patrick.net

indigenous says

Strategist says

2. Invest your money in home builder stocks, preferably an ETF. It will triple in the next few years.

You are awfully cocky about that!

Just wait and see. I put my money where my mouth is.

Strategist says

Just wait and see. I put my money where my mouth is.

The point is why?

If you get a 30 years mortgage and plan to pay it early, you are basically pissing money away.

If you plan to accelerate the payment, then do a 15 year or 5 year. Instead of 4.125% APR, it goes down to 3.375% APR or 2.25% net of tax.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Just wait and see. I put my money where my mouth is.

The point is why?

We have a severe shortage of homes, which keeps getting worse. We need to build 1.5 million units per year, and then some, just to catch up with 9 years of under building.
Homebuilder stocks can only go up in the next few years.

Ironman says

No it's not. If you think there won't be any appreciation, why would you put a big chunk of liquid cash into it instead of investing that cash into something where you know you'll get a better return. Do you normally invest large sums of money in an item knowing that it's going to fall in value?

How do you not see this?? The cash return is the interest you avoid paying. That is the guaranteed return. It has nothing to do with the appreciation or lack thereof of the asset.

Ironman says

You really have difficulties with seeing the big picture, don't you. Why is that?? You get fixated on the stupidest little point not part of the discussion.

All the libbys have that problem.

Ironman says

On a depreciating asset, why would someone tie up their liquid funds and lose value, when they can get get a better return using OPM?

You are bringing up something this is irrelevant, quite impressive. Depreciating/Appreciating, you make up all the rules.

In the end, the decision is whether to pay off the mortgage to avoid the 3% cash net of tax, or deploy that cash somewhere for a return better than 3% net of tax. The person will own the home and ride with it regardless.

Ironman says

No it's not. If you think there won't be any appreciation, why would you put a big chunk of liquid cash into it instead of investing that cash into something where you know you'll get a better return. Do you normally invest large sums of money in an item knowing that it's going to fall in value?

If he pays as bank asks over 30 years he'll end up paying $299,988.78 in interest to a bank. That's real significant money, cutting that interest even in half is probably financially wise.

FortWayne says

If he pays as bank asks over 30 years he'll end up paying $299,988.78 in interest to a bank. That's real significant money, cutting that interest even in half is probably financially wise.

horrible advice

It's not smart to count the interest expense and not consider interest/gains earned.

IMAN, YOU ARE TRULY HOPELESS. GB for good.

SFace says

horrible advice

It's not smart to count the interest expense and not consider interest/gains earned.

how so?

300k is interest paid, it's money he pays for the privilege of borrowing it. keeping money in the bank earns roughly 0.5% in savings these days... way below 4.15 he would be paying in interest. i don't see why not pay something like that off faster.

FortWayne says

There is no better feeling than not owing anyone a penny, a free man!

There's always property tax that keeps you bound...just saying

FortWayne says

how so?

300k is interest paid, it's money he pays for the privilege of borrowing it. keeping money in the bank earns roughly 0.5% in savings these days... way below 4.15 he would be paying in interest. i don't see why not pay something like that off faster.

He could buy stocks that average 5% return between dividends and gains fairly easily. The long term return including dividends and appreciation of any conservative portfolio is far higher than that.

While the original poster is likely wrong about how much his tax write off is worth (you have to compare itemizing with the interest, to not itemizing. Unless he has a ton of other write offs, likely MOST of the interest is used to just get him to the line where writing it off becomes better.) he is still seeing a bit of a savings.

But, on a bigger issue fortwhine, why the f F**K are you giving financial advice? you do know that you are one of the stupidest people here right?

Ironman says

Go back and ask the people who bought houses in the 2005 - 2007 window if they were better off putting a huge chunk of their cash into their house (only to watch it vaporize when the bubble burst) or if they were better off hanging on to the cash, investing it somewhere else, and taking a large mortgage.

Makes no difference at all, unless you walk away from the house in a short sale or foreclosure.

what the hell are the two stupidest people in this forum, ironvagina, and fort whine, doing giving financial advice? seriously!

Ironman says

The OP was talking about carrying a mortgage and investing the cash instead. He wasn't talking about NOT taking a mortgage and saving that interest portion. He was talking about deploying that capital elsewhere that will bring a higher ROI then the interest rate.

I'm the one who actually gets it. You've now had multiple posters on here trying to tell you how you're wrong. I'll try once more.

You're right that he wants to deploy the capital elsewhere that will bring a higher return than the interest rate. So far so good. That's where the savings are. And it's true whether the house gains or loses in value.

Ironman says

On a depreciating asset, why would someone tie up their liquid funds and lose value, when they can get get a better return using OPM? Once again, you're not qualified to discuss financial matters here. Go back to the Sesame Street forum.

Here's where you go off the rails. He owns the asset whether he has a loan for 50%, 80%, or if he owns it outright. The additional money he puts in to pay down the loan doesn't gain or lose value. That gain or loss is going to happen whether the money is in stocks, bonds, or in the house. Like others said, the only way this isn't true is if you plan to default.

Ironman says

Go back and ask the people who bought houses in the 2005 - 2007 window if they were better off putting a huge chunk of their cash into their house (only to watch it vaporize when the bubble burst) or if they were better off hanging on to the cash, investing it somewhere else, and taking a large mortgage

Their money vaporized wherever it was invested unless they defaulted on their house. If the house loses $200K in value, it doesn't matter if you have $10K invested in it or $500K invested in it--you lose $200K.

youareworthless says

Makes no difference at all, unless you walk away from the house in a short sale or foreclosure.

what the hell are the two stupidest people in this forum, ironvagina, and fort whine, doing giving financial advice? seriously!

Why would anyone take financial advice from an anonymous board no matter who is posting?

Tenpoundbass says

My biggest reason and only reason is the unpredictable ever more greedy insurance industry.

Every year since I bought 5 years ago, they have raised the insurance by $300 to $500 a year. This year they tried to raise it up by $5000, they made me jump through some hoops. Do some home repairs, basically replace several Items in the house that was fine, and I had to clean and paint my roof, then got it reinspected. And then was made to feel like the $1200 they raised it was a hell of a deal.

While I was put on notice that inspections in the next 3 to 5 years, could bring these back out. Unless I take out about $70,000 loan and replace all my windows with high impact windows, and a few roof modifications, that eventually I will be raised up to $7000 to $10,000 a year or more. Then even then if I do all of those upgrades, there's no guarantee that the insurance companies still wont find other ways to raise insurance. All of this during a Hurricane drought in South Florida if anything the prices should be going down not up.

If I can't afford an extra grand or two a month now, then I sure as hell wont be able to afford it 5 years from now. So I did the math and figured if the worst case scenario for Insurance was a reality now, with the extra money I would have to pay to insurance company a year. If I instead put that to my mortgage I would be paid off in 5 years.

So fuck it! That's what I'm doing.

Once you have paid off your mortgage, insurance is optional. Just a thought there.

Personally, I would rather pay off the mortgage in my 40s even if I could hypothetically have a higher net worth in my 60s if I were to make minimum monthly mortgage payments and "invest the difference" between prepayment and minimum payment into the stock market. The freedom and security that comes with paying off the death pledge so much earlier in life is absolutely priceless and I am currently working on that project.

dublin hillz says

The freedom and security that comes with paying off the death pledge so much earlier in life is absolutely priceless

Yes it is! I paid off my mortgage five years ago and my wife and I love the security of having a paid off house and less cash outflow every month. Unless you have a very large mortgage and high taxes or also have kids, it's hard to beat the standard deduction. We hadn't been able to itemize for years and so just finally bit the bullet and paid the house off. The only caveat is to not leave yourself cash poor (i.e. don't leave yourself with almost no cash reserve) when paying off you note. We still had an intact two+ year emergency fund after paying the house off.

zzyzzx says

Once you have paid off your mortgage, insurance is optional. Just a thought there.

That's the idea. That the rate they'll be charging for insurance. I could put those premiums in a house mantainance fund.
And be way ahead of the game. If a big one does come that would level my house, or that I would have more than $20K in damage. I would be in the house and wont be here the next day to file a claim anyway.

DBOAPD,

Try to be less reserved & speak your mind.
lol

HEY YOU says

Try to be less reserved & speak your mind.

It is all part of the therapy, he doing very well don't you think?

I'm curious what the balance in the decision would be for a rental property. I've considered paying off a rental which would literally use up only 10% of my net worth and I have way too much cash. Not paying it off tips the balance in favor of paying no income tax in California for the out of state investment. With interest and depreciation I take a loss on paper but it earns the mortgage + >50%.

Those assholes tax everything. I returned an empty bottle of coolant after doing an AC recharge to PepBoys last weekend to get my $10 environmental impact refund and got back $10.80. Fucking state taxed that 'fee' too!

just_passing_through says

I'm curious what the balance in the decision would be for a rental property.

Even less reason to pay it off.

As an owner, you may get some tax advantage for mortgage interest. (depending on other deductions, etc)

as a landlord, 100% of the mortgage interest is a business expense. My worst mortgage is at 4.875%. But since my marginal federal rate is what these days? 39.6%? plus state marginal rate of 4%, the effective cost of that mortgage is under 3%. You can buy plenty of dividend stocks that pay much more than that!

I can add two reasons lately I've thought of:

1. switching to a 15 year fixed. Especially, if your 30 has been around for a while, it is nearly a 15's payment anyways if you refinance it. Might make sense.

2. If you might do a 1031 exchange of the property later. In that case, you'd need to get a loan equal to or greater on the new property, and that might not be what you want to do.

Other than that, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Blurtman says

Re-fi into shorter duration mortgage. 10-15 years. Rates are very low, and maybe can get below 3.00%.

Consider that then the number of years/amount of interest deduction you can do is lower. Only the first year is really 3.00 effective rate. Last year is 4.125%, since you don't deduct interest.

I think the point is that if you get to the point where you can itemize because of interest you can start deducting items you couldn't otherwise.

Examples are:
1. Property tax. Roughly 6000$ here in Portland.
2. Charity deductions. 2000$ for some people

If I'm in the 30% bracket that is roughly 2400$ in additional savings each year that I would not have save if I had taken the standard deductions.

jazz music says

"Psychology Today" seems to say that ignoring trolls isn't going to discourage them

Could be right. Nothing discourages you from posting anti American crap on this site.

jazz music says

TROLLING TROLLS ARE STINKING ASSHOLES

WHO GET TICKLED BY YOUR TEARS.

IF YOU RESPOND THEY KEEP TROLLING ON

TIL THEIR TINY WIENERS REAPPEAR!

Shakespeare on the troll again. Still calling for revolutions against a non existent police state.

alt account?

just_passing_through says

I'm curious

What you gained or lost depends on what you sell it for the day it sells, not on some irrelevent snapshot in time.

tatupu70 says

Their money vaporized wherever it was invested unless they defaulted on their house. If the house loses $200K in value, it doesn't matter if you have $10K invested in it or $500K invested in it--you lose $200K.

and you know this...how??

jazz music says

IF YOU RESPOND THEY KEEP TROLLING ON

TIL THEIR TINY WIENERS REAPPEAR!

jazz music says

I know this because you appeared LOL

Xanthidae says

and you know this...how??

Dumb answer. Stick to poetry, Shakespeare.
Hey Shakespeare, I have an idea. Why not write a short play about everyone on Patnet.

apparently so...
who'd have thunk it? Jazz Musician, the pink panther, a catalogger of cock sizes....

jazz music says

I know this because you appeared LOL

Xanthidae says

and you know this...how??

Ironman says

He travels with Dan to Georgie's.