Paying extra on a mortgage. How much can I save? [duplicate]
Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? Depends when. If you mean 12K now vs 1K a month over the next 12 months, repeating this each year, now wins. If you mean saving 1K a month for 12 months then doing a lumpsum, the 1K a month wins. Basically, a sooner payment saves you more money than a later payment. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? Your number one issue is that you have a thirty year mortgage. The interest you pay on it is monstrous. For the 30 year term, you pay around 500K in interest. A 15-year mortgage is 300K cheaper (only 200K in interest will be paid). The monthly payment would be 1250 more. How much money and years on a mortgage can I save? When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? You can knock off about a dozen years. Save I think ~250K. You can find mortgage calculators online or talk to your mortgage advisor to play around with the numbers. "When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? If you save $1,000 each month at 1% so as to pay $12,000 at EOY on a 4.75% loan, you've lost ""4.75% - 1% = 3.75%"" over that year.  (And that's presuming you put the money in a ""high yield"" online savings account.) Thus, the best time to pay is as soon as you have the money. EDIT: This all assumes that you have an emergency fund (more than the bare minimum $1K), zero other debt with a higher rate than 4.75% and that you are getting the full company match from 401(k)." Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is. If you're truly ready to pay an extra $1000 every month, and are confident you'll likely always be able to, you should refinance to a 15 year mortgage. 15 year mortgages are typically sold at around a half a point lower interest rates, meaning that instead of your 4.375% APR, you'll get something like 3.875% APR.  That's a lot of money over the course of the mortgage.  You'll end up paying around a thousand a month more - so, exactly what you're thinking of doing - and not only save money from that earlier payment, but also have a lower interest rate.  That 0.5% means something like $25k less over the life of the mortgage.  It's also the difference in about $130 or so a month in your required payment. Now of course you'll be locked into making that larger payment - so the difference between what you're suggesting and this is that you're paying an extra $25k in exchange for the ability to pay it off more slowly (in which case you'd also pay more interest, obviously, but in the best case scenario).  In the 15 year scenario you must make those ~$4000 payments.  In the 30 year scenario you can pay ~$2900 for a while if you lose your job or want to go on vacation or ... whatever. Of course, the reverse is also true: you'll have to make the payments, so you will.  Many people find enforced savings to be a good strategy (myself among them); I have a 15 year mortgage and am happy that I have to make the higher payment, because it means I can't spend that extra money frivolously. So what I'd do if I were you is shop around for a 15 year refi.  It'll cost a few grand, so don't take one unless you can save at least half a point, but if you can, do. How much can I save? Depends on inflation and what other investment opportunities you have. It could end up costing you millions. Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better?  It depends on how risk adverse you are.  The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? How much of your time is it going to cost you to do it every month? What is keeping you from doing it every day? How much is your time worth to you. Giving the bank its money sooner is always better than giving it it's money from a saving interest perspective. When is the best time to pay?  See above.
"None of what I say is advice directed to you. It is how I would continue to analyse the situation you have, were it mine. First off, I prefer to work in certainties more than possibilities.  Saying that, paying down the mortgage makes sense as I can calculate the amount I will save. I also believe that rate rises are coming in the future, based on the talk from the BofE, so any money I pay off now means guaranteed less interest to pay in the future. Also, the lower my loan-to-value ratio, the better/lower interest rates I can receive in the mortgage market. If I do not want to work until retirement age, it'd be nice to have as few bills as possible in the decade or so prior to retirement age. I could then do early-retirement or part-time work in the run-up to retirement. I could use my savings to fund life until retirement pays out. I'd be aiming to put 15% of my gross income into ""future investing"" - using ISAs to build up a savings pot, taking advantage of retirement products. That way all the money is not tied to a normal retirement age before it can accessed. And it's not touchable by future greedy Government taxation... Any income leftover above the 15%, I'd be throwing at the mortgage - taking advantage of the 10% overpay window, remortgaging as LTV comes down. In theory, overpaid mortgage equity is money that could still be accessed (provided house prices don't decline and remortgaging is a possibility). So, in short, I'd follow a plan along these lines of logic. 1) Make sure I have 4-6 months of living expenses as a Rainy Day Fund. Insulate myself from fluctuations in my financial situation. 2) Put away 15% of annual gross income towards ""future saving"". ISAs first, pension second. 3) Overpay the mortgage and look to remortgage as LTV drops. When LTV nears 60%, look to lock in to a longer-term fix. eg. 2 year fixes at 90% LTV, 5 year fixes at 60%. 4) Reassess steps 2 & 3 as life happens, circumstances change, work fluctuates, etc. 5) Once the mortgage is paid off, build as much wealth as possible - ISAs first, then non-tax efficient savings products. Aim for keeping expenses down and raising my savings % rate as much as possible. [Your analysis was thorough and shows you are thinking through consequences. Never forget to factor in the risk of carrying debt. Having no/low debt as you get older means there's more income left to build wealth. Ignore the American view of carrying debt for life and trusting investments to outperform the debt. You have to pay monthly to keep that debt around - and it ain't a pet!]" "BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say ""If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end"" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest.  I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same ""return"" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)...." I would question whether your stated goal (of strictly controlling your expenses) is really the problem you should be tackling.  In my opinion, unless you're under financial hardship where you can barely make ends meet, you're much better off using a budget as a high-level, descriptive tool rather than a low-level, prescriptive tool. This is what I would do in your situation: After the first few months, you can start to think about high-level changes that you can make to your spending habits to get the most bang for your buck.  I wouldn't worry about the little expenses, unless they're really adding up to a sizable chunk of your total expenses.  Instead, I would look at things like: eating out too often, buying too many movies, too many impulse buys over $100, etc. Identifying patterns like that will help you make lifestyle changes that will allow you to spend less money without having to micromanage every single expense.  I have tried the micromanaged approach in the past, and it simply doesn't work for me.  There's too much overhead, and eventually I start to feel that it's just not worth it.  Think about it - is it really worth the extra time and energy required to worry about where every dollar goes all month long just to save an additional hundred bucks over what you can do with this passive approach?   I think that by focusing on the big picture, you can get within a couple percentage points of the same amount of savings as if you had micro-managed your expenses, but with much less work and mental strain. Let's put some numbers on this and see what the hourly returns are with each approach, always being optimistic about the micromanaged approach and conservative on the passive approach.   Let's assume you earn $50,000/year.  Let's also assume that if you micromanage all of your expenses, you could manage to save $5000/year beyond what you do now.  And let's say that with the passive approach, you can get within 20 percentage points instead of the 2 I stated earlier, for a savings of $4000/year.  Now what will your hourly returns look like?  The following are based on how I would personally use both systems, so your numbers may vary a bit. Micromanaged Budgeting Savings = $5000 per year = $416.67 per month  Time spent = 15-30 minutes per day = 7.5 - 15 hours per month  Hourly return = $27.78 - $55.56  Passive Budgeting Savings = $4000 per year = $333.33 per month  Time spent = 1 - 2 hours per month Hourly return = $166.67 - $333.33 So clearly the passive approach gives a substantially higher hourly return, even though it gives a lower absolute return.  Maybe more importantly though, if passive budgeting opens up an extra 10 hours a month, you could potentially put those hours into your job and make an extra (10 hours * $25/hour) = $250 a month, or $3000 per year, assuming no extra pay for overtime.  So that means that the passive budgeting approach would actually allow you to save ($4000 + $3000 * .75) = $6250 per year, compared to the $5000 you would save by micromanaging. If you're in a situation where you can't put those hours into more work and you really need that extra $83.34 per month to help make ends meet, then by all means micromanage your expenses and try to save as much as possible.  But if either of the previous conditions are not true for you, you're much better off, in my opinion, using a passive budget. The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks.  In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments. It could be a couple of things besides extra principal: I seem to remember hearing that some (shady?) lenders would just pocket extra payments if you didn't specify where they were headed, but I've also been told that this just isn't true. "Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of ""here is a nice house, live in it"". Which do you need more of?  If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)" It really depends on the terms of your loan. For example, some loans have a pre-payment penalty. You will just have to ask your lender to know for sure. That said. In almost all cases, you can save considerable interest by making extra payments towards the principal. Be careful though, some lenders require you to specifically mark the payment to be applied to the loan principal and if you don't designate it as such, they will just apply it as an early payment for future months and not reduce your balance until that future payment is due, which doesn't help at all. Another option to reduce your total interest costs, though more common for larger loans like mortgages, is to split the payment into multiple parts and pay more than once a month instead of a single payment each month. This only works if they calculate interest daily and would be useless if they do it monthly. They key is knowing the terms of your loan. Despite it not being in their best interest (pun intended), most lenders will work with you on a strategy to help you minimize the interest cost in the name of customer service. I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership.  I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment.  One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat.  I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory.  Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee.  at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight.  If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age.