Are prepayment penalties for mortgages normal?
It used to be much more common, particularly for sub-prime loans. If you do run into someone offering a loan with a prepayment penalty, you should certainly consider other options. It's not uncommon to have a small penalty if you pre-pay the mortgage in a short time.  After all, making the loan isn't free for the bank. But as Nathan says, if a bank is planning to try very hard to stop you from giving them money, there is probably a reason. Try to convince your wife: there is nothing inherently wrong with debt.  Like anything, too much can be bad for you, but when debt is deployed wisely -- that is almost always, when it is used to finance a capital asset (an asset that produces value) -- it can be a very good thing. "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac uniform loans do not have prepayment penalties, so most plain-vanilla loans from national banks and brokers shouldn't have the penalty.  (Fannie Mae rules are categorical; Freddie Mac will buy loans with prepayment if the loan originator documents that a loan without prepayment was offered and the borrower made the choice for other considerations; the uniform instrument they share conforms to the more restrictive rules) ""Mortgage loans subject to prepayment penalties will be ineligible for sale to Fannie Mae"" Fascinating historical discussion of how the two GSEs negotiated the compromise uniform form back in 1975 Exotic terms, subprime, jumbo loans, ARMs, construction loans, secondary loans or really local banks where they'll hold the loan are cases where there might be a prepayment penalty." Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty.  Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas,  buyers had a choice of  This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment.
Danger. The affidavit is a legal document. Understand the risk of getting caught. If you are planning on using the condo to generate income the chances that you default on the loan are higher than an owner occupied property. That is why they demand more down payment (20%+) and charge a higher rate.  The document isn't about making sure you spend 183+ nights a year in the property, it is making sure that it isn't a business, and you aren't letting a 3rd party live in the property.  If you within the first year tell the mortgage company to send the bill to a new address, or you change how the property is insured, they will suspect that it is now a rental property.  What can they do? Undo the loan; ask for penalty fee; limit your ability to get a mortgage in the future; or a percentage of the profits How likely is it? The exact penalty will be in the packet of documents you receive. It will depend on which government agency is involved in the loan, and the lenders plan to sell it on the secondary market.  It can also depend on the program involved in the sale of the property. HUD and sister agencies lock out investors  during the initial selling period, They don't want somebody to represent themselves as homeowner, but is actually an investor. Note: some local governments are interested not just in non-investors but in properties being occupied. Therefore they may offer tax discounts to residents living in their homes. Then they will be looking at the number of nights that you occupy the house in a year. If they detect that you aren't really a resident living in the house, that has tax penalties. Suggestion: If you don't want to wait a year buy the condo and let the loan officer know what your plan is. You will have to meet the down payment and interest rate requirements for an investment property. Your question implies that you will have enough money to pay the required 20% down payment. Then when you are ready buy the bigger house and move in. If you try and buy the condo with a non-investment loan you will have to wait a year. If you try and pay cash now, and then get a home equity loan later you will have to admit it is a rental. And still have to meet the investor requirements. Your calculations are correct. It is likely that the bank's software has a rounding error.  In effect, either your bank is overstating your interest by eight cents per month, or your bank is insisting that you prepay your principal by eight cents per month.  If the bank's ongoing interest calculations are correct, your final payment will be slightly smaller (because of the prepaid principal, and because of compound interest on those prepayments).  I have performed similar calculations for my mortgages over the years, and except upon early payoff in the middle of the month, I have always matched my banks' calculations to the penny.  Ironically, this means that my banks' formulas are a bit weird: After making these adjustments, even my calculations for the mid-month payoff matched to the penny. Yes, for a credit card, payments in excess of the minimum will go toward principal. This is not always the case with a mortgage, where prepayments of extra principal need to be explicitly stated. It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals. "There's a difference between missing a payment and ""carrying a balance"" (making an on-time payments that are less than the full balance due). I have heard mortgage brokers claim that, if you have no other credit history, carrying a small balance here and there on a credit card may improve your score.  (""Small"" is in relation to your available credit and your ability to pay it off.)  But actually missing a payment will probably hurt your score. Example: You have a card with a credit limit of $1000.  In July you charge $300 worth of stuff.  You get the next statement and it shows the balance due of $300 and a minimum payment of $100. If you pay the entire $300 balance in that cycle, most cards won't charge you any interest.  You are not carrying a balance, so the credit scores may not reflect that you actually took a $300 loan and paid it off. If you instead pay $200, you'll be in good standing (because $200 is greater than the minimum payment).  But you'll be carrying a $100 balance into the next statement cycle.  Plus interest will accrue on that $100.  If you do this regularly, your credit score will probably take into account that you've taken a small loan and made the payments.  For those with no other credit history, this may be an appropriate way to increase your credit score.  (But you're paying interest, so it's not free.)  And if the average balance you carry is considered high relative to your ability to pay or to the total credit available to you, then this could adversely affect your score (or, at least, the amount of credit another provider is willing to extend to you). If you instead actually miss a payment, or make a payment that's less than the minimum payment, that will almost certainly hurt your credit score.  It will also incur penalties as well as interest.  You want to avoid that whenever possible. My guess is that, in the game of telephone from the banker to you, the ""carrying a balance"" was misinterpreted as ""missing a payment.""" "Your first question has been answered quite well already. To answer your second question: ""If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or   toward the principal?"" This gives the consumer some flexibility to decide how additional payments are applied. It might seem like a no-brainer to always apply extra payments towards principal - that way, the interest amounts on future payments will be lower and (if you're billed a fixed amount each month) more of each regular payment will then be applied to principal, shortening the term of the loan. However, while it would mean spending more over the life of the loan, there are certain advantages to applying extra payments towards interest†. The main advantage is that it pays your account ahead and means you don't have to make another payment as soon. You could use this strategy to give yourself a buffer of several months, so that if you should ever run into financial hardship you can stop making mortgage payments for a while without the risk of foreclosure. † Note, in most cases it's more likely that you are simply paying more without specifying to the lender that it should be used as principal curtailment. I haven't seen cases where you can explicitly ask the extra to be ""applied toward interest"". In this situation the funds would be held until you've provided enough to cover one or more monthly payments in full, at which point your ""next payment due"" date will simply be extended.  Another advantage is that the funds that are being held (not due yet, not allocated toward any specific payment, maybe held in escrow) may be refundable to you, upon request. This would depend on the lender's policy. Some will permit refunds of credit balances that go beyond what is necessary to cover the current month's bill. Whether you apply extra payments towards principal or not, it makes little difference to the bank. Any additional payments received increase their immediate cash flow. The cash can be reinvested immediately by them into whatever they are currently focusing on." Say the rate is 6%, and the payment is $500/mo. If the bank credits on the day received, the .5% per month is $2.50 for the whole month. In other words, pulling in the payment by the full 30 days will save you about $2.50. The whole loan may be costing $3.50/day, but you can only impact the amount one payment at a time.  To be clear, you need to find out exactly how they credit you. Some loans do not accept partial payments separate from the normal payment. If a $500 payment is due, that's the time to prepay principal, but they might not accept, say, $200 each week.  As a side note, mortgages typically don't credit the way you'd hope. I have a standard 30 year mortgage and whether I send the payment a full 15 days early or 14 days late, the next month shows a balance that I can pull from an amortization table assuming all payments are on the 1st of the month. If I were you, I'd make a full payment 2 weeks early, then check your balance and see what the impact was, just to be sure. 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.