Is my mortgage more likely to be sold if I pre-pay principal?
"There are two ways that mortgages are sold: The loan is collateralized and sold to investors. This allows the bank to free up money for more loans. Of course sometime the loan may be treated like in the game of hot potato nobody want s to be holding a shaky loan when it goes into default. The second way that a loan is sold is through the servicing of the loan. This is the company or bank that collects your monthly payments, and handles the disbursement of escrow funds. Some banks lenders never sell servicing, others never do the servicing themselves. Once the servicing is sold the first time there is no telling how many times it will be sold.  The servicing of the loan is separate from the collateralization of the loan. When you applied for the loan you should have been given a Servicing Disclosure Statement Servicing Disclosure Statement. RESPA requires the lender or mortgage   broker to tell you in writing, when you apply for a loan or within the   next three business days, whether it expects that someone else will be   servicing your loan (collecting your payments). The language is set by the US government: [We may assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your loan while the   loan is outstanding.] [or] [We do not service mortgage loans of the   type for which you applied. We intend to assign, sell, or transfer the   servicing of your mortgage loan before the first payment is due.] [or]   [The loan for which you have applied will be serviced at this   financial institution and we do not intend to sell, transfer, or   assign the servicing of the loan.] [INSTRUCTIONS TO PREPARER: Insert   the date and select the appropriate language under ""Servicing Transfer   Information."" The model format may be annotated with further   information that clarifies or enhances the model language.]" It's not unusual/undesirable. If everyone prepaid their mortgage, banks would not like this, but we're in no danger of that :). Also, the amount you are pre-paying is not so significant as to make them pay special attention. In many cases when a borrower pre-pays, they will not continue to do so over the life of the loan since it's so easy to stop at any time, and the extra payments are voluntary. Depending on who originated the mortgate, it might be sold even more often than in your case. It's no longer commonplace for a bank to hold a mortgage to maturity, now that banks and other institutions have separated the origination of the loan from its servicing. It's likely that your mortgage was bundled with others through a process called securitization, and will be bought/sold based on the bank's need for liquitity or to balance out the maturity of its assets and liabilities (whether they need more cash now versus later), or based on the types of ways your bank has decided that it wants to make money versus farming out other types of business to others. What would substantially change the value of your mortgage to a bank is if it were performing (ie you are paying on time) but then became non-performing (ie you fall behind in your payments). It's also possible that if you have a very small mortgage or principal balance, that there is very little risk to the bank, and little difference between the present and future values of your loan, but banks don't typically make these types of transactions based on the characteristics of an individual loan. In a process called collateralization, your mortgage is combined with others to form a security that other can invest in. When done right, this process provides liquidity, more money to be lent for more loans. When done wrong, bad things happen.  My mortgage happens to be held by the issuing bank. Yours was sold into such a pool of mortgages. One effect of this is the reselling of the servicing of the loan. I've had other mortgages that were sold every year, but I never paid ahead. With this bank, I'm on my fifth refinance, but the bank keeps the loan in house no matter what. I don't know if there's any correlation, it depends on the originating bank, in my opinion.
You say  My work is steady; even if I lost my job it'd be easy to get another. Location has been static for a few years now, but I'm not sure that'll extrapolate to the future; I'm lazy, so I don't want to move, but for a significantly better job opportunity I wouldn't mind.   The general rule of thumb is that you'll come out ahead if you buy a house (with a mortgage) and live there for five years.  What you lose in interest, you make up in rent.  And living there for five years, you make back your closing costs in equity.  If you're there less than five years though, you don't make back the closing costs.  You'd have been better off renting.   Historically (up to about twenty years ago), your mortgage payment and rent payment for the same basic property would be about the same.  I.e. if your current landlord sold you what you are renting, your mortgage payment would be roughly the same as your rent.  Maybe a little lower or a little higher but about the same.  More recently, it hasn't been strange to see a divergence in those.  Now it is not uncommon for a mortgage payment to be 50% higher than rent on the same property.   This has some consequences.  First, your $1000 rent probably won't stretch as far as a $1000 mortgage payment.  So you'll be buying something that you'd only pay $650 or $700 rent.  Second, if you move and can't sell immediately, you'll get less in rent than you'd pay in mortgage.  Rather than contributing to your income, the property will require subsidy just to maintain the mortgage.  And in the early years of the mortgage, this means that you're paying all of the principal (equity) and some of the interest.   Buying a duplex makes this worse.  You have your side and their side.  You can substitute your $1000 rent for half of the mortgage payment.  Meanwhile, they are paying $700 in rent.  You have to subsidize the mortgage by $300.  Plus, you are talking about hiring a property management company to do things like lawn maintenance.  There goes another $100 a month.  So you are subsidizing the mortgage by $400.   I don't know real estate prices in Utah, but a quick search finds a median house price over $200,000.  So it seems unlikely that you are buying new construction with new appliances.  More likely you are buying an existing duplex with existing appliances.  What happens when they fail?  The renter doesn't pay for that.  The property management company doesn't pay for that (although they'll likely arrange for it to happen).  You pay for it.   Also, it often takes a bit of time to clean up the apartment after one tenant leaves before the new tenant starts paying rent.  That's a dead weight loss.  If this happens during a local recession, you could be carrying the mortgage on a property with no offsetting rental income for months.   There are some countervailing forces.  For example, if house prices in your area are increasing, the rent will increase with them (not necessarily at the same pace).  But your mortgage payment stays the same.  So eventually the rent may catch up with the mortgage payment.  If you wait long enough in a strong enough market, the rent on the other half of the duplex may cover the entire mortgage payment.   If you currently have an urban apartment within walking distance of work and switch to a suburban apartment with a commute, you have a better chance of finding a duplex where the entire mortgage payment is only the $1000 that you pay in rent.  Your half of the duplex won't be as nice as your apartment is, and you'll have a half hour or hour long commute every morning (and the same to get home in the evening).  But on strictly fiscal terms you'll be doing about as well.  Plus you have the income from the other half.  So even if your mortgage payment is more than your rent payment, you can still break even if the rent covers it.   Consider a $1400 mortgage and $400 in rent from the other half (after property management fees).  So long as nothing goes wrong, you break even.  Perhaps the agreement is that your parents take care of things going wrong (broken appliances, troublesome tenants, time between tenants).  Or perhaps you drain your emergency fund and adjust your 401(k) payment down to the minimum when that happens.  Once your emergency fund is replenished, restore the 401(k).   If you're willing to live in what's essentially a $500 apartment, you can do better this way.  Of course, you can also do better by living in a $500 apartment and banking the other $500 that you spend on rent.  Plus you now have the expenses of a commute and five hours less free time a week.   You describe yourself as essentially living paycheck to paycheck.  You have adequate savings but no building excess.  Whatever you get paid, you immediately turn around and spend.  Your parents may view you as profligate.  Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were.  You go out more often.  You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement).   It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space.  For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs.  Then they'd build up equity.  So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house.   The duplex plan leads to one of two things.  Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half.  Now you have a rental property providing income.  And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house.   From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending.  Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood.  Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends.  And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone.   If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage.  You are responsible even if something happens to the house.  For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away.  Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation.  So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed.   Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house.  Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000.  With General Motors, even if they go bankrupt tomorrow, you're only out $10,000.  With the house, you're out $200,000.  Admittedly it's much hard to lose the entire $200,000 value of the house.  But even if the house loses $80,000 in value, you are still $70,000 in the hole.   You don't need a disaster for the house to lose $80,000 in value.  That's pretty much what happened in the 2006-2010 period.  People were losing all of what they invested in houses plus having to declare bankruptcy to get out of the excess debt.  Of course, if they had been able to hold on until 2015 markets mostly recovered.  But if you lost your job in 2008, they wouldn't let you not make mortgage payments until you got a new one in 2012.   When you declare bankruptcy, you don't just lose the house.  You also lose all your emergency savings and may lose some of your belongings.   There are some pretty prosaic disasters too.  For example, you and your tenant both go away for a weekend.  It rains heavily and your roof starts to leak due to weak maintenance (so not covered by insurance).  The house floods, destroying all the electronics and damaging various other things.  Bad enough if it's just you, but you're also responsible for the tenant's belongings.  They sue you for $20,000 and they move out.  So no rent and big expenses.  To get the house livable again is going to take $160,000.  Plus you have a $190,000 mortgage on a property that is only worth about $40,000.  That's at the extreme end. "Chris, this is an arbitrage question with a twist: you cannot treat the location you want to live objectively. For example, why not SoCal instead of Texas? Yes, SoCal's expensive but what if you account for the weather? This question is very interesting for me personally: something I am going to focus on myself, soon, as well. To the question at hand: it's very hard to get a close estimate of the price from a single source, say, a website. The cost of a house is always negotiable and there's no sticker price, and there begins your problems. However, there are some publicly available information which websites aggregate, see: http://www.city-data.com/ Also, some heuristics might help: Rent is at-least as expensive as the monthly mortgage, (property) taxes, HOA fees, etc. Smart people have told me this, and this also makes sense to me as the landlord is in this business to make some money after all. However, there are also other hidden costs of home ownership that I am not aware of in details (and which I craftily sidestepped in my ""etc"" above) that could put a rental to be ""cheaper"". One example that comes to mind is you as a tenant get to complain if the washer-dryer misbehaves and demand the landlord get you a new one (see how you wouldn't make a sound were you to own it however) Such a website to gauge rentals: http://www.rentometer.com/ Houses cost more where the median income is more. Again, you cannot be objective about this because smart people like to live around smart people (and pay for the privilege). Turn again to http://www.city-data.com/ to get this information Better weather is more expensive than not so good weather. In the article you linked, notice the ratio of homes in California. Yes, I know of people who sold off their family ranches in Vancouver and Seattle to buy homes in Orange Country. In short, there is a lot of information you would have to gather from multiple sources, and even then never be sure that you did your best! This also includes arbitrage, as you would like to ""come out ahead"" and while you are doing your research (and paying your rent), you want to invest your ""savings"" in instruments where you earn more than what you would have saved in a mortgage, etc. I would very much like to be refuted on every point and my answer be edited and ""made better"" as I need the same answers as you do :-D Feel free to comment, edit your question etc and I will act on feedback and help both of us (and future readers) out!" "Here is a simple loan payment calculator.  If you allow early principal repayment, then you should just be able to plug in the new principal amount to find his new monthly payment (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). Are you averse to creating a spreadsheet yourself in excel?  I suppose it could become quite an undertaking, depending on how detailed you chose to get with the interest.  Seems like it would be more direct and serve the dual purpose of recordkeeping. It's important to agree in advance whether pre-payments go to principal or go partly to interest (prepaying for periodic amounts not yet due, which are mixed principal and interest).  It's a family loan, so it probably makes sense to allow the prepayments to pay down principal; you don't need to structure your interest income and prevent him from depriving you of interest income (which many bank loans will do).  Allowing early principal repayment is pretty easy to calculate in your own excel spreadsheet, since you just need to know the remaining principal, time outstanding, and the interest rate. Note that if you are a US citizen, then the interest paid to you will be taxable income to you (""ordinary income"" rate).  Your brother will not be able to deduct the interest payments, unless maybe they are used for something like his business or perhaps mortgage.  There is no deduction for just a personal loan. Also, if you instead structured it without interest, then the interest not charged would be considered a gift under US gift tax law.  As long as the annual interest were under the gift exclusion amount ($14,000) then there would be no gift tax.  With no interest and no gift, you would not have tax consequences." Both Credit Card and Mortgage work on same principle. The interest is calculated on the remaining balance.  As the balance reduces the interest reduces. The Mortgage schedule is calculated with the assumption that you would be paying a certain amount over a period of years. However if you pay more, then the balance becomes less, and hence the subsequent interest also reduces. This means you would pay the loan faster and also pay less then originaly forecasted. The other type of loan, typically personal loans / auto loans in older days worked on fixed schedule. This means that you need to pay principal + Pre Determined interest. This is then broken into equal monthly installment. However in such a schedule, even if you pay a lumpsum amount in between, the total amount you need to pay remains same. Only the tenor reduces. While, from a money-saving standpoint, the obviously-right course of action is to make only the minimum payment on the 0% loan, there are potentially legal reasons to try to pay off a car loan early. With a mortgage, you are the legal owner of the property and any action by the lender beyond imposing fees (e.g. foreclosure) requires going through the proper legal channels. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, you are not the legal owner of a car purchased on a loan, and a missed or even lost payment can result in repossession without the lender even having to go to court. So from a risk-aversion standpoint, there's something to be said for getting rid of car loans as soon as you can. It's because financing can fall through, and then the time between offer and closing is wasted. Often buyers will include preapprovals and other evidence of financing eligibility with their offer for this reason. The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. This is not correct. If I pay an extra $1000 in principal this month, then my mortgage balance is decreased. So slightly less interest accrues before my next payment. That means my next payment will be slightly more toward principal and slightly less toward interest than it would have been if I hadn't made an extra principal payment. This means that my principal will eventually drop to zero earlier than it would have if I had not made the extra payment, and I will end up making fewer total payments than I would have without the extra principal payments. Of course, the effect is even stronger if I make regular extra payments rather than a single one. Like paying off any debt, you can consider this payment essentially a risk free investment paying whatever is the interest rate on that debt. You know that by making this payment, you reduce your interest payments over the coming years by the interest rate on that amount.  Edit: In comments you said, you will pay your mortgage off earlier but you won't drop the amount required to pay each month. Look at a mortgage amortization table to see this. This isn't because of the amortization table, it's because of the contract terms between you and the lender. After you make an extra principal payment, a new amortization schedule has to be calculated one way or another. It would be possible to re-calculate a new reduced monthly payment keeping the number of payments remaining fixed. Or you can calculate a new repayment schedule keeping the total monthly payment fixed and reducing the number of payments.  It happens the banks prefer to do the 2nd of these rather than the first, so that's the terms they offer when lending. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on why they prefer that.  In any case, by reducing your principal you improve your personal balance sheet and build equity in the mortgaged property so that, for example, if you sell you'll keep more of the proceeds and use less to pay off your loan. So the principle is true.  Assuming that you get paid bi-weekly, you end up getting three paychecks two months during the year.  Typically that is in January and July/August.  So if things were different, and your mortgage was setup so you paid half a monthly payment each paycheck, then you would wind up making one full extra payment per year.  Making that extra payment, most often, reduces the mortgage by 7 years on a 30 year note.   While true, many of these companies charge exorbitant fees for the right for you to do so, so the principal reduction is not commensurate with what you are paying.   You can simply do this yourself without paying fees.  On those extra pay days, pay half a payment to principal only, and no fee, no fuss.  This is pretty easy to do with most mortgage companies as they have online payments and it is just a matter of filling out a web form.  For me this does not even cost a stamp as they pull from my checking account at another bank.