved financial success.
Back in September, one hour of my time cut 16 years off my mortgage! It was one of the easiest things I’ve ever done, but I can honestly (and sadly!) say I probably wouldn’t have done it if it weren’t for Get Rich Slowly.
However, this is less of a tale of ringing triumph, and more of a story that shows how financially clueless I was, while you all point and laugh how even people who make financial missteps can put themselves back on the right track.
My shiny new mortgage
In mid-2008, my husband and I bought a shiny new house and acquired a shiny new 40-year mortgage. That’s right: a 40-year mortgage. It’s embarrassing to admit now, but the banks we talked to assured us that 40 years was “the new normal” for first-time home buyers like ourselves.
This was, of course, right before the crash and the economic downturn, so at the time our 5.5% mortgage rate looked pretty spiffy. As first-time buyers, we could have gotten away with a 0% down payment, but over the years we’d saved enough for a 7% down payment (thanks in part to a small inheritance my husband received). We felt smart. We felt like we were doing the right thing, like we were ahead of the game.
Unfortunately, as we later learned, there’s a big difference between feeling like you’re ahead, and actually being ahead. We didn’t know about the trick of planning mortgage payments before you have to start making them, so we hadn’t been putting away “a mortgage payment” every month prior to moving in. We also had no emergency fund to speak of.
By the numbers
We had, at least, planned our housing costs so that they wouldn’t be more than 28% of our gross income. I don’t remember where we got that number, since at the time we did not really read any personal finance books or blogs. I think we just pulled 30% out of Google, as a financial rule of thumb, and then aimed for a bit less than that.
Because of little things like that, we thought we were doing great, but looking back there are a lot of things I wish we had done differently. (I wish I’d started learning about personal finance before buying a house, for one thing!)
Properly taxes were included in our mortgage payments, and they’d been over-estimated to avoid needing to make a big payment once our house was reassessed this year (since the last time it had been assessed was in 2007, when it was still a dirt lot).
This September our mortgage payment came out automatically as usual, but we were really worried when $180 less than normal was taken from the account. I panicked and called the bank, thinking it was perhaps a mistake, and there would somehow be consequences for not making a full payment. The bank assured me everything was okay, and it was just that our property taxes had gone down after a reassessment, so our payment had been adjusted.
A profitable hour
The Old Me would have celebrated having an “extra” $180/month to spend. The New Me, the one that reads Get Rich Slowly and other personal finance blogs and books and is actively trying to improve my financial situation, immediately booked an appointment with the bank. My husband and I agreed that, since we’d been paying our mortgage all year without any problems, we should keep paying the same amount.
At the appointment, we not only bumped our payment back up to what it had been (paying an additional $180 on every payment, or an additional $2160/year), we also switched to a biweekly payment plan, with payments equal to half our monthly payment, so that we would be making an additional full payment (plus an additional $180 on that payment) every year.
In that one hour appointment, we watched our projected mortgage end date shrink down to 23 years. One hour of our time saved us 16 years of payments and interest.
It still boggles my mind.
All it cost us was an hour of our time. Well, an hour of our time and $45 for a one-time payment to make the switch possible. I’m not too thrilled about the $45, but I’m not upset about it, either.
Action beats inaction
I’ve read it dozens of times on PF blogs: overpay your mortgage, make an extra payment each year. Blah, blah, blah. Even seeing the occasional calculated example didn’t really drive it home for me. It always felt like I couldn’t be like “those people” — the ones with enough extra money to do fancy things like prepay a mortgage. I was afraid of screwing up, of doing it wrong. However, like J.D. says, action beats inaction, and in this case, he’s 100% correct!
I say thank you, J.D., for having this blog and inspiring me to get off my butt about my personal finances. Without you, I might not have had the drive to make that appointment with the bank that saved me 16 years. Without your blog and your readers, I may have known intellectually what I should have done, but it would probably have seemed out of reach.
I might have been content with my “found” $180/month. I might have handled it responsibly, and used it to pay off debt at least, but I know I wouldn’t have switched to biweekly payments. It seemed like such a hassle. It seemed like such a pain to set up. It felt like it couldn’t possibly be worth my time and energy to shuffle around my schedule, get my husband home from work early and go talk to the bank. Even though I “knew” it was worth it, I didn’t actually believe it until it happened. It was worth it! I had such an amazing feeling as I left the bank!
Have you had such a big payoff from investing a little bit of your time? Can you beat knocking 16 years off the mortgage in one measly little hour? Let us know in the comments!
Reminder: This is a story from one of your fellow readers. Please be nice. After nearly a decade of blogging, I have a thick skin, but it can be scary to put your story out in public for the first time. Remember that this guest author isn’t a professional writer, and is just learning about money like you are.
This article is about House and Home, Reader Stories Sunday, 10th January 2010 (by J.D. Roth)


RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter







January 10th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Caitlin: Wow! Wonderful story, and reassuring for someone like me who is expecting to take on a mortgage in a few years. Congratulations not just on the benefits of your one hour of work, but also on choosing action over inaction. What a great post to read first thing this morning.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Congratulations on choosing a good route. From my own similar experiences I would make two comments:
1. Verify that you suffer no cost to doing the bi-weekly plan. Sometimes a third party or even the lender themselves will off bi-weekly payments, but with a small fee in the fine print. If they do, you can avoid any such wasted money by approximating the bi weekly payment yourself by putting down an extra 1/12 payment per month to achieve the “13th payment”.
2. Home prices will hopefully stabilize in your area and eventually creep back up. We are in the same situation you are in that we bought before (just a little bit) the bottom, so our re-assessed value dropped our property taxes. Those will go back up eventually, so pay the principal of the mortgage down while you can and hopefully when they do rise again your income and/or overall financial picture will also have appreciated allowing you to maintain the higher monthly outlay to drive down the principal.
Congratulations again, I think you’re well on your way. Thank you for sharing your story with GRS.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Now that you’ve automated the extra $180 and biweekly payments, you still need to be careful & pay attention to the statements…your assessment could go up. I had a low-year on my property tax the 2nd year I owned my house (the TX homestead exemption hadn’t kicked in for the first year, so I got ‘credited’ 2 years’ worth for that 2nd year). When the bank performed its escrow analysis in the 3rd year, it doubled the property tax portion of my bill, taking my mortgage payment from $1150 to $1320 for a year! That hurt, but now it’s settled back down to $1230. lesson learned though - don’t trust the escrow department to compute your payments, verify them at least a couple of times a year. I do it on the anniversary of property tax and home insurance payments and aorund when the bank does it.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:33 am
Fantastic story, I’m not sure of many quick wins which could beat that!
January 10th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Awesome work. My lender (PNC) has an online calculator that let’s me see the results of upping my payment. In the last year, I’ve been able to make three increases to the monthly payment, and like you I’ve dropped about half of the life of our mortgage. It inspires me to find a little more each year to snowflake toward our payment. Great story.
(PS - I looked into the biweekly payment plan, but it was going to cost almost $2000 over the next 15 years, so I scrapped it.)
January 10th, 2010 at 7:44 am
@Caitlin;
Thanks for posting. I know zero about buying a house. I will not be ready to think about it for a while, but your post has been filed away in my head as good points to think about in the future.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:55 am
I followed this fortnightly repayment idea allowing an extra months worth of payments with my first house. I can speak from experience that it works like a ‘pay yourself first’ concept and I didn’t even notice the difference as the money was gone from my account without me noticing and you just have to live on the rest.
As Angarreq highlights be careful though as depending on where you are in the world and what mortgage you have there may be penalty fees from your bank from making extra payments.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:06 am
That’s awesome. Congrats!
January 10th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Great story - so why don’t you spend another hour and save another 16 years of payments? ::)
Your situation really shows how people with long term mortgages or other debt can really benefit by small increases in monthly payments. Of course, once the easy savings are gone then it is much harder to shorten the mortgage.
Small typo “properly tax” should be “property tax”.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:18 am
J.D, You are a class act. (Besides a trusted authority).
It takes guts for a reader to post their story (and write it and submit it…) and I thought your footnote spoke volumes to the person you are:
Reminder: This is a story from one of your fellow readers. Please be nice. After nearly a decade of blogging, I have a thick skin, but it can be scary to put your story out in public for the first time. Remember that this guest author isn’t a professional writer, and is just learning about money like you are.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:24 am
If you have to pay Private Mortgage Insurance (you probably do), then changing the payment schedule like you did and paying extra will lower the amount of time you pay PMI.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:34 am
If the $45 fee was to set up the bi-weekly thing, you can actually just set this up on your own.
You just do it.
Great post
January 10th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Thank you for sharing your story and congrats! What a wonderful feeling you must have! I was glad you shared the tidbit about how you were able to get your down payment up to 7%. I read a lot of articles about home ownership and I am trying to get a better idea of how regular people acquire a large enough down payment to get a decent mortgage. 20% seems so daunting to me and I would be interested in hearing more reader stories about how they saved for their first down payment. Again, thanks for sharing!
January 10th, 2010 at 8:36 am
Caitlin, congratulations on not only the mortgage but also on getting your story out there to inspire everyone. Well done!
January 10th, 2010 at 8:48 am
I think its great to hear from the readers regarding things they’ve done well and things they wish they had done differently.
I agree with others, the bi-weekly payment plan is something you can do on your own without paying for the privilege.
Also pay attention to whether your assessment will go back up by paying attention to your local government and what they are doing with the budget. If it looks like your assessment will go up you may want to save for same so you can prepay any escrow deficiency. Also, I’m a fan of taking care of insurance and real estate taxes yourself (no escrow) because you get to earn interest on the money instead of your bank and you have more control over you personal budget/finances.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Caitlin: I’m so proud of you. I, too, used to be the kind of person who loved “found money” and spent it. Good job on being proactive and incurring a little inconvenience. What a great result!
J.D.: This is why you do what you do. Congrats to you on what you’ve done to inspire this reader and many of us here at GRS!
January 10th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Great job! Paying double payments is how we paid off our house quickly. I would never have thought to add on my “found money” and pay even more.
@Moly We rented below our means for the first 10 years of marriage. We used the average house price in the area as the base and went rented smaller and lower- saving the difference. We paid for half the house and financed the rest.
Small children do not need large houses:>)
January 10th, 2010 at 9:22 am
JD
Thanks for the reminder, I hate to admit it here, but I currently have an extra $300 a month and I so want a new car. I really need to put it on the house which would take 7 years off my mortgage.
I worked so hard for years to be debt free except the house but now that I am I think I can afford a car again, it’s a trap and I have to fight it everyday. Man am I glad I found GRS, the articles are great.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Hi Caitlin,
First of all, congratulations on your achievement! It’s simply awesome what you’ve done with your personal finances. However, I don’t quite understand how does a bi-weekly payment help. Would you mind provide a little more detail or point me to a source so I can learn more?
Thank you so much.
Keep rocking!
Cheers~
Mark
January 10th, 2010 at 9:29 am
The $45 was a sunk cost and definitely worth it if it meant doing something rather than doing nothing (and having them automate it rather than having to figure it out). Sometimes we need to pay for help to get us started on something that is difficult to figure out on our own.
Great job not just swallowing the additional $180!
I did want to agree with posters who note that your property may be reassessed from time to time. For ours (since the recession started… even though it hadn’t been assessed before then since the 1990s) they always seem to say the value has gone up 7%/year when it has really only gone up 2%/year, so every year for the past 2 years we have had to go into the assessor’s office and ask them to go back to a more reasonable assessment, which they’ve given without problem just based on our word. But our relative in a different state/town has had much more trouble changing his assessment, even with a formal home appraisal.
I like having property taxes in escrow even though it isn’t the optimal way to save money (they get the interest, not us) because it’s less hassle for us, and in the years when we come up short the mortgage company pays the difference and gives us time to come up with what they paid.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Be careful of bi-weekly mortgage plans…some lenders do charge a set up fee which can be a couple hundred dollars…when all a bi-weekly plan effectively does is make one extra mortgage payment per year. You can do the same thing by paying additional to your principal and avoid having the mortgage servicer charge for setting up the bi-weekly plan.
January 10th, 2010 at 9:40 am
I’ve understand to not-decrease monthly payment to achieve faster payment of the whole mortgage.
But I didn’t understand what savings can be achieved by biweekly payment. Can somebody explain me it?
Anyway my mortgage was increased by 1%. That makes more about 170 monthly [expressed in USD]
–
Rado1
January 10th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Out of curiosity, how much is this mortgage for? How much was the payment before it dropped by $180? How much is the house currently valued at? Do you currently owe more than the new value of the house?
January 10th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Rado1 … although most months are about 4 weeks, a month is generally a little longer than 4 weeks. When you pay your mortgage biweekly, some months (2 of them, I believe) you put in 3 payments instead of two. This is almost mathematically equivalent to sending in a 13th full monthly mortgage payment every year.
It’s like how people who get paid biweekly have some months where they get a third (sometimes unexpected) paycheck.
It’s a way of paying down your mortgage faster automatically without seeing the pain or having to think about it. Mathematically it might be optimal just to send in that extra payment or to pay extra towards principle on each mortgage payment, but it is easy to have “emergencies” come up and cause you to stop making those extra payments when you’re the one pulling the trigger on each payment. If you’re getting paid bi-weekly this is a method that works without having to change much of anything about your daily living.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:05 am
It makes sense.
Many thanks.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Congratulations! Well done!
Would you have gained by setting up weekly payments?
January 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@Elizabeth (10) - I’m glad J.D. put up that footnote too. GRS readers as a whole are very nice people, but it’s still intimidating to submit an article to a blog with about 500 times the readership mine has.
@David (12) - the $45 was for the day between when the monthly payment plan stopped and the bi-weekly payment plan ended.
@Mark Foo (19) and @Rado1 (22) - Bi-weekly payments works out paying an extra monthly payment each year, so 13 instead of 12.
@ Tyler (23) - These are good questions, but I’m not sure I’ve reached a point yet where I’m comfortable posting the exact dollar values of my mortgage on the Internet. :/
January 10th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Great story! Thanks for sharing it and congratulations on making such a wise choice. We have a 30-year mortgage, which we are paying off in 15. Once that “extra” money is designated for the mortgage it no longer feels “extra,” and we never miss it. J.D. is right PF is more about psychology than it is about the numbers.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Great post about how what we do in the present affects our future.
Check out this post from WiseBread’s Julie Rains on DIY Mortgage Acceleration: http://www.wisebread.com/diy-mortgage-acceleration
You can download a spreadsheet that lets you plug in your mortgage numbers and see your balance, monthly interest, equity, total interest, and total payments month by month. You can play with several mortgage acceleration scenarios to see how paying X extra dollars affects your payoff schedule.
I’ve always routinely paid extra on my mortgage (and why not when it’s only $259/mo?), and often make “found money” payments to speed up payoff. This spreadsheet keeps me motivated and shows me specifically how my extra payments affect the total amount I owe and when I’ll be done.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
This is terrific. Great job! It’s so true that the difference is simply understanding that small financial steps have a big impact. It took a long time for me to realize it, but it’s really working in my favor now. Thanks to J.D. and the commenters for the help I’ve received from this blog.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
I did something similar. When we were house shopping, we looked at homes from $250,000 all the way down to $50,000.
In retrospect, I am very glad we picked the $80,000 fixer upper! I was not really aware of any sort of financial discipline back then, so it was a lucky move.
We’ve been here for 5 years. A year or so ago I reorganized our finances, and in doing so switched our payments to weekly. I double each and every payment we make (it only comes to around $250/wk).
We will own the house outright in under four years. (Probably sooner, as I will be doing some lump sum payments after some renos are paid off)
The plan is to get into a position where, when we have children, one of us will be able to stop working completely to care for the kids until they are in school.
January 10th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Excellent article and advice. Thank you for sharing Caitlin!
January 10th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I can’t “beat knocking 16 years off the mortgage in one measly little hour.” But I did knock 13 years off by refinancing from a 30-year mortgage to a 15-year mortgage (with a lower interest rate and lower PMI payments) after only two years (though my closing costs were much higher than $45!). I am now working to knock another year off with extra payments. (A biweekly plan makes no sense for me since I am paid monthly, so I just pay extra each month.) You rock!
January 10th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
When I signed my first mortgage, I was stupid and listened to the banker when he told me I needed a cushion and therefore shouldn’t double my payments right away. I should relax and be happy knowing I was just like everyone else. (Of course, I really shouldn’t have listened to someone who told me there was no way someone my age could pull together a $100k down payment unless someone died and I inherited money.)
After six months, I worked the numbers for myself, found my comfort level, doubled my payments, maxed out my pre-payments, and I licked that mortgage in under 4 years.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
I feel bad making the only negative comment so far but I want to point out that when you don’t have an adequate emergency fund set up it doesn’t make sense to pay extra towards your mortgage. My sister was doing this–she was not contributing to any retirement accounts and had very little in savings at all but she was putting extra towards her mortgage! In times of crisis it’ll be much better to have liquid savings you can access immediately than more equity in your house.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Fantastic! I refinanced from a 15-year 7.25 to a 30- year 4.5 — while I hate the 30-year idea, it has given me some flexibility. (I was “downsized” a week before Christmas.) However, until the downsizing, I was “on schedule” to pay off my 30-year note in a mere 7 years. Some sacrifice (and I do have a working spouse)…
January 10th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
This is a great example of a “big win!”
It’s so easy to get caught up in minutiae by focusing on the little things: cutting out lattes, switching to generic brand groceries, etc.
Thanks so much Caitlin for reminding us to focus on the high impact “big wins” that we can do that takes little effort. JD is sooooo right when he says that so much of our resistance to doing things come from our own fears.
“The best time to start any positive course of action is now.” Awesome.
Best of luck to you, Caitlin.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
@ Diana
I get where you are coming from, but unless you are living really close to financial ruin it’s better to pay off the house fast. After all, you’ll have a lot more liquid means when you don’t have to pay mortgage anymore.
January 10th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
@Diana (#35)
No, no. Good point! Your response is constructive, so I think it’s good.
January 10th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
IT’s really empowering to be able to make decisions like this that can impact the rest of your life!
We had a point like this about 2 1/2 years ago, and my husband wanted to pay cash for a new car. I sat him down and suggested that we run the numbers on what would the value of our car be in 2 years vs the value of the house (and mortgage) in 2 years, based on what we did. Well, my point “won” and by putting that $ directly toward the mortgage, plus prepaying extra every month, we are on track for having the house paid off this year (11 years of mortgage payments). It feels SO GOOD to think that a huge chunk of money won’t be paid to a bank, but rather in our own pockets to do with whatever we like. (College looms for 2 kids in the relatively near future, so I think I know where some of it will go to anyway!)Or maybe we’ll pay off the car note that we then took out. Or maybe some serious vacationing…
January 10th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Well, we just spent a good deal of time getting a rate reduction on our mortgage. We’re pretty happy because with taxes and insurance our payment is well within our budget. It’s not below 28% but we’re happy with where it is. We’re working towards having more income so that it may lead to going below 28% but that takes time!
Jerry
January 10th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
We bought our house in 2001 with a 30 year note and refinanced to a 15 year note in 2003, and that’s going to save us more than $100,000 in interest charges over the cost of the loan. (and no, we don’t care about the tax issue because the amount of our mortgage interest and property taxes under the old loan was still less than the standard deduction)
As long as people are looking to reduce homeownership expenses, I’d also suggest spending an hour every year getting quotes from 3-5 different companies for homeowner’s insurance. We live in a modest ranch house in a hurricane bait area, and the difference in rates among companies for similar coverage can commonly be $1200 a year or more.
January 10th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
p.s. Caitlin, I like your blog!
January 10th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Speaking of mortgages, there was an article in the Sunday NYTimes about people who could pay their monthly mortgage payment but walk away from their mortgages because the mortgage is now larger than the house is now worth. But don’t most people who pay off a regular mortgage pay more by than the house is actually worth?
January 10th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Great job! Thanks for telling your story, it’s always nice to read about people who take action in one way or the other.
I was lucky and realize the power of the bi-weekly payment when I first got my mortgage (all 5 months ago!) but it’s also amazing how big of a difference increasing your payments can do.
My mortgage allows 15% extra payments (or I can double each payment) per year. Apparently that’s calendar year (I called to ask) so I’m now paying 30% extra per month, and my twenty-five year mortgage is down to 14 years.
I was lucky and bought a duplex, so I rent out the main floor and that helps with my mortgage payments.
JD: I’m a Canadian (eh!), and there is a magazien we have called MoneySense. My favourite section is when someone tells about their lives and experts offer suggestions on what they can do. It might be interesting if you had a similar section, where you had ‘experts’ offer suggestions; I always find it helps even if it doesn’t apply to my situation as I learn a little bit that might apply later.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Sorry, but I don’t get it. How can your property taxes go down by $180/month? What were they before? If that was due to a reassessment of the property value, how much did it go down by? 50%? 80%?
January 10th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Rado1 - in addition to what Nicole @24 says, because the interest on your mortgage is calculated daily, the fact that you decrease the principal every 2 weeks means that every 2 weeks the calculated interest is a little bit smaller. It’s only a little but on a mortgage every little bit adds up.
And yes, she would have saved a little bit more by going weekly (or even daily!) but I’m guessing it’s easier for her to match her pay schedule.
January 10th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Property taxes work differently in different areas.
Where I live, our property taxes are determined by how much money the various taxing entities are allowed to collect. When a levy expires, my property taxes go down. Also when my home drops in value (or rises in value more slowly than the other houses in my taxing district) my property taxes go down.
It’s not easy to explain, but the bottom line is that yes, depending on where you live your taxes can go up or down on the same property without major changes to the property itself. But it may not work that way in your area.
January 10th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
We did this on a 30 year mtg. Refinanced to a 15 year note and paid off house in 8 1/2 years after originally buying it. We rented it for the whole time until moving into it, so the rent helped defray most of the mtg note. It enabled me to go into retirement at age 40 from the military without a mtg. payment. We did this by paying towards the house note whenever we got extra money. Of course our house was purchased almost 20 years ago when prices were much cheaper. Once the shelter is paid for the rest of living is gravy as far as food and utilities go. And it feels really good to know that as long as the property taxes and insurance is paid one cannot make you leave your home.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
CAITLIN: Go you for sharing your inspiring story. Entirely too many hardworking people were “encouraged” to take on 40-year fixed-rate mortgages. Your courageous actions & example of the power of the big/quick win will no doubt inspire many readers to rethink what they will do with extra funds that may bubble up during 2010. Wishing you all the best on your path to financial freedom.
JD: Ditto to several previous comments. Your footnote really does speak volumes about the reason you rightfully have such a large and loyal following. You inspire us all to be better people!
January 10th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
As we learn more and more about PF, we can tweak our plan as we go along, and move toward a more efficient system for everything. I’m a big believer in J.D.’s “sometimes good enough is good enough”, and my mother’s saying “make a decision and then make it be the right decision”. I am often afraid of doing the wrong thing and I end up doing nothing. This is our “good enough” solution to make sure our money works for something good while we figure out a “better” way to do it in the future.
@George (46) - What actually happened was when we bought the house the bank estimated what our taxes “would probably” be for our area, and then we paid a little over that amount, just in case. We live in a brand new section of the city, so the estimates were just that, estimates. When the property was reassessed, the actual taxes were much lower than the estimated ones we had been paying, hence the $180 drop.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Congratulations! I loved your story.
We did something similar. We chose a 15 year mortgage with weekly payments — that shortened the amortization to around 12 and a half years. Our mortgage agreement let us pay extra that went directly to paying off the principal, up to a certain percentage of the mortgage. We could do ‘double up’ payments — pay twice the usual mortgage payment, with the extra going directly on principal. We did that a few times. (It’s a lot easier to save up a double payment when you’re trying to match a week’s worth of mortgage instead of a month’s worth.) We also just rolled coins and paid off $50 here, $30 there, whatever we could, as often as possible. In the end, we paid off the mortgage in seven years.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
About building an emergency fund before considering paying extra on the mortgage — if we doubled up a payment, we had the right to skip a payment later, without penalty. (We had to tell the bank we were skipping.) So we figured we weren’t risking much by putting the extra down.
January 10th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I’m going to throw my hat in the comment ring as well. I can understand the amazement with the power of a little extra payment reducing the term of your mortgage.
However, a house limits liquidity (especially with the current market). Outside of 20% down, I can’t see a benefit in paying off your mortgage. When most people lived where they were born and worked at a job for 30 years, I could see the benefit of a paid in full mortgage. Today, people move frequently and change jobs even more frequently. In all truth, many people should rent and save the spread. There are so many hidden costs in home ownership that its easy to focus on the mortgage and hard to calculate the unknown expenses of maintenance/repair.
Your priorities should be:
1. No credit card/ revolving debt,
2. Fully Funded emergency fund (6-12 months of expenses or more)
3. 401K and IRA maxed out
4. Adittional payments to mortgage
Bi-Weekly payments are fine. Set up an automatic bill pay for that.
I’m puzzled by the 50 comments affirming what may not be the best decision for the long term just because its been touted as a good idea on this and other PF sites.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Hmm…It is great that you switched to bi-weekly payments, but 16 years? That doesn’t add up. Based on your mortgage payment of ~$2000 dollars with 7% down and 5.5% interest I would estimate you will shave off 7-8 years off of your 40 year fixed rate mortgage. Just curious how you came up with 16 years?
For those who want to avoid fee’s associated with switching to bi-weekly payments you can just add 10% to each monthly mortgage payment and achieve the same goal. If you are very disciplined you can also just make one additional payment at the end of the year. I tried to do it that way this year but it was too hard, so now I am just adding 10% to each payment. Also, be sure that your additional payments are going directly to principle and not interest!
Check out the calculator at Bankrate.com to compare standard payments to bi-weekly payments.
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/bi-weekly-mortgage-calculator.aspx
January 10th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
@ DavidV
I just ordered that magazine a few days ago! I’m hoping it’s good. I’m from TX so I’ve never seen it.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Great!! I couldn’t imagine a 40 year mortgage… but I understand the pressures. Some lenders offer rapid weekly options too, taking even more time off using the same payment.
January 10th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
I didn’t see this mentioned in a previous comment but to me it seems like a good goal is to not have to use an escrow account to pay your mortgage and taxes. With an escrow account you are basically giving an interest free loan to the bank for the amount of your property tax, much in the way that it is bad to receive a tax refund from the IRS.
January 10th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
This is awesome! So I guess this means you signed an open mortgage as opposed to a closed one Caitlin?
January 11th, 2010 at 4:12 am
I am also Canadian and got some great advice when I bought my place…don’t let the bank pay your property tax. In Canada you can pay your own, set up a savings account, set it aside every month and then pay the city when it comes due. Why let your lender handle your money when you can earn interest and pay the taxes all at once?
I am also on bi-weekly payments. I got a 40 year mortgage but my lender allows up to 25% increase in payments each payment and up to 25% of the original principle in each year. Increasing by 25% gets me to a 25 year mortgage but a cushion should anything happen with my job to not have such high mortgage payments. That was part of my security blanket. The bi weekly payments also get me to 22 years total repayment.
This year I’ll chuck in a couple pre payments (now that my car is paid for) and I’ll really be ahead of the game.
Caitlain, thanks for sharing…very inspirational!
January 11th, 2010 at 4:38 am
Personally, I would have sent that $180 in separately each month & directed the bank to apply it towards principal ONLY. I think you would have done better than 16 years by doing that each month. It takes 2 minutes of your time to write a check & stick it in an envelope. You could have developed a form letter in Word & just put a new date on it & the letter would direct the bank to apply this $180 towards your principal.
Instead, you added $180 to your payment, which is going towards P&I.
But at least you are doing something to improve your 40 year mortgage.
DH & I took out a 15 year mortgage, had bi-monthly payments, paid extra on principal only for like 5 or 6 payments & we have less than $20k owed! We’ll have this puppy paid off in 21 months.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:17 am
@Bananen:
“I get where you are coming from, but unless you are living really close to financial ruin it’s better to pay off the house fast. After all, you’ll have a lot more liquid means when you don’t have to pay mortgage anymore.”
No, I agree with Diana. This is a common misunderstanding. Paying EXTRA on your mortgage doesn’t reduce your risk at all. Paying OFF your mortgage does.
Think of it this way. Say you’ve got a 15-year mortgage, and you’ve been making double payments for several years. You’ve drastically accelerated your payoff date, such that you now only have 1 year left until it’s completely paid off.
Then you lose your job. You can’t even afford your regular mortgage payments. You call up the bank and tell them you lost your job. They say “so what?” You say, “but I’ve been paying extra for many years.” They say “Thanks. Good luck finding a new job, better hurry, next payment is due on the 9th.”
An ample emergency fund is ESSENTIAL. The idea that accelerating your mortgage paydown decreases your risk is a myth. Only paying it off completely truly reduces the risk of a mortgage.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Caitlin - great story, thanks for sharing. I really love your mother’s saying “make a decision and then make it be the right decision”. Well said! Doing something almost always beats doing nothing.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Thanks Caitlin for the positive story!
#54. Jeremy, I overall agree with your comments, but disagree for some. Some people are intending on staying in a certain location, and so it is good fiscal sense for those people to pay off that house sooner than later.
Regarding renting, we bought a fixer upper so our mortgage even with property taxes is lower than a comparable place renting. Rents may go up, but your mortgage does not.
Finally, even if you set up biweekly payments through billpay, unless you set it up through the mortgage holder they have no obligation to treat them as biweekly payments. Typically what they do is hold the second payment and simply deposit it as a regular monthly payment, thereby negating the biweekly benefit. If you do not want to set up a biweekly payment plan (our bank charges for this) the cheapest alternative is to send in additional payments marked “principal only”.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Sometimes I think the ideas for savings are awfully onerous for most people, but more importantly unnecessary. Why would you need to put away a mortgage payment for 6 months before you bought a house? Let’s say that prior to buying, you put away $500 a month towards a downpayment and you pay $1000/month for utilities and renters insurance. Your total housing expenses while you are renting are now $1500.00. Now, let’s say that you buy a house, have to pay mortgage insurance and homeowners ins (which is more than renter’s) and pay taxes. Your total expenses will be $2500.00 a month. Then you need to put away $1,000 a month for six months. However you have choices. I ran first time homebuyer programs for two different cities. I never counseled people that that must put the extra money away. I counseled them to be prepared to put away extra money or reduce expenses for the first couple of years that they own a house in order to adapt to the increased housing costs. Most people found their own combination of cutting expenses and/or saving extra. Those who didn’t faced unpleasant consequences. There are alternatives to that the MUSTs that Suze Orman and others put out in the media.
January 11th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Thank you for the additional advice, everyone!
@Jeremy (54) - I don’t have any credit card debt, and I’m not really sure what a 401K or an IRA is. Those are US retirement vehicles, right? Similar to an RRSP here in Canada maybe? Good point bringing it up. My pension through my employer already is maxed out, and my goal for 2010 is to make sure my RRSP is maxed out. I’ve already addressed the emergency fund question in the comments.
As for renting vs owning a home, we rented for 8 years previously and hated every second. It’s worth it to us to not be beholden to a landlord and paying off someone else’s mortgage. The freedom and privacy alone are more than worth it to us at this point in our lives.
@The Broken Penny (55) - I didn’t do any calculations myself, I just got a paper from the bank saying that if we keep out current (bi-weekly, slightly overpaid) mortgage payments, we’ll pay off the house 16 years earlier than was projected when we walking into the bank that day.
@Peter (58) - While I seem to be a freak in that I like the idea of giving the government a small interest-free loan, because I like the thought of my money being used to build roads and pay for our Canadian health care, I would prefer not to give the bank an interest-free loan. You make a good point.
To everyone suggesting I pay my own property taxes rather than letting the bank do it: I will totally look into it! I actually didn’t know that was an option (I’ve never done this before, can you tell?) so I honestly have no clue how to go about doing that. Should I go talk to the City to find out more information about that? If anyone has any suggestions for this, I’d really appreciate it!
@Jan (61) - The bank told us the extra amount was being applied to the principle when we went in to make these changes. Is there something else I should be doing to double check that it is for sure?
I haven’t even owned any paper cheques for years.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:14 am
This article should be titled “How I Cut 16 Years from My Mortgage With Just One Hour Plus a Bunch Of Money I Could Have Spent On Other Things.” Not saying it’s a bad move, but you can’t totally ignore the opportunity cost.
Eliminating PMI or refinancing to a lower interest rate are ways to unequivocally save money on a mortgage. Just paying it off early saves absolute dollars, but may or may not save overall money in your financial picture when taking both the opportunity cost and the time value of money into account.
That said, congratulations on negating the effects of your 40-year mortgage. I would say that’s almost certainly for the best.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I just want to say that I love this new feature. My interest in pf blogs was waning recently, but reading other readers’ stories is very refreshing.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:41 am
What’s “amp”?
And one advantage to doing the biweekly through the mortgage company instead of on your own is that you are more likely to send in the extra money and not let “emergencies” stop you. Not everyone is uber disciplined like that.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I think a point should be made that a large part of the reason for the huge reduction in the term of the loan is because the original loan was a 40 year mortgage. If one does the math you see that (at 6%) a 40 year mortgage pays off almost 50% less in principal each month (the difference increases with interest rate):
At $100k the 30 year payment is $599.55 with $99.55 going toward principal.
That same loan at 40 years has a payment of $550.21 with $50.21 going toward principal.
My mom has the opposite problem. She was vastly overpaying her mortgage on a 10 year note and asked me why she wasn’t seeing the payoff date move up faster. I pointed out that most of her payments were going to principal already, so she wasn’t getting a huge interest reduction like she would with a longer term.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I couldn’t resist answering your final question, “Can you beat knocking 16 years off the mortgage in one measly little hour?”
All financial issues are entirely subjective, hence the term “personal finance,” but I will nonetheless provide two (of many that I can think of) personal suggestions that may be better in general than reducing debt:
1) Education: $180/per month could buy tuition and books (with money left over) for a Masters degree in almost any educational pursuit at almost any public university. Even if taking night classes, one could accomplish this in less than 5 years. Life is not about getting out of debt. What will you do 16 years from now? How can you possibly know? Did you know 16 years prior what you would be doing 16 years hence (today)? Does having more money via the reduction of debt provide more meaning in your life? Spending the $180 actually removes that money from your discretionary spending. This may not be your situation but many people stay in a life pursuit that they do not enjoy, such as a job, in exchange for the money required for “financial freedom.” This is not freedom. Life is not about making money — money is about making a life.
2) Investing: In an IRA or other qualified plan, such as a 401(k), you could turn the $180/month into a tax-reducing, interest compounding investment that would likely net greater than the 5.5% “cost” of the mortgage you once held, and without taking unreasonable market risk.
In summary, there are many opportunities that go beyond the idea of “getting out of debt sooner.” All debt is not bad and all debt is not good. One must learn the concept of “opportunity cost” as it applies to them personally, and be able to measure the non-monetary costs of missing out on meaningful pursuits of life. We are living now, not 16 years from now…
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece…
Kent @ The Financial Philosopher
January 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I recently added an extra $200 per month to my mortgage payments to go towards the principal, and doing so reduced my mortgage lifespan by about 15 years.
I’ve set up automatic payments, so it’s not even a choice on a monthly basis for me, it’s just taken out and I act like that’s what I owe either way.
If I get in financial trouble in the future, I can always stop the extra payments, but the thought of paying so much interest over time was really getting to me.
It’s like you pay $150,000 for a house and then end up paying $300,000 over the 30 years. That just seems like an injustice to me.
You would think if the government took all of the bailout money and war money they’ve been throwing around and put it towards actual low interest housing loans for U.S. citizens, I mean like .5% or just 1%, then people could actually afford homes and wouldn’t have to worry about losing their houses.
Oh well, I guess banks got to get rich somehow.
January 11th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Caitlin - if you want to handle property taxes yourself instead through an escrow account, it’s super easy. Here’s how we did it. I asked the lender to cancel our escrow and remit to us the balance. I did this in January 2009. Then I estimated what the 2009 taxes would be, by adding 4% to the 2008 bill. The 4% is what our typical increase has been, but since your area is new, you don’t have that kind of history to look at. You can try calling the local assessor or treasurer to find out what a typical year-to-year increase could be. Anyway, I took my estimate and divided it by 24 pay periods (I get paid 26 times a year, but I wanted the full amount saved prior to the end of the year). I set up a direct deposit from my paycheck (see your payroll dept) for that amount into a targeted savings account designated for that purpose. Co-mingling that money with other savings is not a good idea for us becuase it’s harder to track. A separate account makes it virtually untouchable (in my mind, anyway) until it’s time to pay up.
Results? I didn’t miss the money since it was coming right out of my check, so I didn’t have to rely on discipline to put it aside. And when the tax bill came, we had all but $84 saved. Since this is the first year we’ve done it this way, I know to increase my 4%. And we made about $35 in interest. Not much, no, but it’s all ours, and not the lender’s!
AND we don’t have to rely on the lender making the tax payment for us in a timely manner (this has been a problem in the past).
Your lender might have restrictions on how long you have to have the loan before escrow can be canceled, so even if they won’t let you do it now, you can try it down the road.
Have a great day!
January 11th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Kent is right. If you have a good (low) interest rate on your mortgage, it does not make sense to pay it off early. It makes more sense to invest your extra money elsewhere at a higher rate of return. Of course, you have to do the arithmetic to see which option is better, but mortgages usually have interest rates that are lower than what you can get by making an investment. My mortgage is fixed at 5%. I can usually make 8-10% by investing in conservative stocks. Therefore, I would increase the investments before I would pay off the mortgage early.
January 11th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
@Caitlin
I think you did a great job doing something about that 40 year mortgage, but maybe you could have knocked 24 years off the mortgage by refinancing to a 15 year mortgage!
A few years ago I refinanced to a 15 year 5% mortgage after missing historically low rates…twice (for details see http://ponderingmoney.com/2009/11/19/how-i-missed-historically-low-rates-twice/).
My payments are about same as when I was making an extra payment a year, but the refinance beat prepayment significantly. Take another hour to do the calculation to find out what rate you would need to make the refinance worthwhile. If it is a realistic rate say 4.5% then make a habit of watching for that rate on a site like bankrate.com.
-Rick Francis
January 11th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
@Max:
While it sure would be nice to use tax dollars to help rich people buy bigger houses, there are a lot of problems with your comment. For one thing, you claim that it is an “injustice” that a $150,000 mortgage will actually cost you $300,000 over 30 years. However, using those numbers implies an interest rate of around 5.33%. This is a very low loan rate.
You see, the bank doesn’t have an infinite pool of money at no cost to them. In fact, it does cost the bank money in order to acquire the funds to lend. Specifically, say the bank pays 1.25% interest on the savings accounts. Federal law requires the bank to keep 10% of those funds on hand to honor withdrawals, leaving 90% available for lending. Thus, the true cost of that 90% they’re lending is slightly higher than the 1.25% interest they pay depositors, because they’re paying that 1.25% on the whole dollar, even though they can only lend out 90 cents.
Next, the bank has to pay for all the salaries, benefits, and overhead of all the employees involved in getting that money from the depositor to your realtor. Again, federal regulations impose strict bureaucratic requirements to ensure accountability. This translates to paperwork and man-hours, which add to the cost of your loan. The exact percentage depends on the size of the loan (it takes the same number of hours to service a $60,000 loan as it does to service a $200,000 loan, so the cost represents a higher percentage of the total loan).
Next, there is the very real cost of inflation. In lending the money to you at a 3% profit, the bank is hoping that inflation grows at less than that - otherwise the bank is losing money by lending it to you, and could have instead improved their return by lending it elsewhere at a higher rate.
Finally, there is profit. Banks aren’t charities - they deserve to make a profit. The bank’s shareholders demand profit in the form of dividends. Do you have an IRA or a 401(k)? Do you invest in any index funds? Surprise! You’re one of those nasty shareholders that is demanding a profit from the banks. Unless you thought the 8% return you’re counting on from your investments will just magically appear out of thin air? Nope, that comes from profits.
If all of that adds up to just 5.33% (the amount used in your example), then that’s fantastically cheap. Open a history book and look at mortgage rates over the past few decades. That money is absurdly cheap. That whole 5.33% is not all raw profit for the bank. In fact, very little of it ends up as profit, as I demonstrated above.
Paying $300,000 on $150,000 is not actually a bad deal at all. That’s actually less than inflation! $150,000 30 years ago would be worth a lot more than $300,000 today. If all you paid was $300,000 (in 2010 dollars) in order to have access to $150,000 30 years ago, that’s actually a great deal. Of course, your effective rate was a little higher than that (the 5.33% mentioned above), because you were paying it off with constantly depreciating dollars all along, instead of all at once at the end.
All this is to say, I would politely encourage you to educate yourself regarding interest, profits, inflation, and the time value of money before making absurd suggestions like the idea that government tax dollars should be used to give rich people virtually free access to large sums of money.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Note to other commenters: I (and the poster) are Canadian, and several things work a little differently here.
One, nearly all mortgages are done by direct withdrawl from our bank accounts. There isn’t an opportunity to “write a check” with extra on it. In fact, checks are used for very little here. Rent, mostly.
Second, typical clauses in mortgages are different here. There’s generally no charge to change the payment schedule from monthly to biweekly (assuming you don’t do it too often). Her $45 was just for realigning the dates (paying one day’s mortgage). Mortgages are typically half-open (although fully open mortgages are available, they’re expensive), allowing you to pre-pay an extra 15% (or 25% or some percentage) year of your total loan.
Third, refinancing rarely makes sense in Canada. Your outgoing bank will charge you interest differential, which is the amount they expect to lose by breaking your mortgage and having to relend the money at a lower rate (which is about how much *you* would expect to save.)
Fourth, retirement saving is different. We have RRSPs, which are reasonably similar to 401(k)s, although, they’re not specifically attached to any one company (although group rates are often offered).
[I, for one, would be interested to see a few more internationally targetted articles. Not just Canada, but elsewhere.]
January 11th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@Kevin #62: “The idea that accelerating your mortgage paydown decreases your risk is a myth. Only paying it off completely truly reduces the risk of a mortgage.”
Yes, yes, YES. The key is in Bananen’s comment, whether or not they realized it: “After all, you’ll have a lot more liquid means WHEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY MORTGAGE ANYMORE.”
All opportunity costs from interest rates/etc. aside, paying off your mortgage early really should be your last priority after all your other retirement/savings goals are being met - because you you are taking on what can be substantial short-term risk through decreased liquidity in exchange for (you hope) lowering (but not eliminating) your long-term risk by not having a mortgage.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Great post! We also purchased our first home in mid-2008. This is my first time posting on GRS, but wanted to chime in on the question of paying property taxes directly, rather than through the bank here in Canada.
In Canada, if you put down a down-payment of less than 25%, you are required by law to purchase mortgage insurance through CMHC, a federal agency. This is paid upfront on closing (usually rolled into your mortgage) and protects the bank if you default on your mortgage. However, if you had outstanding property taxes when you defaulted, the municipality you live in would be able to seize back the money owed on your house, putting the bank (and CMHC) out of that money. For this reason, those borrowers who have CMHC insurance must pay their taxes through the bank, so they can be certain it is up to date.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Jesse@79: A few years ago, the Mortgage Insurance requirement was lowered to 20%, rather than 25%. Interesting point on the taxes.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
@Caitlin - kudos for thinking proactively and putting that $180 to good use rather than blowing it on useless crap.
@Courtney (#78) - how are retirement plan savings any more liquid than paying down my mortgage? I’d rather go apply for a home equity loan to get access to cash in an emergency than pay 10% penalties plus regular income taxes to get money out of my retirement plans.
(Note: I’m talking about prepaying mortgage vs. fully funding retirement accounts, I agree everyone should have a liquid emergency savings account.)
January 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
@ Kevin M - Liquidity just means “how easy is it for me to turn this into cash?” and stocks/bonds/CDs are basically always going to be more liquid than real estate. I don’t have to have someone read and approve all my paperwork and decide to give me money; I can just say “I want my money.” Plus, if you or your spouse have just lost a job, it’s going to be very hard to apply for a home equity loan. It’s far easier to take a loan from a 401K, or a hardship withdrawal if you qualify, or even just to cash it out entirely than to apply for a loan from the bank in many situations. I would also argue that you have a cap on the amount of money you can invest for retirement in a year, but you can pay off any portion of your mortgage at any time. If you spend a decade paying off your 30-year mortgage, you don’t get to go back and catch up on your retirement contributions after that.
Regardless, I stand by my previous comment about risk - you are not decreasing your risk while prepaying your mortgage, you are only increasing the speed at which you move toward ultimately lowering your risk. Kind of like driving faster to get off the roads overrun by bad drivers?
January 11th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Re: Hardship withdrawls.
With Canadian RRSPs, there’s no (major) penalty for withdrawing early. You still have to pay income tax on the withdrawal, though. Some RRSPs are locked in however, and can’t be withdrawn at all.
You do however permanently lose that contribution room. (Meaning if you withdraw $20k, your contribution limit doesn’t go up to match it.)
January 11th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Thanks Catlin for the inspiring story.
I’m in the middle of optimizing my mortgage. My goal is pay it off by I’m 30. It’s amazing how a small change, can make such a big difference. Thanks for the advice.
January 11th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Great job, Caitlin–thanks for sharing! Regarding escrow accounts, I absolutely hate them for the very reason you mentioned. The lender overestimates, grabs more money than is needed and then lowers the payment when it’s discovered that the taxes were overestimated. The lender is getting your money interest free when it could be working for you, and they can do that any time they want as far as I can tell. When we purchased our last two houses, we opted out of escrow accounts because we’d rather have the money in our own bank account, paying us interest (albeit a pittance now) until it’s time to pay the taxes and insurance. You do, however, have to be disciplined enough to set it aside every month or have enough in a savings account to be able to pay any taxes due.
January 11th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
@Kevin
Well, first of all, I did not indicate that tax money should be used to give “rich” people money to buy “bigger houses”. Those are things you said in your response, not what I said in my comment.
I merely said that bailout money and war funds could be put to better use by helping U.S. citizens purchase homes at lower interest loans.
I can’t help but think that when people can’t otherwise afford homes and mortgages, they usually end up costing the taxpayers way more money in the end than helping them purchase a home for their families would cost in the first place.
I also did not specifically say that I paid $150,000 for a house, as that was just an example I gave. I paid about 2/3 of that price, so I hardly think I fall into the rich category, although I am much better off than many others and probably wouldn’t qualify for such assistance if it did exist.
I am also not one of those “nasty shareholders” as you rudely imply that demand a profit from the bank, as I cannot yet afford to invest in an IRA, my employer does not offer a 401K, and I don’t have extra money to put into index funds.
You are correct that I am not an expert regarding banking interests, profits, inflation, and the time value of money, but I still have the right to feel it’s an outrageous situation that any home purchase basically costs the owner double the amount over the lifetime of their loan.
If it’s the result of banking costs, inflation, government regulations, and other factors as you imply, then these issues should be resolved by other means (i.e., less or more efficient bureaucratic requirements), but not by transferring those costs onto the American homeowner.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
@Max:
“I still have the right to feel it’s an outrageous situation that any home purchase basically costs the owner double the amount over the lifetime of their loan.”
You’re right, of course - you do have the right to feel that way. I’m simply pointing out it’s absurd. It ignores inflation. You chose the sample time period (30 years), and the simple fact is that even at a minuscule rate of inflation (2.5%), such a long time period is going to erode the purchasing power of those dollars by more than half. It’s in fact perfectly reasonable. You’re entitled to feel otherwise, but it reflects a lack of knowledge regarding the realities of inflation and the time value of money (or possibly a simple inability to do math). That’s all I’m saying.
January 11th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
@Kevin
Wow, you really are rude, now you’re saying I have a simple inability to do math, jeez, what’s with the personal attacks.
I think it’s ironic in this situation that inflation is also a synonym for pompousness.
Your obvious genius would be put to much better use in helping people rather than putting them down.
I won’t bother arguing that inflation could be better managed by the government or that the time value of money could be managed with more efficiency or even that today’s economic realities don’t necessarily reflect tomorrow’s progress, as you will probably just find another way to insult me.
I will say that the government gives away a ton of money to big businesses and rich people for free, especially around tax time, and it would be nice if poor people could get a little help as well when it comes to purchasing a home, as we’re not exactly all created equal in America if you haven’t noticed.
Or should I just say I agree with you, you’re absolutely correct about everything, I’m a complete idiot.
I’m sure you can at least agree with that last part.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Congratulations for taking action! Yes you should keep an eye on your property taxes,and even if they increase it may not be all bad. In the event that your taxes increase due to an increse in value of your home, it may be beneficial to do a reassessment to remove your Mortgage Insurance (PMI) payment. I’m not sure how Loan to Value (LTV) works in CA, but here in US if the LTV is below 80% you are no longer required to pay Mortgage Insurance but it is up to you to request a new assessment and pay for it. For example, say your purchase price was 250K and you’ve paid it down and now owe 245K, but your home is assessed at 310K, your LTV is now 79% (245/310) and you are eligible to have PMI removed. The bank won’t automatically tell you that, nor will they accept your county/government assessment, they’ll want a third party to do it, typically a realtor. If your home value increases each year, coupled with the fact that you’re paying your principle down, it will reduce your LTV. A $300-350 fee for an assessor may be worth the investment to remove PMI. Cheers.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Max, I’m trying to be polite. The simple fact is, it’s lunacy to expect inflation to cease to exist. 30 years is a long time. You cannot expect money to not change in value over such a tremendously long period.
I’m also scratching my head at your suggestion that “inflation could be better managed by the government.” Inflation only averages around 3%. That’s very, very low. How could they possibly “better manage it?” Such a notion suggests that you believe the government should somehow eliminate inflation altogether. Rudimentary economics teaches that a little inflation is a good thing.
I’m sensing a lot of class hostility in your comments. Specifically, in your apparent belief that the government “gives away” large sums of money to rich people. Of course, a tax deduction is not the same as “giving” someone money - it’s simply allowing them to keep a portion of the money that was already theirs to begin with. You seem to feel entitled to rich peoples’ money. Such an attitude typically indicates a socialist, left-leaning agenda that is characteristically bereft of a basic understanding of economic principles. I don’t mean to be insulting, I simply mean to point out that in taking on this kind of an argument, you’re boating in an awfully big pond. You really should have the oars (education) to back it up.
January 11th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Hmm, there seems to be two maxes here. I may have to come up with a unique name
January 11th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
@ Max
“Your obvious genius would be put to much better use in helping people rather than putting them down.”
I’ve got plenty of genius. What do you want help with first? I promise not to put you down if you promise to actually think about what I say.
Honestly, you have some pretty glaring holes in your understanding of economic principals. But idiocy is only in remaining ignorant.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Hey Max, sorry, I guess I stole your name, since you were here first.
Hey Kevin, I’m sorry as well, but it seemed like you were being a bit personally insulting instead of just making arguments.
I wouldn’t say I’m class hostile or that I feel entitled to rich people’s money, I was probably just being a bit overdramatic in using the phrase “gives away”.
To be fair, your original insinuation that I was trying to “help rich people buy bigger houses” when I didn’t actually say that could also be construed as being class hostile, but it’s not really fair to take an isolated statement and then use that to make a judgment about somebody.
I do think that the wealthy class should contribute a higher percentage than the poor class, but not so that I can get the money personally, as I would more likely fall somewhere in the middle (at least I would like to believe that), but so that the truly poor class doesn’t have to suffer so much, because of their lot in life. Spreading the wealth around just seems to make sense to me, but maybe that’s my socialist leanings as you say.
As I said in my previous comments, I’m not an economics expert by any means, so I’ll also concede the inflation argument to you (although I’m not necessarily convinced that just because rudimentary economics teaches that a little inflation is a good thing makes it true, what, do you have to believe everything they tell you in 101 classes), but if that’s the main thing blocking very low-interest loans from being provided to poorer home buyers, then there’s got to be a solution for that.
My main point in the beginning was that I’d like to see a government program that provided low-interest loans to home buyers, and that this would be a better use of our money than funding bailouts or war efforts overseas (although mentioning such war matters probably puts me in that left-leaning agenda you mentioned).
Maybe you would allow me to propose an idea here, and you could provide me with a reality check on why it would or wouldn’t work.
It’s probably already been proposed or discussed, I really don’t follow such matters, but why not.
Say the government started a program that provided $100,000 loans to qualified but needy home buyers at really low interest rates. These would be loans, people would have to be able to pay them back to get them and actually pay them back to keep their homes.
For 10 billion dollars, we could fund 100,000 homes across America to help out families that can’t otherwise get good rates on homes (you better check my math on that one, you know how bad I am at it).
10 billion is really nothing compared to what we spend on other items.
People would have to pay it back, so in theory the taxpayers would get their money back, but the govt. would have to pick up the costs or losses due to inflation over time and there would also be the bueaucratic costs of running the program.
Now, you may disagree with such a program based on principal, but I would love to hear some facts that might hinder such a program, or what the heck, why you disagree with it.
Anyways, if you have a chance, please also explain why socialist agendas are bereft of a basic understanding of economic principles, or why that type of argument is boating in a big pond (what does this big pond consist of?).
I like the metaphor, but don’t necessarily get the proof in the meaning, although it’s probably just because I’m flapping around in the water and haven’t yet made it into the boat.
Alright, have a good one.
January 11th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Hey Shara,
Thanks for the offer.
Yes, I probably have huge holes in my understanding of economic principles, so maybe you could start by pointing those out for me, I’d appreciate it.
I really didn’t think I made too many statements specifically about economic principles, just some general statements, but maybe so.
I promise to think about what you say, but not necessarily to believe it.
I have to warn you though that I sort of have my doubts that there are too many experts on the economy out there, just a lot of people with opinions, so maybe I’m biased to begin with.
Anyway, I’m just out to have fun and learn a little.
Thanks, Max
January 12th, 2010 at 5:49 am
@Jesse
You might want to look into getting your taxes away from your lender. I had to take CMHC insurance (a one off payment in Canada - you don’t keep paying it it just gets added to your mortgage principle at the begining) when I bought my place and I pay my taxes directly to the city of Vancouver.
I actually have mine set up to pay in 10 installments to the city but then I know that the payments are coming out every month to the city. I know others who have had issues with escrow payments from the bank and really not bad to take it out of their hands. Then it is just one more payment (either to a savings account or to the city) which takes care of itself.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Max:
“I’d like to see a government program that provided low-interest loans to home buyers, and that this would be a better use of our money than funding bailouts or war efforts overseas”
I disagree. Protecting our borders and managing our economy is the government’s job. Helping high-school dropouts buy cheap homes is not.
Frankly, it’s not the government’s job to ensure everyone - no matter how broke - can buy a house. That’s up to each individual. If a bunch of terrorists flood across the border and start attacking us, then yes, by all means, expect the government to intervene. But if you want a house, I’m afraid you’re going to have to earn it, like everyone else. Poor people don’t deserve a free pass on the basic laws of economics just because they fancy themselves unlucky, but still really, really want a house.
There are of course economic justifications for this, too. There’s an opportunity cost to tying up $10 billion in capital (plus the ongoing bureaucratic costs you mentioned), rather than using it to reduce taxes, fund government programs like healthcare and education, or other programs that benefit a far greater portion of the population.
Then there’s the “moral hazard” aspect of the argument. You suggested that money be used to help 100,000 people buy homes. Assuming there are 116 million households (as of 2007, according to the US census bureau), that represents 0.09% of all households. That means 99.91% of the population would pay full price for their homes, while 0.09% would get a very steep discount. What kind of a message does that send? Work hard and someday you can buy a house for your family. Or, if you fail spectacularly enough, we’ll help you short-circuit the rules and get a house anyway.
How about those poor households who are still living in slums, but weren’t quite poor enough to qualify for your free money? How about those people poorer than 99.9% of the population, but not that last 0.01%? Where do you draw the line?
“I do think that the wealthy class should contribute a higher percentage than the poor class”
Well, that’s easy enough - they already do. Check out the marginal tax rates. They’re steeply progressive, meaning the so-called “rich” do in fact already pay a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than “poor” people. In fact, as has been shown on this very blog, roughly half the entire population of the US doesn’t pay any federal income taxes at all! So don’t you worry, the “rich” are already shouldering virtually the entire tax burden of society. Success is heavily punished in the US.
“Spreading the wealth around just seems to make sense to me”
Yes, it usually does, to poor people.
The government cannot give anything to anyone that which they have not first taken away from someone else.
January 12th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Great post! I did something similar- graduated from grad school in 2007- got my first payment schedule and was shocked to see my last payment was 2037 (I will be 57!) Spent 1 hour calling my loan providers, and upped my payments just slightly…and took off….19 years from the loan! My interest rates are VERY low, and friends of mine are content to just pay the loans off in 30 years, but for me, any interest is still interest! I now increase my student loan payments $25 every month or two and am sure to ask what my new pay off date is. As of now, I have gone from 30 years to 7, and saved tens of thousands of dollars on my loans (I owe $116,000). Not bad for an hours worth of time!
January 12th, 2010 at 8:54 am
@JS:
If your interest rates are low, then increasing the payment amount doesn’t shorten the payoff date very much at all, because so much of your payments are already going toward the principal.
Beyond that, there’s still the matter of debating whether or not those extra payments could’ve earned you MORE money if you’d invested them elsewhere instead of using them to speed up the paying off of a “VERY low interest” loan. If your interest rates really are that low, then it should be easy to earn a higher return somewhere else with your money, putting you in a better net position years down the road.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:04 am
For those of you who want to know what extra payments on your loan will do go to bankrate.com. Go to their calculator section (at the top above the tabs) and look for ‘amortization calculator’. It is great to see what theoretical loans would cost, but if you know how to use it you can apply it to any existing loan as well. If you want to know how to input an existing loan just ask and I’ll walk you through it. You need the balance, interest rate, and payment or remaining time on the loan.
@Max
We DO have a program to help poor people buy homes. It’s called the FHA (Federal Housing Administration). It is administered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are two quasi-government agencies. And recent events have shown us why they don’t work.
First let me explain, FHA loans are typically set at a price a little bit above the going rate for “great credit” people. But they are, sometimes significantly, lower than those for which most people qualify. They have significantly lower down payment and up front cost requirements and can bend some rules (such as allowing sellers to pay for closing costs, or using a third party’s money for down payment). This is a problem for two reasons: Without requiring a down payment the risk of a house being worth less than is owed is a significant risk, and people who can’t manage enough financial discipline to scrape together a down payment often don’t have the financial discipline to faithfully make their house payments.
In an ideal world people who are upside down on their mortgages would suck it up and keep paying as long as they could afford it. The reality is that many people would rather walk away, hand over the keys, and take the hit to their credit that bankruptcy will cause. The problem with a poor person as a credit risk is the same reason you want to help them: they have nothing to take away. Therefore you have no leverage to sue them and make them pay you what they owe you. I am a landlord and one thing I have learned is that people really want to do the right thing, but they have an infinite number of ways of justifying to themselves that something dishonest is okay. I had one lady argue that I shouldn’t have evicted her because her HUSBAND was the one who wasn’t paying the rent. I used to think that kind of convoluted logic was crazy, but I have found most people are more than capable of twisting ‘right’ to magically be whatever they want at the time.
Second, I know more than a handful of poor people. Most of the people I know who are perpetually poor are so because they make really bad choices. Sad to say, many of them do drugs that precludes them from being successful. The middle class (both upper and lower) people I know who are scraping by and have no money to buy a house are doing so because they can’t manage money. These are the people who break a leg and have to take a week off without pay and suddenly can’t make their bills. Not because they don’t make enough, but because there is nothing there left at the end of the month in case of emergency. If it’s there it’s spent.
I don’t want any of these people as homeowners. You can’t know until you own a house what a big responsibility it is. Everyone I know who has bought a house has had a learning curve much like a new parent, of “This is MY responsibility?!” and “I had no idea how much this would cost!” Even if you plan for it, you don’t understand until the bill’s in front of you.
As far as poor people having housing, there are a number of housing assistance programs available, the most prominent being section 8. Section 8 is a program that pays a percentage of the rent for a poor person, depending on the size of the family and how poor they are. I have talked to tenants that were 50% covered, a neighbor of mine was 100% covered, and I know people on the waiting list. The waiting list in typically quite long because there are a lot of people who want help paying their bills.
And this brings us to the crux of the matter, which is how much assistance to offer. The reason many of us are anti-socialist is because while it is great to want everyone to be happy, healthy, well fed, educated, and have a nice house, these things cost money. It costs me nothing to allow you free speech, but if you want food someone has to produce it and that person must be compensated. And if the compensation is coming from me instead of you what is your motivation to produce anything for yourself? You know the saying about giving a man a fish versus teaching a man to fish?
I am with Kevin that there are things that our government is designed to do: national defense, freeways, international treaties. And things that our federal government is NOT designed to do. Housing assistance is one of them. But that doesn’t mean I think no one should get an assistance, I just don’t think it is the job of the federal government, because a bureaucracy of that size has a really hard time administering such benefits, programs of that size are just asking to be cesspools of waste, fraud, and abuse, and as the concerns lately about INFLATION (remember that word? ;)) show, the federal government can print their own money if they get in trouble.
I think there are people who deserve housing assistance: The severely mentally retarded, people with mental illness, people with severe physical limitations, etc. But if you can’t BUY a house on your own then you shouldn’t be doing it. You either don’t make enough to survive the ups and downs of the market, or you aren’t mature enough to own a house. In this case there is a GREAT alternative: renting.
January 12th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Great story…but it is important to remember to evaluate the savings of time and money on your mortgage balanced against the calculation if you were to invest the money vs. paying down the mortgage. Current economic conditions, tax ramifications and access to cash in an emergency should also be a factor in the equation. If, in today’s mortgage environment you can access “cheap money” why would you run to pay it back so fast?