Why would refinancing my mortgage increase my PMI, even though rates are lower?
Is that an FHA loan you have? And you're wanting to do one of those low cost FHA re-fi's, right? The answer is that in between when you first got that loan and now, the government's changed the rules on PMI for FHA loans. It more than doubled the amount of monthly PMI you have to pay.  The new rates, efective April 18th, 2011, as as follows: It used to be 0.50% per year for the 30 year. So that's why the PMI would go up.  There is another rule in play too, specific to that no-cost FHA refi -- the government requires that the combined (principal+interest+pmi) monthly payment after the refi is at least 4% lower than the current payment. Note that the no-cost refi does not require a new appraisal.  Some options present themselves, but only if you can show some equity in a appraisal: 1) if an appraisal shows at least 10% equity, you can go refi to a standard mortgage. You might even be able to find one that doesn't require PMI at that level. If you have 20% equity, you're golden -- no pmi. 2) See what the monthly payment will be if you refi to the 15 year FHA mortgage. Between the much lower PMI, and the much lower interest rates (15 year is usually about 0.75% less than a 30 year), it might not be much more than what you're paying now. And you'd save a huge amount of money over time, and get out from that PMI much earlier (it stops when your principal drops below 80% of the loan amount). This would require that reappraisal. The PMI rate is calculated at the time your mortgage is underwritten to be terminated at the point where you have 20% equity in your home.  It is calculated based off of default risks based on your current equity value at the time of the loan.  So if you got your mortgage before the banking crisis those risk charts have changed dramatically and not in your favor. So lets say you have a 100k home which you put 10k down so you have a mortgage of 90k.  Since you have accumulated an additional 5k equity so payoff value is now 85k.  If you refinance your mortgage and the home values in your area have dropped 15% you now are borrowing 100% of the value of your home.  So you have higher risk from being at 100% as opposed to 90%.  And the PMI is for the 20% of equity you do not have that the bank can not expect to recover.  So when you originally bought the house your PMI pay out was 10k.  At 85K value and 100% borrowed the PMI payout will be closer to 18k.  While you may still be able to sell your home for the original value when they do the refinance calculations they use what your area has trended.  If that is the case you maybe be able get an actual appraisal to use but that will come out of your pocket. *Disclaimer: These are simplifications of how the whole complex process works if you call the banker they can explain exactly why, show you the numbers, and help you understand your specific circumstances.  * There are deals out there which allow refinancing up to 125% of appraised value so long as you have a solid payment history. You need to research banks in your area working with HARP funded mortgages.  An alternate method is to find a bank that will finance 80% of the current value at 4% and the rest as a HELOC. The rate will be higher on the equity line, but the average rate will be better and you can pay the line off faster.
"Basically, the money you pay in student loan interest is tax deductible, which means as far as the IRS is concerned, you didn't make that money. However, what that saves you on your taxes is a percentage of a percentage; you save the amount of your current marginal rate on the money you paid as interest. Simple example with made-up numbers: Let's say you had a student loan outstanding, and you were making payments of $150 monthly on it. Total payments to said loan in one tax year would be $1800. Of that amount, let's for the sake of argument say that half, $900, was interest. You get your 1098-E with that number on it, and reduce your taxable income by that amount. You're currently doing well, not outstanding but OK, so you're in the 25% tax bracket that most single middle-classers are in. So, your reduction in taxable income of $900 saves you the 25% that those 900 simoleons would have been taxed at, which is $225. So, all told, this loan is a net drain on your disposable income of $1,575, of which $675 is pure cost of capital; you never received a dollar in disbursements to match this amount you're paying, so it's money lost now in return for previous gains. 10 years later, you pay off the debt. Now that $1800 is yours to keep, and to pay full  taxes on. You pay $225 more in taxes (actually, because of amortization, the amount of additional taxes has been steadily increasing as the interest portion of the loan payments has reduced) but have the remaining $1575 in your pocket to do something else. While there is good debt and bad debt, debt is debt; whether deductible or not, the IRS will never credit your tax bill in the amount of interest owed (AFAIK; if someone knows of a loan whose interest is a credit instead of a deduction I'm all ears). So, the deduction on this loan reduces your cost of capital to an effective APR of 4.5%, and because it's a student loan and not a mortgage, you don't have to itemize so this is in effect a ""free"" deduction (even with an FHA mortgage allowing me to deduct interest, property taxes and PMI, and the residual medical costs after insurance of having our new baby, the $11,900 standard deduction for my wife and I was still the better deal this year). But, you're still losing 4.5% per year to interest. That's your break-even; if the money you could use to pay your debt could earn a better return than 4.5%, then invest it, but if not, pay off the loan. Right now, investments that could make you 4.5% are at the bottom edge of a steep increase in risk and variance, so if your expected ROI is close, I'd lean toward paying off the debt." "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." "First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area  (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to ""good"" online service, ""great"" phone service, ""great"" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can ""walk in"" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time).  Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs.  As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example.  At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features  (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate ""better"". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a ""big bank"". For others they want the more personal touch of a ""small bank"". There are benefits both ways.  For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans.  We like our options, and rest assured all those ""brands"" offer products that have differences that attract customers." Up to some degree, a higher or lower interest rate means a bit less or a bit more money in your pocket. If the interest rate gets too high, you may be in trouble. So you first look at the situation and ask yourself: At what interest rate would I be in trouble?  If this is a $20,000 student loan, then even a very high rate wouldn't be trouble. It would be unfortunate and unpleasant, but not fatal. For a $800,000 mortgage, that's different. Each percent more is $8,000 a year. Going from 3% to 10% would change the interest from $24,000 to $80,000 a year, which would be fatal for many people.  In a situation where you can afford increasing variable payments without problems you can go for it. If your variable rate would vary over time between 4% and 6% you would still be even. In that situation, go for variable (taking into account where you think interest rates will go in the future). For a mortgage, the security would likely be more important. (On the other hand, if your dad is a multi-millionaire who would help you out, then that big rate increase wouldn't be fatal, and you could go for a variable rate mortgage).  In some countries, you can cancel any loan contract when the interest rate is raised. So raising a variable mortgage interest rate would allow you to look elsewhere without early repayment penalties. Check out if that is the case for you. "The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%" The big one is to keep you from refinancing it with someone else to get a better rate. There may also be some funny-money reasons having to do with being able to count this as a new sale. "I've heard that the bank may agree to a ""one time adjustment"" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation.  If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing.  If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster.  Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance).   If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early.  But you know your circumstances better than we do.   If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up.  Fully fund your 401k and IRA.  Fill out your emergency fund.  Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon.  If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so.  That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan).   There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds).  If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage.  And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes.  If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment.  Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now.   The problem is that this might not be the best time for that.  The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash.  That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now.   I'd pay down the mortgage.  You know the return on that.  No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest.  I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly.  Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years." 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.