Paying off mortgage or invest in annuity
You can't pay your bills with equity in your house. Assuming you paid off the mortgage, where would the money come from that you plan to live off of? If that is your whole retirement savings I'd say do neither. Maybe an annuity (not variable) for SOME of the money, keep the rest invested in conservative investments some of it in cash for emergencies. "There is no formula to answer the question. You have to balance return on investment with risk. There's also the question of whether you have any children or other heirs that you would like to leave money to. The mortgage is presumably a guaranteed thing: you know exactly how much the payments will be for the rest of the loan. I think most annuities have a fixed rate of return, but they terminate when you both die. There are annuities with a variable return, but usually with a guaranteed minimum.  So if you got an annuity with a fixed 3.85% return, and you lived exactly 18 more years, then (ignoring tax implications), there'd be no practical difference between the two choices. If you lived longer than 18 years, the annuity would be better. If less, paying off the mortgage would be better. Another option to consider is doing neither, but keeping the money in the 401k or some other investment. This will usually give better than 3.85% return, and the principal will be available to leave to your heirs. The big drawback to this is risk: investments in the stock market and the like usually do better than 3 or 4%, but not always, and sometimes they lose money. Earlier I said ""ignoring tax implications"". Of course that can be a significant factor. Mortgages get special tax treatment, so the effective interest rate on a mortgage is less than the nominal rate. 401ks also get special tax treatment. So this complicates up calculations trying to compare. I can't give definitive numbers without knowing the returns you might get on an annuity and your tax situation." I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis.   This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62.  Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo.  At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that.  Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.
"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (""the most expensive money""). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally ""free money"" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans.  Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same.  In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called ""snowballing"", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week.  Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress.  It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target.  Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt.  Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments.  You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance.  Paying off your car... so your car's paid off.  If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan.  But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency.  This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan.   Many modern banks actually use ""mortgage offsetting"" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted ""as if"" you'd paid it off your mortgage.  So you get the benefit without the commitment.  The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement.  And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars.  But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing." Dealhoud, You are on the right path but this is actually an Equivalent annual cost problem. You have to take it a step further and divide the NPV by the Annuity factor.  You need to calculate the annuity factor and divide the investment by that amount.    Annuity Factor = (1-(1/(1+r)^n )) /r   We know the annual cost of the the current forklift = $5K. We need to figure out the Equivalent annual cost of the new forklift.  Investment / Annuity Factor + annual Cost = EAC.   Therefore $20K / (1 - (1/(1.04^10 )) / 0.04 = $2,465.82 + annual Maintenance = $4,465.82 therefore it makes sense to replace the old machine. You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way.  In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest)  A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder.  THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money).  Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business?   In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor')   You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising?   Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys..  THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings?  an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well.  For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission. "In general taking money out of a 401k to repay a loan is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  Taxes and penalties if you are under 59 and 1/2 you will pay a 10% penalty on withdrawals from a traditional 401k plan. Then you are going add the amount you withdraw to your income in determining your current tax bill. If you make a large withdrawal you will likely push yourself into a higher tax bracket and will end up paying additional taxes than if you made several smaller withdrawals or waited until retirement when your income would presumably be lower. Taxes and penalties will mean you will need to withdraw ~225k in order to pay taxes and penalties while still having 150k to pay toward the mortgage (this assumes you are single and have no other income). You miss out on the growth your 401k could have had.  Lack of diversification the average person has the majority of their net worth tied up in their home and by paying off your mortgage you are putting even more of your money into residential real estate. By moving money from a 401k to your personal residence you could also lose some protection from creditors and lawsuits. Retirement accounts are generally off limits to creditors where as your house is limited by the homestead exemption (varies greatly from state to state). There are a few times when it might makes sense to use 401k money to pay off a mortgage. If you are older than 59.5 and have little tolerance for risk it might make sense to take the amount of money between your current income and the next higher tax bracket and ""invest"" the money in your mortgage each year. You would still want to avoid taking out a large chunk at one time though to avoid pushing yourself into a much higher tax bracket." Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments...  EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest)  for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage: In all likelihood, the best thing you can do, if these really are your only two options (ie no other debt at all), paying-down your mortgage will shorten the term of the mortgage, and mean you spend less on your house in the long run. Investing is should be a long-term activity - so yes, the likelihood is that, given a modest investment, it will gain at historical averages over the life of the investment vehicle. However, that is not a guarantee, and is an inherent risk. Whereas paying-down a mortgage lowers your financial obligations and risk, investing increases your risk. I want to know how you got a 2.1% interest rate on a mortgage, though - the lowest I've seen anywhere is 3.25%. "the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest.  particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.).  and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are ""rich"" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows.  while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client." I would recommend not paying it off early for 2 key reasons: If you are a resident of the U.S. you get tax deductibility of mortgage interest, which as pointed out in previous posts, reduces the effective interest rate on your mortgage, never in your life will you ever be allowed to obtain such high leverage at such a low rates. You can probably get higher returns with not much risk. @JoeTaxpayer mentioned various statistics regarding returns when investing in equities. Even though they are a decent bet over the long term, you can get an even better risk reward tradeoff by considering municipal bonds. If you are in the U.S. and invest in the municipal bonds of your state, the interest income will be both federal and state tax-free.  In other words, if you were making 3.5% investing in equities, your after tax returns would be significantly less depending on your tax bracket whereas investment-grade municipal bond ETFs will yield probably the same or higher and have no tax. They are also significantly less volatile. Even though they have default risk, the risk is small since most of these bonds are backed by future tax obligations, or other income streams derived from hard assets such as tolls or property. Furthermore, an ETF will have a portfolio of these bonds which will also dampen the impact of any individual defaults. In essence, you are getting paid this spread for simply having access to credit, take advantage of it while you can.