vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time.
"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial ""education"", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it).
"First off, the ""mortgage interest is tax deductible"" argument is a red herring.  What ""tax deductible"" sounds like it means is ""if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes"".  If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means.  What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line ""income subject to taxation.""  Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something ""tax deductible"" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first.  It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan.  So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years.  The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that.  Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say ""5 years."" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose?  It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way."
"I think you're right that from a pure ""expected future value"" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate."
There's nothing wrong with it. Living in a two-family house and renting the downstairs was a fairly standard path to the middle class and home ownership in the 20th century. Basically, if market conditions are good, you'll have someone else paying your mortgage. The disadvantage of the situation is that you're a landlord. So you have to deal with your tenant, who is also a neighbor. Most tenants are fine, but the occasional difficult person may come out of the woodwork. That model of achieving home ownership became less popular in the late 60's-early 70's when the law allowed two incomes to be used for mortgage underwriting. Also, as suburbanization became a national trend, absentee landlords became more common Sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, and have stumbled into a good deal.
I'm not sure the reasoning still holds though.  If you default on your student loan, your diploma doesn't get repossessed.  There's a signifiant moral hazard associated with student loans.  A mortgage on the other hand is around a very physical item.  Though I can still banks lobbying for better rules, that would be hugely in the consumers disadvantage.
I'll write this up as a more formal answer, here. I'd suggest looking into a Home Equity Line of Credit, or HELOC. You didn't mention in your question how much equity you have in the home, but assuming at least 20%, you might be able to open a HELOC with a line of $40,000. My experience is that you can do 50% of your equity, but depends on the bank. Here are a few notes that are generally in play with HELOC's (YMMV, so be sure to know the specifics before signing on the line) Doing this, at least when we did 8 years ago, did not subject us to PMI. There are certainly plenty of things to research, but it sounds like you're pretty astute based on how you're evaluating the financial side of this endeavor. There are no guarantees in real estate. Houses could be selling like crazy now, but in 6 months they might not. It certainly sounds like that's a lower risk in your area, but you never know what might happen. If you're taking on this extra line of credit, make sure that it's something you could afford should the worst case scenario happen.  Equity loans are also available. This is a more traditional fixed-rate loan rather than line of credit, so you'd be looking at set monthly payments rather than the flexibility of paying interest only when you need to. There's a brief write-up on the differences here. I have also heard of a construction loan, which falls into the same category as the aforementioned options, but I can't speak to today's market on those.
When I was a contractor I prioritize this way. 6 months salary nest egg while contributing to tax deferred retirement then after that you can pre pay your mortgage.  Remember you can't skip a month even if you prepay.  So once you pay that extra to your mortgage you lose that flexibility.
The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement?  The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now.
You have a loan. You can probably assume you're going to have to repay that loan, every dollar. And every dollar that's outstanding on that loan costs you interest. So assuming you're not hit by any pre-payment penalty, any dollar that you pay down on your house right now saves you a compounded R% a year, where R is your mortgage rate. It doesn't really matter whether you're planning to sell it in a few years or not. If you pay $N, you'll save the interest + $N taken from the sale price and sent to the bank when you sell the house and move (though you might get a tax deduction on the interest). If you have a better place to park your money and earn a decent rate of return, it would be worth it to do that instead of paying down the mortgage. If you had another loan with higher interest rates, that's probably a better loan to pay off. If you can spend some of all of it on something that's actually genuinely worth R% of its purchase price a year (plus whatever the wear and tear takes away from its value, if anything) then spend it on that instead; that'd be a better investment. (For instance, investments in the stock market may offer better returns. However, that's risky! Observe that you can't lose money paying down your mortgage, and that Safety is usually relatively expensive these days, so it's not a bad deal. But if you're talking about using it for long-term retirement savings that are tax-advantaged to boot, that's another matter.) If you already have ample emergency funds and were just planning on putting the money into a savings account to rot at ~1.35% taxable interest, it's definitely worth it to pay down your balance now, unless you're about to sell (so the savings are slight) and it's a real inconvenience.
But now you have cash on hand that wasn't used to pay debt, no change in net worth. In fact, if you refuse to pay your mortgage for two years until you're kicked out of your underwater house, your net worth goes up.
No, 401(k) and IRA accounts are not at risk when you default on a mortgage, even in states that aren't non-recourse. In states where mortgages are non-recourse loans, the bank isn't allowed to go after you at all. They get the keys and whatever they recover from the house sale is it.
The way offset mortgages work, you are keeping savings in an account effectively earning the rate of the mortgage. You have the ability to leave it, paying the mortgage off early, or borrowing back, any time.
I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans.  I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans.  I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.
"IMO the right path usually depends on how long you depend on staying in the home and how much you put down. The idea behind paying the higher rate is that you can easily recoup $0.25-35 on the dollar in taxes if you go with the higher rate -- at least for the first few years. But that ""benefit"" becomes less valuable over time, as you pay more interest in the beginning of the loan. It's a good deal in many cases, as the trend over the last few years is to put 5% or less down, and most people stay in homes for around 7 years. In your case, you are putting down a substantial down payment, and with only 4 years to 80% LTV (or less, if the market improves), taking the lower rate with PMI makes more sense."
While it is possible, it's not a really good use of your time or theirs. Mortgage brokers have access to dozens of lenders, can assemble deals you can't even dream of, and are much more intimately acquainted with the latest lending rule changes than you are. They are paid by the lenders to bring them business, so there is no cost to you. A mortgage broker has the advantage of leverage because he can be placing 10 mortgages per day, while you will be placing one, once.  Your mortgage broker is working on your behalf. Get out of his way and let him do his job so you can concentrate on other matters. If your concern is that you want the lowest rate, share that with your broker and let him find the best rate for you. If you want a deal where you can put a larger prepayment down, let him know that and he will find you what you're looking for.
In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2%  lower than say a year or 2 years ago.  In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.
Having a loan also represents risk.  IMHO you should retire the loan as soon as feasible in most cases.   JoeTaxpayer, as usual, raises a good point.  With numbers as he is quoting, it is tolerable to have a loan around on a asset such as a home.  While he did not mention it, I am sure that his rate is fixed. If the interest rate is variable:  pay it off. If it is a student loan:  pay it off. If you can have it retired quickly:  pay it off and get the bank off your payroll. If it is consumer debt:  pay it off.
A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market.  A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k.  The loan has two components. a.  The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b.  The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top).  The originating bank lends $180k of their own money.  Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it.  The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less.  The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient.  Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around.  One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1.  One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for.
"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does   that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000   less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage.   If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes.  If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What   does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home   as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well.   When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down.   When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying   $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years.   A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting.  The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners."
With the information you have given, I would say never. Remember the banker is a salesman, and the line of credit is the product. If you don't need to borrow the money for something specific, then you don't need the line of credit in the first place. Even if you did need something I would tell you to save up and pay cash for it. On the tax advantage: There is none, in the US you can deduct your mortgage interest on your taxes but it's not a tax credit it's a tax deductions. Let me explain further: You spend $10,000 on mortgage interest, and you're in the 25% tax bracket. You send the bank $10,000 in return you get at tax savings of $2500. You are still in the hole $7500 You would have been better off not taking out the loan in the first place. On the Emergency Fund: You should have 3 - 6 months of expenses in cash, like a money market account.  This money isn't for investing, it's like insurance, and you don't make money on insurance. The last thing you want to do is have to go into debt right in the middle of an emergency. Say you lost your job, the last thing you would want to do is borrow money, right at the time you have no income to pay it back. The bank is under no obligation to maintain you credit limit and can without notice reduce it, they can in most cases call the loan balance due in full with little or no notice as well. Both of those are likely scenarios if the bank were to become aware of the fact that you were unemployed.
There are a lot of open questions about if this is your only accessible money or if you have other emergency funds, and if you have any retirements savings and when do you plan to retire, but leaving this all aside: You currently pay 2.65% on the mortgage, and you make less on savings (maybe 1 or 1.5%). So putting the savings into the mortgage makes you the difference, which is a good deal. However, you need to reflect this with your risk-averisty, and your long term goals, and look at potential even better deals. For example, you could put the savings into higher risk/higher gain investments (let’s assume index funds), and make 6 - 10% per year in average. That obviously is a lot more. Why would you not want to do that? Investing like this is a long term plan. If this is your only savings/emergency fund, or if you need the money within the next five years, you should not do it; it could catch you in a bad market situation, and then it might be a severe loss. If you are sure you don’t need it for at least five if not ten years, invest it and keep the mortgage, you will easily beat its interest rate. If you are risk-averse, and can’t sleep with your savings doing loopings while you watch, that is also not a plan for you. There are many things to consider, and your personal situation is relevant for the decision. Consider all options, and be sure to always have a emergency fund remaining. It is also not black and white - there are options in between of your two propositions - pay some in, and keep some for emergencies.