Is this comparison of a 15-year vs. a 30-year mortgage reasonable?
"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of ""investing"" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way."
My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high. Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free.   You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly.  ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money.  That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer.  Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers.  Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money. "When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have ""more skin in the game"" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI." There is no interest outstanding, per se.  There is only principal outstanding.  Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis.  The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed.  What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding.  If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set.  The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years.  If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years.  The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed.  Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years.  How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan.  If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years.  It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less.  Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens.  If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan.   If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month.  In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!!  This is called negative amortization.  Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment.  You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments.  If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan.  Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by.  For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding).  Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments.  They don't have to be fixed.   For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year.   Is the math any different?  Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis.  Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal.  You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning!  That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan.  All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about   prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car   loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you   are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty.   If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the   16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to   the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of   the loan. Incorrect.  It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!!  It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay   off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received   all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute   the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in   effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding   that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the   balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff   amount. Your last sentence is correct.  The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe.  In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year   loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount.  If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see.  In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car   loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to   the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car   loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was   crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan.   I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying.  I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion.   The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet.  If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan. I struggle to see the value to this risk from the standpoint of your mother-in-law.  This is not a small amount of money for a single person to lend to a single person ignoring your personal relationship.   Right now, using a blended rate of about 8% and a 5 year payment period, your cost on that $50,000 is somewhere in the neighborhood of $11,000 with a monthly payment around $1,014. Using the same monthly payment but paying your MIL at 5% you'll complete the loan about 3.5 months sooner and save about $5,000, she will make about $6,000 in interest over 5 years against a $50,000 outlay. Alternatively, you can just prioritize payments to the more expensive loans.  It's difficult to work out a total cost comparison without your expected payoff timelines and amount(s) you're currently paying toward all the loans.  I'm sure a couple hours with a couple of spreadsheets could yield a plan that would net you a savings substantially close to the $5,000 you'd save by risking your mother in law's money. A lot of people think personal lending risk is about the relationship between the people involved, but there's more to it than that. It's not about you and your wife separating, it's not about the awkward dinner and conversations if you lose your job.  Something might physically happen to you, you could become disabled or die.  Right now, that's an extremely diversified and calculated risk taken by a gigantic lender. Unless your mother in law is very wealthy, this is not nearly enough reward to assume this sort of risk (in my opinion).  Her risk FAR outpaces your potential five year savings. IF you wanted to pursue this as a means of paying interest to a family member rather than the bank, I'd only borrow an amount I budgeted and intended to pay within this single year.  Say $10,000 against the highest interest loan. You mentioned 15-20 years in your comment on mhoran_psprep's response. This is the most important factor to consider in the points vs. rate question. With a horizon that long it sounds like the points are probably a better option for you. There is a neat comparison tool at The Mortgage Professor's website that may help you build your spreadsheet or simply check the numbers you are getting. "In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty.  Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors.  As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you ""can"" pay off the loan in a short time.  If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above." In a strictly mathematical sense, no. Or rather, it depends what 'long run' means.  Say today the home average is $200K, and payment is $900/mo. The $900 today happens to be about 20% of the median US monthly income (which is approximately $54,000/yr). Housing rises 4%/yr, income 3%/yr. In 100 years (long enough?) the house costs $10M but incomes are 'only' $1.03M/yr, and the mortgage, even at the same rate is $45K/month, or, to be clear, it rose to 52% of monthly income.  My observation is that, long term, the median home costs what 25% of median income will support, in terms of the mortgage after downpayment. Long term. That means that if you graph this, you'll see trends above and below the long term line. You'll see a 25 year bubble form starting in the late 80's as rates dropped from near 18% to the Sub-4% in the early 00s. But once you normalize it to percent of income to pay the loan, much of the bubble is flattened out. At 18%, $1500/mo bought you a $100K mortgage, but at 3.5%, it bought $335K. This is in absolute dollars, wages also rose during that time. I am just clarifying how rates distort the long term trends and create the short term anomalies.