Is it possible to make money by getting a mortgage?
To keep the math simple, say you are in the 25% federal tax bracket. Your 4% mortgage effectively costs you 3%. Did Mr Advisor tell you what he suggests investing the money in? Borrowing at 3% net to put the money in .1% CDs makes little sense. And for most people, investing it in the stock market hoping to come out ahead, also makes little sense.  Credentials or not, people like him give humans a bad name, and make me love my dog even more. I'd stay far away from this guy. Very far away.  Edit - on further reflection (seeing mhoran's reference to $100K) it occurred to me that once a house is paid off, the only deductions allowed is for the first $100K of new mortgage or HELOC, absent a renovation or improvement of some kind. Given the limit and current 4% rates, it would seem to me that a rich retiree paying a fortune in taxes, isn't going to benefit much for a $4000 deduction. Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions  that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize.  Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year.  If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam. Sounds like a poorly written piece at best... The way you make money with a mortgage, if you're careful and/or lucky and/or patient, is to use that loan to make leveraged investments. If the return on the investments is higher than the interest on the loan, you win. Of course if the investments don't do well you can lose money on this deal... but at current interest rates it isn't that hard to make a profit on this arrangement, especially if you can get the tax deductability helping you. "I think this is possible under very special conditions.  The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich.  The answers so far apply to people with ""normal"" incomes - both in the sense of ""not rich"" and in the sense of ""earned income."" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described.  First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save.   BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out.  In any case, the current answers using ""normal sized"" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired." I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough. "The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%" "This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is ""Negative Gearing"". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum." "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." "In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house.   Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay ""eigendoms belasting"" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house,  keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house." yes.   you can take out 500,000 form your paid of house.  you pay back 500,000 at 3.5. percent.       you do get a tax break for not owning your house.  it is less then 3.5 you are paying back the back. about one forth of that, BUT you take the 500,000 in invest.   Now cd low 1 percent,  stock is risky.    You can do REIT, with are about 8 to 12  every year. so even at 8 - tax 1.5 is 6.5 - 3.5 bank loan.  that   3 percent on your 500,000 thousand, plus tax break, but that only at 8 percent.      or 500,000 and buy a apartment building, again about 7 to 10 percent,   so that 2 to 3 percent profit, but the building goes up over years.
"short answer:  any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning.  long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale.  inflation is really only relevant over the long term.  annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%).  however, over 10 years, even your ""large unexpected expenses"" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job.  when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises.  up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.)." Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying. Fixed-rate mortgage is supposed to give you security. You are not going to get the best possible rate, but it is safe and predictable. Your argument is the same as complaining that you are paying for home insurance and your home hasn't burnt down.  Switching to a variable rate mortgage right now seems a bad idea, because there is some expectations that rates are going up. If you can overpay, that is probably what you should do unless you can invest with better return after tax than your mortgage interest. It doesn't just shorten the time of your mortgage; every time you overpay £500 your mortgage principal is down by £500, and you pay interest on £500 less.  And if the interest rate goes up over the next five years as you seem to hope, that just means you will pay higher interest when your mortgage needs renewing.  You can't hope to always make the optimal decision. You made a decision with very low risk. As with any decision, you don't know what's in the future; a decision that is low risk if the risk could lead to fatal results is not unwise. You could have picked a variable rate mortgage and could be paying twice as much interest today. If you take the statement you quote as stated, it is indeed absurd. Unless you have a really creative tax accountant or live in a country with very unusual tax laws, any tax deduction you get for mortgage interest is going to be less than the interest. You don't come out ahead by getting a $25 deduction if you had a $100 expense to get that deduction. Where there can be some sense behind such a statement is if you consider the alternative to paying cash for a house or making extra payments against a mortgage. If you had $100,000 in cash in a box under your bed, and the choice is between, (a) use that $100,000 to buy a house in cash, or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest and leave that cash in the box under the bed, than clearly (a) is the better choice because it saves you the interest expense. But if the choice is between, (a) buy a house for $100,000 in cash and borrow $100,000 at 6% to buy a car; or (b) borrow $100,000 at 6% interest to buy a house and use the $100,000 cash to buy the car, (b) is the better choice. The home mortgage loan is tax deductible; the car loan is not. As others have pointed out, if instead of using some extra cash to pay down the principle on your mortgage you used that money to invest in the stock market, it is likely that you would get better returns on the investment than what you would have saved in interest on the mortgage -- depending, of course, on how the market is doing and how well you pick stocks. But the key issue there isn't the tax deduction, it's the comparison of the profits from the investment versus the opportunity cost of the money that could have been saved on the mortgage interest. The tax deduction affects that comparison by effectively reducing the interest rate on the mortgage -- your real interest expense is the nominal interest minus the deduction -- but that's not the key point, just another number to plug in to the formula. By the way, given the complexity of U.S. tax law, I would not rule out the possibility that there could be some scenario where you really would save money by having mortgage interest. There are lots of deductions and credits that are phased out or eliminated as your income goes up. Perhaps you could find some set of tax laws that apply to you such that having an additional $1000 in interest expense lets you take a $300 deduction here and a $500 credit there, etc, and they add up to more than $1000. I don't know if that could actually happen, but the rules are complicated enough that, maybe. Any tax accountants here who can come up with such a scenario? Real loans are forgone consumption, like a savings account. In real terms, you can loan only when you put aside something from consuming it. Any kind of monetary tricks and expansion cant create real savings out of thin air, only an illusion of savings like in economic bubbles: the idea - banking system getting money first creates illusion of more credit being available than what savers are actually putting aside so the seeds for an unsustainable bubble are sewn. If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal!  However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen.  This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income.   The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed).  Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400.  A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service.  So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month.  Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service.  This is suspiciously like 2K per year.  Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest.  For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs.  So you have two ways to profit:  rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income.  What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay?  What happens if you have greater than expected repairs?  What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment?  Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks.  If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment.  Where does the money come from?  Your pocket.  At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more.  Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership. You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money. A lot of people do this. For example, in my area nice townhouses go for about $400K, so if you have $80,000 you can buy one and rent it. Here are the typical numbers: So you would make $350 per month or $4,200 per year on $80,000 in capital or about 5% profit. What can go wrong: (1) The property does not rent and sits vacant. You must come up with $2100 in mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance every month without fail or default. (2) Unexpected expenses. A new furnaces costs over $5,000. A new roof costs $7,000. A new appliance costs $600 to $2000 depending on how upscale your property is. I just had a toilet fixed for a leaky plunger. It cost me $200. As you can see maintenance expenses can quickly get a lot higher than the $50 shown above... and not only that, if you fix things as cheaply as possible (as most landlords do), not only does that decrease the rentability of the property, but it causes stuff to break sooner. (3) Deadbeats. Some people will rent your property and then not pay you. Now you have a property with no income, you are spending $2100 per month to pay for it, AND you are facing steep attorney fees to get the deadbeats evicted. They can fight you in court for months. (4) Damage, wear and tear. Whenever a tenant turns over there is always a lot of broken or worn stuff that has to be fixed. Holes in the wall need to be patched. Busted locks, broken windows, non-working toilets, stains on the carpet, stuck doors, ripped screens, leaky showers, broken tiles, painting exterior trim, painting walls, painting fences, etc. You can spend thousands every time a tenant changes. Other caveats: Banks are much more strict about loaning to non home owners. You usually have to have reserve income. So, if you have little or no income, or you are stretched already, it will be difficult to get commercial loans. For example, lets say your take-home pay is $7,000 and you have no mortgage at all (you rent), then it is fine, the bank will loan you the money. But lets say you only have $5,000 in take home pay and you have an $1,800 mortgage on your own home. In that case it is very unlikely a bank will allow you to assume a 2nd mortgage on a rental property. The more you try to borrow, the more reserve income the bank will require. This tends to set a limit on how much you can leverage.