Are variable rate loans ever a good idea?
First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner.  If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase.  If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way.  So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years).  After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year).  There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters.  (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.)  However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank.  So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate.  If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates.  These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time.  For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%.  On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%.  (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest.  The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are.  If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high.  I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option. Fixed  You are confirming the amount you are going t pay over the term of the loan. Variable: 3.79% over 82mo. The total difference over the life of the loan comes to around $1200 That is the wrong way to calculate the variable portion. The variable is primarily set with a margin over a certain benchmark i.e. Fed rate. Assuming the Fed rate doesn't change over or only goes lower the variable rate is the one to go. If it rises then your payment will increase. And the margin they take over the benchmark rate may increase, so the total amount you pay might increase too.  I would assume a read through the T&Cs should clarify that for you. Is it ever a good idea to choose a variable rate loan? Only if you think we are in a low interest rate environment i.e. the economy is in doldrums and the Feds are trying to simulate the economy by decreasing the benchmark rates. And you are sure that the lender isn't going to increase his margins if the rate remains low for quite a substantial amount of time. And I might assume there will be penalties for paying off a loan quicker. "It all has to do with risk and reward. The risk is that interest rates will rise.  To entice you to go with the variable, they make it so it is cheaper if interest rates never rise. Your job is to guess whether interest rates are likely to go up or not. In a first approximation, you should go fixed. The bank employs very smart people whose entire job is to know whether interest rates will go up or not. Those people chose the price difference between the two, and it's sure to favour the bank. That is, the risk of extra payments you'll make on the variable is probably more than the enticement. But, some people can't sleep at night if their payments (or more realistically, the interest part of their payments) might double. If that's you, go fixed. If that's not you, understand that the enticement actually has to be turned up a bit, to get more people to go variable, because of the sleeping-at-night feature. Think long and hard about your budget and what would happen if your payment jumped. If you could handle it, variable might be the better choice. Personally, I have been taking ""variable"" on my mortgage for decades (and now I don't have one) and never once regretted it. I also counselled my oldest child to take variable on her mortgage. Over this century so far, if rates ticked up, they didn't tick up to the level the fixed was offered at. Mostly they have sat flat. But if ever there was a world in which ""past performance does not predict future results"" it would be interest rate trends. Do your own research." It is often the case (more commonly in countries other than the USA) that a fixed-term loan has an early redemption penalty, because the lender themselves will incur a cost for settling the loan early, while a variable-rate loan does not. If this is the situation and you think you might want to pay off the loan early, you should definitely consider the variable rate rather than then fixed rate. I have an example that may be interesting for your question. My grandfather had a tennis club around 35 years ago, and some other businesses. Some investments went bad and he was heading for bankruptcy due to the tennis club's expensive payments. So he asked to renegotiate a variable rate rather than a fixed rate, even though the interest rates were going up, not down. The idea was that if the current situation is going to bankrupt you, taking a chance might be better. As an analogy, if you can't swim and you'll drown in 6 feet of water, it doesn't matter that you're taking the risk to go deeper. You might have to take that chance to survive. He did keep the tennis club in the end but that's irrelevant here. For student loans, if I'm not mistaken, declaring bankruptcy doesn't free you of all their debt, so it may not be applicable.  And this situation is when renegotiating, not when negotiating the first time. because obviously if you're in trouble financially, taking a loan you know you can't repay is suicide. The earlier you are in your career, the more willing you should be to take a better opportunity even if it has a short-term financial cost.  You go to college even if McDonald's has an opening.  After college you may take an entry level job with better long-term prospects even if a higher paying job is available.  You may train for some professional qualification. Having expenses you have to pay limits your flexibility to do this.  A variable rate loan that goes up later may give you the freedom to make better decisions early on.  Thus in this case it may be worthwhile. That said - be very wary of variable rate loans.  Unless you have iron discipline, they give the opportunity to bury yourself. The simple answer is absolutely.  With the parameters you quote, if you will pay off the loan in 82 months or less, you will be ahead taking the variable rate. You have put your finger on the important question as well. The higher initial interest is buying insurance against rates rising if you don't pay off the loan within 82 months.  I suspect the contract loan term is much longer than that, because otherwise a variable rate does not make sense.  You need to assess whether the insurance you are buying is worth the premium.  You can look at what the formula for the variable rate would set the rate at today. It is probably somewhat higher than the 3.79%.  That will tell you how much rates have to rise to make the variable rate go above 5.02%. Note that if the loan term is around 160 months (and it could well be 180 months, 15 years) you can afford the interest to rise to about 6.2% for the last half and you will still be dollars ahead.  It could even rise higher if you discount expenses in the future.  You could also hope that if inflation rises to make interest rates rise like that you will get cost of living raises that make this easy to pay. 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. What's going on here is that the variable rate loan is transferring some of the risk from the bank to you.  In a reasonable deal taking on risk brings with it reward.  It's the same thing as deductibles on insurance--they're transferring some risk to you and thus your expected total cost goes down. Thus the proper evaluation of such deals is whether you can afford the outcome if you draw the short straw.  If you feel you can afford the highest payment that can result then the variable rate is a good deal.  If you're near your limit then stay with the safe option of the fixed rate. For a house this is easy enough to evaluate--run the calculations assuming the highest payment and see what the debt-to-income ratio is.  Note that when we were getting mortgages there was another factor involved: the variable rate loans had a higher initiation cost.  Combined with the very low difference between fixed and ARM rates at the time we went fixed but given the rates you quote going variable would have been a no-brainer for us.
"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (""Grunderwerbssteuer"") and land registration fees (""Grundbucheintrag""). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (""Hausverwalter""). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security.  However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google ""Mietrecht Eigenbedarf"" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree." At the current rates, stated in the question, I would push additional funds towards your Stafford loans as their higher interest rates will incur interest charges almost 3 times faster than your private loans. With my loans I have not seen much information regarding private loans jumping the interest rate close to the 6.8% any time in the coming years (if others have insight to this I look forward to the comments).  Due to the private loans being variable there is an element of risk to their rates increasing. Another way to look at it may be to prorate your amount of extra payments according to their interest rate.  $1,000 x 0.068 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $731.18 Toward your Stafford Loans $1,000 x 0.025 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $268.82 Toward your Private Loans "Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a ""Line of credit"" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call ""overdraft protection"". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:" 1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money. Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA?  VA loans are not a great deal.  Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA.  While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs.   If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K.  Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit.   While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off.  Are you intending on working that long?  Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage.  Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement?  You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-.  It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions.  Your success comes in the execution.  Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that?  A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month.  Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there?  Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids.  While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college.  A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college.  They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation.   Thank you for your service. There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment. My brother did it for a while, put in about $2700 and took out $2800 6 months later. He was on track to yield around 13% if he had let them stay there. He decided to liquidate that account and make an IRA with LendingClub.  So I'd say go for it. "Using the fact that you'd save $160/mo by spending $7000, I'd look at it this way -  If I were to lend you the $7000 at 12%/yr, $160 would pay it off in 58 months. At 18%/yr, 72 months or just 6 years. You can run spreadsheets to get breakeven scenarios, and mhoran is on track with his answer, but breakeven is just one point to consider. Beyond that date, it's free money.  My approach is to look at it with a question - ""How much interest could I afford to pay to make that monthly savings worthwhile?"""