- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I’m surprised to see so many advocating for 15 year mortgages on here
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:35 am to bstew3006
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:35 am to bstew3006
quote:
I’m 6yrs in on my 30yr @ 4.2%
If I’m able to refi a 15yr @ 2.75% - 3.25% I’ll be doing so ASAP.
I'm close to your situation, and a 20 year at 3% barely increases my monthly payment, but significantly kills the interest.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:52 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
Ahh ok, you dont know what you're talking about then
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:54 am to 21JumpStreet
I noticed the same thing when he posted that. Dude has no idea what opportunity cost actually is
Posted on 3/7/20 at 8:03 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
quote:
Ok...why not just refinance to a 30 year and invest the difference? Gives you more flexibility and lessens the opportunity costs big time.
Invest the difference, hmm... id rather pay my home off in 15 or less, freeing up 1600-2000 month over refi into another 30 and investing the $200-$300 in savings.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 8:27 am to bstew3006
I run 30 year mortgages and adjust my monthly payment every quarter when I rebalance my portfolio. If I want to go heavy on the market I pull some money back, but to be honest it’s usually somewhere around an 8-10 year payoff track.
The relative rate advantage associated with the 15 year didn’t make sense to me given the associated opportunity/risk costs of not being able to use the money in other areas.
I’m fortunate because I’m not living in an expensive area so I can usually hit my investment goals and go aggressively after my mortgage, but there is peace of mind knowing that even if my income changed that I wouldnt be leveraged.
The relative rate advantage associated with the 15 year didn’t make sense to me given the associated opportunity/risk costs of not being able to use the money in other areas.
I’m fortunate because I’m not living in an expensive area so I can usually hit my investment goals and go aggressively after my mortgage, but there is peace of mind knowing that even if my income changed that I wouldnt be leveraged.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 8:39 am to tide06
I was having the same thoughts reading the other mortgage thread. I think I agree with going for the 30 vs the 15 as well. I’ll pay 3% forever and use my money more productively, in theory, elsewhere. A couple tenths of a point interest rate doesn’t seem worth it? What am I missing, feel free to tell me why I’m wrong
Edit: you can always accelerate your principle payments if and when you choose on a 30yr
Edit: you can always accelerate your principle payments if and when you choose on a 30yr
This post was edited on 3/7/20 at 8:43 am
Posted on 3/7/20 at 8:44 am to rocksteady
quote:
A couple tenths of a point interest rate doesn’t seem worth it?
If you’re only getting a couple tenths difference, I’d agree. But if you’re able to get 1% or more, then I say do it and will.
Everybody has a different strategy and if you’re comfortable and applying $$ in appropriate areas, Rock out.
This post was edited on 3/7/20 at 8:50 am
Posted on 3/7/20 at 10:08 am to rocksteady
Here's a decent article showing actual numbers on 15 year vs 30 year and investing. Of course everyone's rates can be different.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 3/7/20 at 10:21 am to 21JumpStreet
I ran a similar example and came out with 30 year and investing being ahead. But I used a 6% return and 2.875 and 3.25 as the rates.
At the end of the day, I don’t think one strategy is clearly superior. It depends on your goals, risk preferences and a ton of other individual factors.
At the end of the day, I don’t think one strategy is clearly superior. It depends on your goals, risk preferences and a ton of other individual factors.
This post was edited on 3/7/20 at 10:23 am
Posted on 3/7/20 at 10:25 am to 21JumpStreet
30yr $250k @ 4.25% = $1229/mo (total cost = $442,745)
15yr $250 @ 3.25% = $1757/mo ($528/mo difference) (total cost = $316,200)
15yr $250k @ 2.75% = $1697/mo ($468/mo difference) (total cost = $305,380
30yrs $528/mo @ 9% avg = $973,882
30yrs $468/mo @ 9% avg = $863,214
15yrs $1,757 @ 9% avg = $669,845
15yrs $1,697 @ 9% avg = $649,971
30yr vs 3.25% adjusted for total cost = $847,337
30yr vs 2.75% adjusted for total cost = $725,848
The 30yr vs the 2.75% is still even higher the the 3.25% difference invested. Beats it by $200k
So yes the 30 yrs is better for lost opportunity cost. I would take the 30 yr over the 15 yr.
reason for this is when you invest your first $1,757/$1,697 you already have $201,297/$178,422 built up compounding when you invest your first dollar with the 15yr.
15yr $250 @ 3.25% = $1757/mo ($528/mo difference) (total cost = $316,200)
15yr $250k @ 2.75% = $1697/mo ($468/mo difference) (total cost = $305,380
30yrs $528/mo @ 9% avg = $973,882
30yrs $468/mo @ 9% avg = $863,214
15yrs $1,757 @ 9% avg = $669,845
15yrs $1,697 @ 9% avg = $649,971
30yr vs 3.25% adjusted for total cost = $847,337
30yr vs 2.75% adjusted for total cost = $725,848
The 30yr vs the 2.75% is still even higher the the 3.25% difference invested. Beats it by $200k
So yes the 30 yrs is better for lost opportunity cost. I would take the 30 yr over the 15 yr.
reason for this is when you invest your first $1,757/$1,697 you already have $201,297/$178,422 built up compounding when you invest your first dollar with the 15yr.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 10:48 am to LSUtiger89
9 % return is not a guaranteed return over a 30 year period. I’d say something like 5 % is more accurate
Posted on 3/7/20 at 11:05 am to The Seaward
Yes I agree with that. Individual factors do play a part and how risky you are. Such as already having an emergency fund and etc.
Also, another advantage I found with a credit union with a 15 year is if you put 10% down PMI gets waived because for them it was considered an in house loan.
And you can speculate the investment return at 5-10% but that's not guaranteed.
A 15 year rate at 2.5%(the one I got) is guaranteed.
Also, another advantage I found with a credit union with a 15 year is if you put 10% down PMI gets waived because for them it was considered an in house loan.
And you can speculate the investment return at 5-10% but that's not guaranteed.
A 15 year rate at 2.5%(the one I got) is guaranteed.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 11:39 am to LSUtiger89
Gotcha, that makes sense. It's pretty much guaranteed vs non guaranteed on what it boils down to.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 1:27 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Yeah, at my age, 55, I don't need to invest the additional, I would rather get the 15, pay on it till 62, and let my SS start paying my house payment at that point.
A common theme in a lot (most?) of the threads that attempt to show one debt vs. investment strategy always being superior to another is that the OPs tend not to understand the concept of risk adjusted returns, age appropriate investments or just the simple fact that not every poster is in the same life situation as every other poster.
This 8% (average - wink wink) return comes up again & again, simply because that's close to the historical return of the S&P 500. Nothing is typically said about the peak to trough drawdowns that the market has experienced during certain periods. And very few seem to understand the concepts of risk adjusted returns, or even what a Sharpe ratio is.
But say, in your case, if you were heavily invested in an S&P 500 fund, that likely would NOT be age appropriate - depending on your other retirement assets, of course. And the lower returns you'd be receiving from being in things like income funds, or just less risky investments, would most certainly be major factors in your 30 vs. 15 decision... in addition to the fact that you probably wouldn't want to be saddled with a mortgage when you're 85. It likely wouldn't make good sense for you to get a longer dated mortgage, at a higher interest rate, just so you could invest the lower payment delta into a lower yielding income security.
But for others, once they fully understand the concept of risk adjusted returns (in addition to this "opportunity cost" that they like to refer to), and have a handle on how long they'll actually be in the house and what age appropriate investments are yielding... the 30 yr. really may be the best decision.
Every situation is different. That's all I'm saying. Contrary to what's being suggested in the OP of this thread, there is no universally correct answer.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 3:41 pm to Jag_Warrior
quote:
A common theme in a lot (most?) of the threads that attempt to show one debt vs. investment strategy always being superior to another is that the OPs tend not to understand the concept of risk adjusted returns, age appropriate investments or just the simple fact that not every poster is in the same life situation as every other poster.
Psychological factors have value, I have less anxiety knowing my home is paid for, that is worth something to me.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 3:59 pm to Jag_Warrior
quote:
This 8% (average - wink wink) return comes up again & again
Let's also remember that mortgages are at historical low's right now. They are pretty incredible. If they were 5-8% or even more, this really wouldn't be a topic of conversation as I'm not sure anyone is choosing a 30 year at 6.5% instead of a 15 year at 6%.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:26 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
If you are planning to upgrade down the road, the 15 year makes way more sense. Tax free equity as you are paying off majority principle vs majority interest
The first 5-10 years on a 30 you are basically only paying interest. The 15 year is a great investment if you have the discipline. Is that extra $1000 a month in investments really worth 5% average increase in value and treating your home as a tax free savings account?
The first 5-10 years on a 30 you are basically only paying interest. The 15 year is a great investment if you have the discipline. Is that extra $1000 a month in investments really worth 5% average increase in value and treating your home as a tax free savings account?
Posted on 3/7/20 at 7:28 pm to baldona
When the virus wipes out 30-40% of market due to a recession people may wish they had used excessive funds to pay down mortgage.
Posted on 3/7/20 at 9:12 pm to lsu13lsu
I’m thinking over 30 years here. If this virus has that long of impact, we’re probably fricked either way.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News