Student loan payments and opportunity costs
Ponder this. Suppose that a reputable company or government were to come out and say hey, we are going to issue some 10 year bonds at 6.4%. Anyone interested in buying some? Assume that the company or government is financially solid and there is zero chance that they will go bankrupt. Think those bonds would sell? Would you be interested in buying such a bond? Well, I would wager that these bonds would sell like hotcakes, despite the fact that the long term stock market return beats it by a half percent. Heck, vanguard's junk bond fund is hot right now. It only yields 4.9% and those are junk bonds, not rock solid companies (see vanguard high yield corporate bond fund) Every time you make an extra principal payment on your student loan, you are effectively purchasing a investment with a rock solid, guaranteed 6.4% return for 10 years (or whatever time you have left on the loan if make no extra payments). On top of that, paying off a loan early builds your credit reputation, improves your monthly cash flow once the loan is paid, may increase your purchasing power for a house or car, and if nothing else, it frees you from being a slave to that debt payment every month.  Edit Improved wording based on Ross's comment My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent.  The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed.  You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse.  The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early.  However, this cost is only temporary.  By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost.  By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk. Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction.  There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month.  In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan.  Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase. "I'll use similar logic to Dave Ramsey to answer this question because this is a popular question when we're talking about paying off any debt early.  Also, consider this tweet and what it means for student loans - to you, they're debt, to the government, they're assets. If you had no debt at all and enough financial assets to cover the cost, would you borrow money at [interest rate] to obtain a degree?  Put it in the housing way, if you paid off your home, would you pull out an equity loan/line for a purchase when you have enough money in savings?  I can't answer the question for you or anyone else, as you can probably find many people who will see benefits to either. I can tell you two observations I've made about this question (it comes a lot with housing) over time.  First, it tends to come up a lot when stocks are in a bubble to the point where people begin to consider borrowing from 0% interest rate credit cards to buy stocks (or float bills for a while).  How quickly people forget what it feels (and looks like) when you see your financial assets drop 50-60%!  It's not Wall Street that's greedy, it's most average investors.  Second, people asking this question generally overlook the behavior behind the action; as Carnegie said, ""Concentration is the key to wealth"" and concentrating your financial energy on something, instead of throwing it all over the place, can simplify your life.  This is one reason why lottery winners don't keep their winnings: their financial behavior was rotten before winning, and simply getting a lot of money seldom changes behavior.  Even if you get paid a lot or little, that's irrelevant to success because success requires behavior and when you master the behavior everything else (like money, happiness, peace of mind, etc) follows." "As Mr. Money Money Mustache once said: IF YOU HAVE CREDIT CARD DEBT, YOU SHOULD FEEL LIKE YOUR HAIR IS ON   FIRE Student loan debt is different than credit card debt.  Rather than having spent the money on just about anything, it was invested in improving yourself and probably your financial future.  This was probably a good decision. However, unlike most credit card debt, if you ever have to file for bankruptcy, your student loans will not be erased.  They will follow you forever. Pay your debts off as quickly as you can.  While it may be true that ""long-term return on the stock market is about 7%"", you cannot assume that this will always be the case, especially in the short term.  What if you had made this assumption in 2007? To assume that your stocks will beat a 6.4% guaranteed return over the next few years is not really investing.  It's gambling." "I bought a house when I was 22, I also had $10k in student load debt. After the down payment, I had $1,500 to my name and $82k worth of debt. All the advice pointed to ""pay the minimum payment and invest the rest."" I discarded the advice and scrimped and put everything extra to those bills. I paid it all off by the time I was 31, and now at 34 I'm self employed, have about $110,000 saved up, a house worth $105,000, 2 cars worth a total of $8,000 and no debt. Keep in mind most of those years I was making $24-$30k a year I might have lost out on a couple years of investments, but right now there are no money worries... wouldn't you rather be like that instead of worrying if you might lose your job?" I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money.  If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money.  But you can split it up a bit.  Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo.  Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in  the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan.  What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high.  Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals. "If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: ""I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?"" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:" The only real consideration I would give to paying off the debt as slowly as possible is if inflation were much higher than it is now.  If you had a nice medium to low interest (fixed rate) loan, like yours, and then inflation spiked to 7-8%, for example, then you're better off not paying it now because it's effectively making you money (and then when inflation calms back down, you pay it off with your gains). However, with a fairly successful and active Federal Reserve being careful to avoid inflation spikes, it seems unlikely that will occur during your time owing this debt - and certainly isn't anywhere near that point now.  Make sure you're saving some money not for the return but for the safety net (put it in something very safe), and otherwise pay off your debt. "Already a lot of great answers, but since I ask myself this same question I thought I'd share my 2 cents.  As @user541852587 pointed out, behavior is of the essence here. If you're like most recent grads, this is probably the first time in your life you are getting serious about building wealth. Can you pay your loans down quickly and then have the discipline to invest just as much -- if not more -- than you were putting towards your loans? Most people are good at paying bills in full and on time, yet many struggle to ""pay themselves"" in full and on time.  As @Brandon pointed out, you can do both. I find this makes a great deal of practical sense. It helps form good behaviors, boosts confidence, and ""diversifies"" those dollars. I have been paying double payments on my student loans while at the same time maxing out my IRA, HSA, & 401k. I also have a rental property (but that's another can of worms). I'm getting on top and feeling confident in my finances, habits, etc. and my loans are going down. With each increase in pay, I intend to pay the loans down faster than I invest until they're paid off.  Again -- I like the idea of doing both."
"Your dad may have paid an ""opportunity cost"" for that outright purchase.  If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money.  If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible.  My own father is a multi-millionaire (not myself) and he could afford to have paid for his house outright.  He didn't though.  To do so would have meant cashing in on several investments.  I don't know his interest rate but let's say it was 2.5%.  If he invests that million dollars into something he expects to get a 7% return on in the same period, then he would make more money by borrowing the money.  Hence, he would be paying an opportunity cost. Assuming you need to work, some jobs will also do background or credit checks.  Credit cards can be used by well off people to actually make them money by offering rewards (compared to straight cash transactions).  The better your credit history, the better the cards/rewards you can get.  You can build that credit history better by having these loans and making timely payments." You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses).  Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive.  You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free.  At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses.  Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment.  Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach.  Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach.  Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both.  You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K.  Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy. What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else?  You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls.   The student loans.... pay them off in one shot?  If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013.  Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard. &gt;giving students 1 trilion to pay off all student loans isn't inflationary, it would be deflationary  No. If you have to print money out of thin air and letting it circulate in the economy then you are expanding the money supply (inflation). It would have to contract the money supply to be deflation. Even if the money is being spent on student loan payments it is still circulating in the economy, provided the recipients of the loans (banks or government depending) use it later.  Debt was created out of thin air. Sure. But debt is not money so it has nothing to do with inflation or deflation. It can be paid back over long periods of time (in the case of student loans 35 years). The government could pay students back over the course of 50 years to reduce the debt burden for them, but it would hardly be getting the same amount back in tax revenue. The government gives someone $1,000 and they spend it all, you might generate a couple hundred dollars in taxes over the course of the year if that money keeps changing hands.  This solution is not feasible. Those in Occupy need to come up with something more realistic. What you want to do is figure out how much you're paying in interest, solely (ie, the interest part of each payment), add that up over 48 months, then figure out the net value of the cash inflow/outflow for the points over 48 months (ie, 3.5% annual return on the positive or negative value).  Sum those two.  Then you can see your P&L, and your total cash outflow (up to you if you add a % to your negative initial outflow, and how exactly you consider your $2k closing costs; I agree with JoeTaxpayer about adding at least closing costs to the loan amount.  If you have money to pay the points that would otherwise be earning money, you could alternately consider it a negative cash (ie, instead of accruing 3.5% it's a negative balance accruing that). In excel I'd do something like: Then track changes in H and I when you change columns B and C and G. Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds.  I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only.  I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)).  So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute.  As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine.  However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption. Congratulations for achieving an important step in the road to financial freedom. Some view extending loan payment of loans that allow the deduction of interest as a good thing. Some view the hit on the credit score by prematurely paying off an installment loan as a bad thing.  Determining the order of paying off multiple loans in conjunction with the reality of income, required monthly living expense, and the need to save for emergencies is highly individualized.  Keeping an artificial debt seems to make little sense, it is an expensive insurance policy to chase a diminishing tax benefit and boost to a credit score. Keep in mind it is a deduction, not a credit, so how much you save depends on your tax bracket.  It might make sense for somebody to extend the loan out for an extra year or two, but you can't just assume that that advice applies in your situation. Personally I paid off my student loan early, as soon as it made sense based on my income, and my situation. I am glad I did, but for others the opposite made more sense. "(Ignoring any ethical considerations of defaulting on a mortgage obligation) If your credit score fell, future costs of borrowing would be greater, if you could borrow money at all. The true financial cost of these penalties would depend on your own intentions and circumstances. The value of a credit score cannot be quantified in any absolute sense because of these circumstances which will vary from person to person. Suppose a decision would result in your score falling from 700 to 600. As a result, a future car loan would cost something like 2% more in interest per year. Let's also suppose you would not be able to find a bank to give you money to buy a new home.  The difficulties caused by this situation would depend on the person. Some people have no intention of taking out another mortgage or buying another car, and to them, a lowered credit score might make no difference. To others, it would be desirable to avoid these penalties. The value of credit score would be equal to how much you would be willing to pay in the present to avoid these future penalties.  If you intend to borrow money in the near future, and somehow know how much more interest you will pay as a result of your lower score, then you could approximate the value of the credit drop by summing all of the additional interest costs discounted into the present. Something a little like this: Year's Additional Cost in Interest / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds) ^ (Years in the future this extra interest will be paid).  See time value of money explanation: Can you explain ""time value of money"" and ""compound interest"" and provide examples of each? It could also be the case that you miss out on valuable financial opportunities as a result which could be added to the present value of the credit score drop.  For example, if the drop made you totally unable to purchase an investment property that would net you $10,000 in cash flows /year (which would yield cash flows immediately). The value of that investment would have been $10,000 / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds). Since you would not be able to make that investment (in this example) as a result of the decreased score, the present value of the investment would be an opportunity cost of the lower score. There are other hard-to-quantify costs of low credit to consider as well, ranging from housing to employment to bragging rights.  Hopefully this has helped :)"