Downside to temporarily lowering interest rates?
This bit of marketing, like the zero-percent introductory rates some banks offer, is intended to make you more willing to carry a balance, and they're hoping you'll continue that bad habit after the rate goes back up. If you don't think you'll be tempted by the lower rate, yhere's no reason not to accept (unless there's something in the fine print that changes your agreement in other ways; read carefully). But as you say, there's no reason to accept ir either. I'd ignore it. it is possible that if you do not accept the offer, they will try offering you an even lower rate.  if they offered you close to 0%, you could start carrying a balance and find a better use for the cash you would have spent paying it off. there are plenty of investments with a guaranteed return of over 0%. personally, i am using a 0% offer from one of my cards to invest in the stock market.  i might lose that bet, but on average over the last 10 years, i have not. a pretty safe bet would be paying down your mortgage, or buying a cd that matures when the offer ends. that said, even a 10k$ balance might only pay you around 300$. is that worth the hassle to you? This is brilliant for AmEx; they make a cut off of every transaction you do, so even if you pay it off before you ever pay interest, they still may take some.  Balance transfers, on the other hand, generally have a transfer fee that locks in a percent, depending on the offer. For your own sake, it can be a good deal if you   Considering that they make some money, it makes sense why they offer people this - merchants, as you'll read from Nerd Wallet, are paying extra to use credit cards.
I'm a finance manager at a dealership. The thing that I tell people about leasing:  It's good if you plan to make more money in the future. You can get a new car.  The downside of leasing. When you get out of your lease you will either pay straight cash, get another loan for the unit, or get a new unit. 3 years down the road you have no idea what interest rates will be. If you lock in your rate today you are guaranteed that rate. With the government increasing rates we could see higher rates that could cost you more.  Also if you get a loan today it will be 5-6 years. Leasing will have a 3 year lease with another 5-6 year loan on top of that. Causing to pay more in the long run  If your brother doesn't have straight cash to pay for it at the end of 3 years I recommend buying new "Taking out your equity when refinancing means that you take out a new loan for the full value of your house (perhaps less 20% as a down payment on the new mortgage, otherwise you'll be paying insurance), pay off your old lender, and keep the rest for yourself. The result is much the same as using as a HELOC or home equity loan (or a second mortgage), except it's all rolled into a single new mortgage. The advantage is that the interest rate on a first mortgage is going to be lower than on HELOC or equivalent, and the equity requirements may be lower (e.g. a HELOC may only let you borrow against the amount of equity that exceeds 25% or 30%, while a new mortgage will require you only to have 20% equity).  This is especially attractive to those whose homes have appreciated significantly since they bought them, especially if they have a lot of high-interest debt (e.g. credit cards) they want to pay off. Of course, rolling credit card debt into a 30-year mortgage isn't actually paying it off, but the monthly payments will be a lot lower, and if you're lucky and your home appreciates further, you can pay it off fully when you sell the property and still have paid a lot less interest. The downside is that you have turned unsecured debt into secured debt, which puts your home at risk if you find yourself unable to pay. In your case, you don't yet have even 20% equity in your home, so I wouldn't recommend this.  :-) Equity is simply the difference between the amount you still owe on your home and the amount you'd get if you were to sell it. Until you do sell it, this amount is tentative, based on the original purchase price and, perhaps, an intervening appraisal that shows that the property has appreciated. That is really all that it is and there's nothing magic about it, except that since you own your home, you have equity in it, while as a renter, you would not. It used to be (decades ago, when you needed 20% down to get a mortgage) that selling was the only time you'd be able to do anything with the equity in your home. Now you can ""take it out"" as described above (or borrow against it) thanks to various financial products. It is sometimes tempting to consider equity roughly equivalent to ""profit."" But some of it is your own money, contributed through the down payment, your monthly principal payment, and improvements you have made -- so ""cashing out"" isn't all profit, it's partly just you getting your own money back. And there are many additional expenses involved in owning a home, such as interest, property taxes, maintenance, utilities, and various fees, not to mention the commissions when you buy or sell, which the equity calculation doesn't consider. Increasing equity reflects that you own a desirable property in a desirable location, that you have maintained and maybe even improved it, that you are financially responsible (i.e., paying your mortgage, taxes, etc.), and that your financial interests are aligned with your neighbors. All those things feel pretty good, and they should. Otherwise, it is just a number that the banks will sometimes let you borrow against.  :-)" 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. "The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to ""snowball"" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable." The only drawback is if you spend more than you can with the new limit and end up having to pay interest if you can't pay the balance in full. Other than that, there are no drawbacks to getting a credit increase.  On the flip side, it's actually good for you. It shows that the banks trust you with more credit, and it also decreases your credit utilization ratio (assuming you spend the same). "Good news, but not surprising. The banks have largely done well over the last handful of years in terms of having sufficient capital to be able to withstand the Fed's downside models. The issues largely arise in regards to current dividend and share buy-back plans which the models assume are constant despite them being entirely discretionary. As a result it isn't uncommon for banks to have ""failed"" in the past which simply required a scaling down of dividends to solve." To add to this, that risk is really only a problem if you don't have the cash flow to service the debt. If the surplus dips but your ultimately profitable on whatever trade you made, you're okay. If you default, you're not okay.  Volitility relative to loan term effectively. Risk. A shorter-term mortgage is less risky than a long-term mortgage - in this case there's half the chance of something bad happening because there's half the time allotted (15 vs 30 years). Bad things include you going bankrupt, massive inflation, or your home being destroyed in a meteor impact that your insurer won't cover. They entice consumers to these less risky mortgages by offering a lower interest rate.