Effective interest rate for mortgage loan
With the $2000 downpayment and interest rate of 11.5% nominal compounded monthly the monthly payments would be $970.49 As you state, that is a monthly rate of 0.9583% Edit With the new information, taking the standard loan equation where Let Now setting s = 98000, with d = 990.291 solve for r
"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." The offset account is the way to go. The rate is higher and even if interest rates fall further when you go to renew your term deposit the interest rate for that will be lower as well. Also, with a term deposit you will be penalised if you take the money out before the end of the term. Regarding tax, you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate on every dollar earned from the Term deposit ( as long as your income is above the $18,000 tax free threshold). If the mortgage is for your primary residence then you will not pay any tax on the money in your Offset Account, as you are not earning any interest in this account you are saving interest on your mortgage. So definitely the way to go would be with the offset account, you'll get an effective higher interest rate, it will help you pay off your mortgage sooner, the money is always on call, and you will pay no tax. "Yes, it's unreasonable to think the prices will drop 10-20% in that time frame.  Housing prices are not an equation that can can be solved to ""home prices are X% overvalued."" You have 3 answers so far, Quanty's ""prices are inversely proportional to rates,"" Rob's ""there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices,"" and MB's, ""rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices."" Any research into price history had better take every other variable into account. Articles that look at rates vs price don't always address a key item, income. Say we agree that the data show your city to be 10% too high. But if sellers like their high price and have some 'dig my heels in' power, prices won't drop. The seller simply stays put, and the supply/demand curves result not in a lower price, but in less supply. And the effect is to change the demographic of that area, i.e. attracting higher income earners.  Rob linked to an article with a nice set of charts. One chart showing the US30 yr fixed rate and 'Real House Prices'. What results is a chart that can refute the relationship between rates and prices. But that would ignore an historical point that's too important to forget. The tumble that started in Jan '06 had nothing to do with the 30 year rate. It was the result of a series of insane financial products including 'interest only option ARMs' which permitted buyers to get approved for a purchase based on a payment that wasn't fixed, and would change to a fully amortizing mortgage at a higher rate that was unaffordable. A product that was a financial time bomb. Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate.  Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget.  Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed.  In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think." Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty.  Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas,  buyers had a choice of  This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment. The periodic rate (here, the interest charged per month), as you would enter into a finance calculator is 9.05%. Multiply by 12 to get 108.6% or calculate APR at 182.8%. Either way it's far more than 68%.  If the $1680 were paid after 365 days, it would be simple interest of 68%. For the fact that payment are made along the way, the numbers change.  Edit - A finance calculator has 5 buttons to cover the calculations:  N = number of periods or payments %i = the interest per period PV = present value PMT = Payment per period FV= Future value In your example, you've given us the number of periods, 12, present value, $1000, future value, 0, and payment, $140. The calculator tells me this is a monthly rate of 9%. As Dilip noted, you can compound as you wish, depending on what you are looking for, but the 9% isn't an opinion, it's the math. TI BA-35 Solar. Discontinued, but available on eBay. Worth every cent.  Per mhoran's comment, I'll add the spreadsheet version.  I literally copied and pasted his text into a open cell, and after entering the cell shows,  which I rounded to 9.05%. Note, the $1000 is negative, it starts as an amount owed.  And for Dilip - 1.0905^12 = 2.8281 or 182.8% effective rate. If I am the loanshark lending this money, charging 9% per month, my $1000 investment returns $2828 by the end of the year, assuming, of course, that the payment is reinvested immediately. The 108 >> 182 seems disturbing, but for lower numbers, even 12% per year, the monthly compounding only results in 12.68% The bank will consider total of both parties income for the loan qualification. Provided both parties will be listed on the mortgage. "I've been taking all the cheap fixed-rate debt banks would like to give me lately. What Rate? In practice I find the only way I get a low-enough rate on a longish-term fixed-rate loan is to use collateral. That is, auto loans and home loans. I haven't seen any personal loans with a low enough fixed rate. (Student loans may be cheap enough if they're subsidized, I guess.) Here's how I think of the rate: If you look at https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations , the average annual return on 80% bonds / 20% stocks is 6.7%, with worst year -10.3%. That's a nominal return not a real return. If you subtract taxes, say your marginal rate (the rate you pay on your last dollar of income) is 28% federal plus 5% state, then if you have no tax deferral the 6.7% becomes about a 4.5% average, with reasonably wide variation year-by-year. (You can mess with this, e.g. using tax-exempt bonds and tax-efficient stock funds, etc. which would be wise, but for deciding whether to take out debt, getting too detailed is false precision. The 6.7% number is only an average to begin with, not a guarantee.) Say you pay 4.5% on a loan, and you keep your money in very conservative investments, that's probably at least going to break even if you give it some years. It certainly can and sometimes will fail to break even over some time periods, but the risk of outright catastrophe is low. If your annual loss is 10%, that sucks, but it should not ruin your life. In practice, I got a home loan for close to 4.5% which is tax-deductible so a lower effective rate, and got an auto loan subsidized by the manufacturer for under 3%. Both are long-term fixed-rate loans with collateral. So I was happy to borrow this money paying about a 3% effective rate in both cases, well below my rough threshold of 4.5%. I do not, however, run a credit card balance; even though one of my cards is only 7% right now, 7% is too high, and it's a floating rate that could rise. The personal loans I've seen have too-high rates also. Thoughts Overall I think using debt as a tool requires that you're already financially stable, such that the debt isn't creating a risky situation. The debt should be used to increase liquidity and flexibility and perhaps boost investment returns a bit. Where you're likely to get into trouble is using debt to increase your purchasing power, especially if you use debt to buy things that aren't necessary. For me the primary reason to use debt is flexibility and liquidity, and the secondary ""bonus"" reason is a possible spread between the debt rate and investment returns." Another thing to consider is that paying extra principal (either via one of these services, or by including something extra with your normal mortgage payment and designating that it go to principal rather than be held to reduce next month's payment, or just sending an additional payment to the bank and designating it as reducing the principal) shortens the term of your loan. Is this good? Maybe. Consider that banks lend with a variety of terms. Usually the 15-year fixed rate mortgage has a lower interest rate than the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, and the 5-year home-equity-loan has an even lower rate. When you prepay your loan, your interest rate stays the same, but the bank gets its money back sooner. This makes more profit for the bank as it can then invest the money in other things. That profit could have been yours if you had made that investment instead of prepaying your mortgage.