Why is there so much interest on home loans?
"APR stands for ""annual percentage rate."" This means when you see a loan with a 6% rate, it is 6% per year.  On a $100,000 mortgage, where you aren't paying much of the principal down at first, a 6% rate would have you paying nearly $6,000 in interest in the first year alone." Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)
Paying the minimum balance on a loan can be DEVASTATING and is highly UN-RECOMMENDED. It is important you understand your loan and the terms associated with it. Loans are given for a period of time but if you pay the minimum it does NOT mean you will pay it all off by the end. When paying a loan money is applied to the interest first and any extra amount is then applied to the principle. Here's an example: If I have a $12 loan for 1 year. The interest is 100%. My minimum payment each month is $1. If I pay that minimum only I will be stuck paying $12 at the end of the loan. Why you ask? because each month I'm being charged $1 interest and the payment I am making is only going towards that interest. However if I paid $2 instead now $1 goes to the principal (the original $12 I borrowed). This means that next month I will only be charged interest on $11 dollars instead of $12. You need to know how much is going towards the interest of your loan and how much is going towards the principle you can speak with your bank about this and they will help you understand. In many cases they actually provide you with the numbers on your statment with examples of how long it would take to payoff your loan with minimum only and how long it would take if you added an extra x amount each month. I recommend using the Snowball Method to pay of your debt. It's simple and effective. How much you should add to each monthly payment depends on how much you can afford to add. Here are some calculators you can play around with: CNN Money Bank Rate Calc Edit: So with the additional information you provided we can estimate that you have about 2200 free cash flow each month(that's your cash after you pay all your bills). We can put away 500 each month for a rainy day fund, just to be safe.(job loss, accidents, or anything we can't predict) So assuming that is all your expenses including the money you spend on entertainment. That leaves you with $1700 you can add on to your loan payments. So you can pay off your third loan in 1 month. Then add the remaining balance to the 2nd loan. With this income it should take you less then a year to pay off all your loans. Forget about terms.  Think about loans in terms of months.  To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month.   This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis.  In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest.  With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month.  So on and so forth.   The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest).  You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54.  The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing.  You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month.  So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.).  The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing.  So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing.  It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest.   If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different.  Say  You borrow $1000 for one month.  Then 834 for one month.  So on and so forth.  Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed.  Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest.  And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54.   That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere).  Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations.   I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter.  But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments.  And they ended up crediting me with an early release.  In fact, they rebated part of my last payment.  I saved several hundred dollars through the early release.  Perhaps your loan did not work the same way.  Perhaps it did.  But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe. "It very much comes down to question of semantics and your particular situation. Some people do not view a house (and most upgrades) as an investment, but rather an expense.  I certainly agree that this is probably the case if you pay someone else to make the repairs and upgrades.  However, if you are a serious DIYer, that may not be the case.  Of course, if the house is a money pit and/or you were unfortunate to buy when prices where ridiculously high, you'll have a hard time making any money on this ""investment.""  To continue this game of semantics, you may also consider the value you extract from your home while you are living in it. On to the mortgage itself.  Chances are that it is a long term, relatively low rate loan and that the interest is deductible.  So, there are some disadvantages to paying it down early, even without early payment penalties.  Paying down early on the principal is a disadvantage from a tax perspective.  How much of a disadvantage hinges on the rate. Now, a debt is a liability on your personal balance sheet.  It drags down any returns you may have from investing.  However, a home lone is not generally subject to the cardinal rule of paying off your high interest debt before investing.  It should not be relatively high and it pays for something necessary.  It may be that any credit card debt you have may have paid for something considered necessary.  However, with the relatively high interest rates, you have to question just how necessary any credit card debt really is.  Not to mention that there is no tax advantage. So, it comes down to the fact that a home loan should be relatively low interest, paying for something you must have and that you hopefully have some tax advantage from the interest you pay on it." The advantage of interest only mortgages is that they can increase your cashflow as you are only paying the interest and not any part of the principle. We have most of our investment loans on interest only for 10 years. When we got the loans about 6 to 7 years ago our LVR was only 60% and the property prices have increased by about 40% in that time. We also place our excess cashflow into offset accounts linked to the investment loans, so there is extra cash available in case things go bad. The disadvantage of interest only mortgages is that you are not paying off any principal for the length of the interest only period. If you are over extended this could cause problems as you need to rely totally on the price of the property going up for your equity to increase. As you are currently paying mortgage insurance leads me to believe your LVR is above 80%, so you would not have much equity available in your home. With an interest only loan this could pose you some problems. You should never try to over extend yourself, the slightest thing that goes wrong could get you into financial troubles. Always try to have some buffer to help you stay on your feet if circumstances do change for the worst. There's a few things going on here. If we fixed rates (and terms) over time we'd expect a pretty tight chart of home prices to income, almost lockstep. Add a layer of growth above that in boom times due to the wealth effect (when stocks are way up, we have extra money to blow on bigger houses) and the opposite when markets are down. Next, the effect of rates. With long term rates dropping from 14% in 1985 to 5% in 2003, the amount that can be bought for the same monthly payment rises dramatically as rates fall. Easy to lose site of that and the fact that the average size house has increased about 1.5% per year over the last 40 years, surely that can't continue.  When you normalize all these factors, houses cost fewer hours-worked almost at the peak of the market than 25 years ago. Mike's logical example of extrapolating out is very clever, I like it. In the short term, we'll see periods that are booms and busts, but actual prices will straddle the line representing the borrowing power of a week's pay. Interest is a fee that you pay in order to use someone else's money. Once you've made the deal, pretty much anything you do that reduces the total interest that you pay does so by reducing the time for which you get to use their money. As an extreme example, consider a thirty-year interest-only loan, with a balloon payment at the end. If you pay it off after fifteen years you pay half as much interest because you had the use of the money for half as long. The same thing happens when you make biweekly payments: you reduce the total interest that you pay by giving up the use of some of the borrowed money sooner. That's not necessarily bad, but it's also not automatically good. Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument.  Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going.  There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything. "The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue.  Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow.  ""A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later.  Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now.  The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever).   So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year.  For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80).  Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term.  But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal."