Mortgage Fun Fest

Mortgage Fun Fest

Posers and Puzzles

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

u
The So Fist

Voice of Reason

Joined
28 Mar 06
Moves
9908
09 Dec 10

Which would work out for you better after 10 years?

You have a $500,000 mortgage.

Traditional mortgage payment way: (lets use months instead of biweekly to make it easier)

Pay $2000/month for 10 years with a 5% fixed term interest rate.


Proposed way:

Pay $1500/month for 10 years with a 5% fixed term interest rate. But you keep the extra $500/month in a special account and at the end of the year you use the entire $6000 as a lump sum payment which comes off the principal.

Which way is best?

Is there an optimal amount to hold back each year to use as a principal lump sum payment or is it always best to max out on your monthly mortgage payment instead?

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
10 Dec 10

Originally posted by uzless
Which would work out for you better after 10 years?

You have a $500,000 mortgage.

Traditional mortgage payment way: (lets use months instead of biweekly to make it easier)

Pay $2000/month for 10 years with a 5% fixed term interest rate.


Proposed way:

Pay $1500/month for 10 years with a 5% fixed term interest rate. But you keep the extra $5 ...[text shortened]... cipal lump sum payment or is it always best to max out on your monthly mortgage payment instead?
It's always best to max out on your monthly mortgage payment unless you have an account that gives you a higher return than your interest rate or if inflation is higher than your fixed interest rate.

The reason is that you do not pay the compound interest on the amounts that you were not repaying.

u
The So Fist

Voice of Reason

Joined
28 Mar 06
Moves
9908
10 Dec 10

Originally posted by Palynka
It's always best to max out on your monthly mortgage payment unless you have an account that gives you a higher return than your interest rate or if inflation is higher than your fixed interest rate.

The reason is that you do not pay the compound interest on the amounts that you were not repaying.
bit of math would help

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
14 Dec 10

Originally posted by uzless
bit of math would help
No, it wouldn't. Logic suffices.

f
Defend the Universe

127.0.0.1

Joined
18 Dec 03
Moves
16687
14 Dec 10
1 edit

Originally posted by Palynka
No, it wouldn't. Logic suffices.
I would actually tend to agree. Any money that you aren't paying as soon a possible, while interest is building monthly, is going to hurt your bottom line.

The inverse of this problem: paying a year's worth of principle ahead of time and forgoing payments for a year, WOULD help.

u
The So Fist

Voice of Reason

Joined
28 Mar 06
Moves
9908
16 Dec 10

Originally posted by forkedknight
I would actually tend to agree. Any money that you aren't paying as soon a possible, while interest is building monthly, is going to hurt your bottom line.

The inverse of this problem: paying a year's worth of principle ahead of time and forgoing payments for a year, WOULD help.
How much money do you save by paying the full $2000/month?


How much would you need to earn on your $500/month in order to make it worth your while to not max out your payment?

Joined
26 Apr 03
Moves
26771
16 Dec 10
2 edits

It makes sense if you can get higher interest in your savings account than your mortgage. But your mortgage company is unlikely to allow you to set up the underpayments, because the total sum owed will increase every month.

since 1-Feb-07

Australia

Joined
20 Jan 09
Moves
386278
09 Jan 11
1 edit

Local tax rates may interfere. Here the interest income is taxable, but the interest payment on a home mortgage is not. So the overpayment which reduces the principal (and therefore all future interest charges) is always the best deal here.