vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you're under age 55 and in good health generally you cannot withdraw your funds from super and your super fund cannot provide you with any financial assistance eg lend you money. However, for a very small percentage of people with unrestricted non preserved superannuation components ( check your statement most people's superannuation is 'preserved'which means they cannot access it until they meet a 'condition of release')they may withdraw their super benefits upto the unrestricted non preserved amount. For healthy (& able) persons  aged 55 and over they may access their super under the following conditions: I can understand your frustration of having your money compulsory tied up in superannuation especially given the poor investment returns of the past 5 years. However, superannuation may be more flexible than you realize, I am an adviser at Grant Thornton and I am constantly telling clients that superannuation is not an invest but it the most tax effective long term savings vehicle available to Australians for their investment savings eg max 15% tax on income and capital gains if held for a year are taxed at 10%.  If you're not happy with your investment returns you may like to seek some advice or,set up your own super fund - a self managed super fund where you can invest a wide variety of assets; shares, managed funds,cash, term deposits, property( your super fund can even borrow to help acquire the property) I hope this helps
The days are long gone when offered mortgages were simply based on salary multiples. These days it's all about affordability, taking into account all incomes and all outgoings. Different lenders will have different rules about what they do and don't accept as incomes; these rules may even vary per-product within the same lender's product list.  So for example a mortgage specifically offered as buy-to-let might accept rental income (with a suitable void-period multiplier) into consideration, but an owner-occupier mortgage product might not. Similarly, business rules will vary about acceptance of regular overtime, bonuses, and so on. Guessing at specific answers: #1 maybe, if it's a buy-to-let product, Note that these generally carry a higher interest rate than owner-occupier mortgages; expect about 2% more #2 in my opinion it's extremely unlikely that any lender would consider rental income from your cohabiting spouse #3 probably yes, if it's a buy-to-let product
Something very similar to this was extremely popular in the UK in the late 1980s.  The practice has completely vanished since the early 2000s.  Reading up on the UK endowment mortgage scandals will probably give you an excellent insight into whether you should attempt your plan. Endowment mortgages were provided by banks and at their peak were probably the most popular mortgage form.  The basic idea was that you only pay the interest on your mortgage and invest a small amount each month into a low fee endowment policy.  Many endowment policies were simply index tracking, and the idea being that by the end of your mortgage you would have built up a portfolio sufficient to pay off your mortgage, and may well have extra left over. In the late 1990s the combination of falling housing market and poor stock performance meant that many people were left with both the endowment less than their mortgage and their house in negative equity.
he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance.  It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work.  Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion.  Period. It says nothing about your age.  Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone.  In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case.  At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable.  With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio.  Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing.
I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills.  Keep going, things will get better.   Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting.  If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure.  If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved.   Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting.  Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage.  Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges.  You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.
I asked my realtor, but she recommends to go with just one banker   (her friend), and not to do any rate shopping. You need a new realtor. Anyone who would offer such advice is explicitly stating they are not advocating on your behalf.  I'd do the rate shopping first. When you make an offer, once it's accepted, time becomes critical. The seller expects you to go to closing in so many days after signing the P&S. The realtor is specifically prohibited from pushing a particular lender on you. She should know better.  In response to comment - Rate Shopping can be as simple as making a phone call, and having a detailed conversation. Jasper's list can be conveyed verbally. Prequalification is the next step, where a bank actually writes a letter indicating they have a high confidence you will qualify for the loan.
This is something you are going to have to work out with the leasing company because your goal is to get them to make an exception to their normal rules. I'm a little surprised they wouldn't take 6 months pre-payment, plus documentation of your savings. One option might be to cash in the bonds (since you said they are mature), deposit them in a savings account, and show them your account balance. That documentation of enough to pay for the year, plus an offer to pay 6 months in advance would be pretty compelling. Ask the property manage if that's sufficient. And if the lease is for one year and you're willing to pay the entire year in advance, I can't see how they would possibly object. If your employment prospects are good (show them your resume and explain why you are moving and what jobs you are seeking) a smart property manager would realize you'll be an excellent, low-risk tenant and will make an effort to convince the parent company that you should live there.
Self employment is typically harder to qualify with than W2 income. In general the bank is going to want 2 years of tax returns. You will be asked to sign a 4506-T that allows the bank to get the records directly from the IRS. Self employment income will be averaged across the 2 years, I don't think a 20% drop in profits is large enough to cause concern but it might. I would plan on being able borrow against the lowest year just in case.  If you get a W2 job you will be able to count the income immediately assuming it is not a temporary position. The bank will ask for  the offer letter. If you have decent credit and 20% down, you should be able to get a mortgage either way. A W2 is typically less paperwork and you would get to claim your current income assuming that is higher than your past income.
As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate. All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible. It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher. In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid. If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal. The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house. You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college. You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time. Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income. In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income. If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that. For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later. It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason. Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off.
The biggest factor is: Are you really going to invest the difference? It is easy to say you will now, but unless you have a ton of discipline or some form of automatic investing, that is a hard thing to do in practice. Another consideration is that the 30 year loan will usually cost you more over the life of the loan because of the length of it.  Another option is to take the 30 year loan and pay at the rate you would with a 15. Then you get the benefit of paying it down quickly, but have the flexibility to only make smaller than usual payments in any month where you have a financial emergency and need the extra cash.
At this time there is one advantage of having a 30 year loan right now over a 15 year loan.  The down side is you will be paying 1% higher interest rate. So the question is can you beat 1% on the money you save every month. So Lets say instead of going with 15 year mortgage I get a 30 and put the $200 monthly difference in lets say the DIA fund.  Will I make more on that money than the interest I am losing?  My answer is probably yes.  Plus lets factor in inflation.  If we have any high inflation for a few years in the middle of that 30 not only with the true value of what you owe go down but the interest you can make in the bank could be higher than the 4% you are paying for your 30 year loan.   Just a risk reward thing I think more people should consider.
30 year loans usually have higher interest rates. You pay more interest over the life of the loan on a 30 year loan A 15 year loan will have higher monthly payments than a 30 year loan 30 year loans are virtually all fixed interest rate loans. 10 year loans often are variable interest rates.
In your case it's all going to come down to the rates and how long you expect to live in the new house: As for whether to pay down the student loans or the mortgage first, you'll need to compare the rates, and also adjust for the tax deduction you'll get on the mortgage interest. (You make too much money to deduct any of the student loan interest.) If the student loan and morgage rates are similar, then most likely you're going to be better off paying down the student loans first. As for 15 vs 30 year, typically the rates are better on the 15 year. If they were somehow the same, then you'd be better off with the 30 yr and making the equivalent payments to the 15 year simply so you have the choice of making a lower payment in the future if you ever want to. But generally, if you plan on always making the 15 year payment amount, then you would be better off going with the 15 year just to secure the lower rate. In your case though, sticking with the 30 year and throwing the difference at the student loan may actually benefit you even more, again due to the tax deduction of mortgage interest.
"Yes.  It does cost the same to pay off a ""15 year in 15"" year versus a ""30 year in 15 year"" mortgage.  After all, the 30 year amortization period is only used by the lender to calculate the monthly payment he'll expect, while, unbeknownst to him, you are using a 15 year amortization and the same rate to calculate the payments you'll really make. One factor:  Can you make extra payments at the level you want, without incurring penalties from the lender?  Most mortgages have prepayment limits.  After all. he's seeing his nice steady 30 years of cash flow suddenly shortened.  He has to go out and find someone else to lend the unexpected payments to... EDIT:  Closed mortgages, with pre-payment charges are the norm here in Canada;  open mortgages predominate in the US  http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/nero/jufa/jufa_018.cfm"
Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings.
The monthly payment difference isn't that great On a $300K loan, the 30 year monthly payment (at 4%) is $1432, the 15 year (at 3.5%) is $2145, that $712 per month, or 50% higher payment. $712 is the total utility or food bill for a couple. If that $1432 represents 25% of income (a reasonable number) then $2145 is over 35%. I'd rather use that money for something else and not obligate myself at the start of the mortgage.  Given how little we save as a country, the $712 is best put into a matched 401(k) in the US or other retirement account if elsewhere.
"Consider the ""opportunity cost"" of the extra repayment on a 15 year loan.  If you owe money at 30% p.a. and money at 4% p.a. then it is a no brainer that the 30% loan gets paid down first. Consider too that if the mortgage is not tax deductable and you pay income tax, that you do not pay tax on money you ""save"". (i.e. in the extreme $1 saved is $2 earned). Forward thinking is key, if you are paying for someone's college now, then you would want to pay out of an education plan for which contributions are tax deductable, money in, money out. In my country most mortgages, be they 15,25,30 years tend to last 6-8 years for the lender. People move or flip or re-finance.  I would take the 15 for the interest rate but only if I could sustain the payments without hardship. Maybe a more modest home ?   If you cannot afford the higher repayments you are probably sailing a bit close to the wind anyway.   Another thing to consider is that tax benefits can be altered with the stroke of a pen, but you may still have to meet repayments."
Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? Depends when. If you mean 12K now vs 1K a month over the next 12 months, repeating this each year, now wins. If you mean saving 1K a month for 12 months then doing a lumpsum, the 1K a month wins. Basically, a sooner payment saves you more money than a later payment. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? Your number one issue is that you have a thirty year mortgage. The interest you pay on it is monstrous. For the 30 year term, you pay around 500K in interest. A 15-year mortgage is 300K cheaper (only 200K in interest will be paid). The monthly payment would be 1250 more. How much money and years on a mortgage can I save? When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? You can knock off about a dozen years. Save I think ~250K. You can find mortgage calculators online or talk to your mortgage advisor to play around with the numbers.
"I'm in the ""big mortgage"" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options.  (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest))."
The best way to look at it is this: I would suspect most people would say no.  Most people do not have the time, skill, or risk tolerance to be able to leverage capital as large as the value of their own home. Remember that a 15-year fixed has a slightly lower interest rate than a 30-year fixed (difference of 0.5–1%).  If you won't have the discipline to invest every cent left in your pocket, then you are better off with the 15-year and the lower rate.
And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner.
If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight.
Another thing to consider is that paying extra principal (either via one of these services, or by including something extra with your normal mortgage payment and designating that it go to principal rather than be held to reduce next month's payment, or just sending an additional payment to the bank and designating it as reducing the principal) shortens the term of your loan. Is this good? Maybe. Consider that banks lend with a variety of terms. Usually the 15-year fixed rate mortgage has a lower interest rate than the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and the 5-year home-equity-loan has an even lower rate. When you prepay your loan, your interest rate stays the same, but the bank gets its money back sooner. This makes more profit for the bank as it can then invest the money in other things. That profit could have been yours if you had made that investment instead of prepaying your mortgage.