How does refinancing work?
"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not ""new debt""; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks.  It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself ""on the hook"" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a ""loan modification"" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a ""streamlining"" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these ""toxic assets"". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date." "You owe $20,000 to a loanshark, 1% per week interest.  I'm happy to get 1% per month, and trust you to pay it back, so I lend you the $20,000.  The first lender got his money, and now you are paying less interest as you pay the loan back. This is how a refi works, only the first bank won't try to break the legs of the second bank for moving into their business.  This line ""reinvested the money into the mortgage to lower his monthly payments"" implies he also paid it down a bit, maybr the new mortgage is less principal than the one before." Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.
No, they are not recession proof.   Assume several companies, that issued bonds in the fund, go bankrupt.  Those bonds could be worthless, they could miss principle payments, or they could be restructured.  All would mean a decline in value. When the economy shrinks (which is what a recession is) how does the Fed respond?  By lowering interest rates.  This makes current bonds more valuable as presumably they were issued at a higher rate, thus the recession proof prejudice.  However, there is nothing to stop a company (in good financial shape) from issuing more bonds to pay the par value on high-interest bonds, thus refinancing their debt.  Sort of like how the bank feels when one refinances the mortgage for a lower rate.   The thing that troubles me the most is that rates have been low for a long time.  What happens if we have a recession now?  How does the Fed fix it?  I am not sure exactly what the fallout would be, but it could be significant. If you are troubled, you should look for sectors that would be hurt and helped by a Trump-induced recession.  Move money away from those that will be hurt.  Typically aggressive growth companies are hurt (during recessions), so you may want to move money away from them.  Typically established blue chip companies fare okay in a recession so you may want to move money toward them.  Move some money to cash, and perhaps some towards bonds.   All that being said, I'd keep some money in things like aggressive growth in case you are wrong. It's important because it shows that the amount you owe does not decrease linearly with each payment, and you gain equity as a correspondingly slower rate at the beginning of the loan and faster at the end. This has to be figured in when considering refinancing, or when you sell the place and pay off the mortgage. It also shows why making extra payments toward principal (if your loan permits doing so) is so advantageous -- unlike a normal payment that lowers the whole curve by a notch, reducing the length of time over which interest is due and thus saving you money in the long run. (Modulo possible lost-opportnity costs, of course.) "In short: management wants something because somebody said some vague idea.  Management does not really know why the idea should be done! ROI? Good idea? Is there a need for the idea?  Let's not forget that to begin with, management does not know how to execute, implement or design the idea. Never!  The idea is sent to IT to think and do all the above.   IT will never fight Management and do serious work on the first part: Should the idea be done? ROI? Need for the idea? Business Analysts in IT are notoriously knows to be clueless except to write down ""requirements"" that some Business people said.  So, IT concentrates on the 2nd part: implement and design a solution for the idea.  And between the 12 people in IT working on the design and implementation, non of them have background in Business, Marketing or Accounting, the results are predictable.  How it should be done? You have an idea? You and only you work with all the stakeholder on all aspects of evaluating and implementing the idea: from research about the validity and feasibility of the idea, to checking and working closely with the design and development team as YOU try to implement the idea." Good addition. When learning finance and business, /u/msattam, realize the world does not work cleanly like it does in a textbook. You have added complexity, both systemic and human caused. And that there is a very good reason that we must understand agency issues and how to mitigate those risks. Amortization is the process by which your loan balance decreases over time. For both mortgages and credit card balances, your interest charges are based on what you owe.  The calculation of the balance is a little different, but it still is based on what you owe. You're observing correctly that most of the first payments on a mortgage are interest.  This stands to reason since an amortization schedule (for a fixed-rate mortgage) is constructed on the assumption that you're making your payments equally over the course of the mortgage.  Since you owe more at the beginning, you accrue more interest, and a larger fraction of your payment is interest.  Near the end, you owe little, and most of your payment, therefore, is principal. "The question isn't ""fair"", it's ""how much do you have to give them in order to get them to trust you with the money for a year rather than doing something else with it, and does that exceed what you are willing/able to give them, and how sure are you that you can either do without the money or find it elsewhere?""  This has to be negotiated. There is no standard answer, since there is no standard company or lender. Heck, even a simple bank loan is a negotiation, though that usually takes the form of shopping around for an acceptable rate and their deciding whether they'll accept you rather than going back and forth on what rate would be the best compromise." You're not crazy, but the banks are. Here's the problem: You're taking 100% LTV on property A - you won't be able to get a second mortgage for more than 80% total (including the current mortgage) LTV. That's actually something I just recently learned from my own experience. If the market is bad, the banks might even lower the LTV limit further. So essentially, at least 20% of your equity in A will remain on the paper. Banks don't like seeing the down-payment coming from anywhere other than your savings. Putting the downpayment from loan proceeds, even if not secured by the property which you're refinancing, will probably scare banks off. How to solve this? Suggest to deal with it as a business, putting both properties under a company/LLC, if possible. It might be hard to change the titles while you have loans on your properties, but even without it - deal with it as if it is a business. Approach your bank for a business loan - either secured by A or unsecured, and another investment loan for B. Describe your strategy to the banker (preferably a small community bank in the area where the properties are), and how you're going to fund the properties. You won't get rates as low as you have on A (3.25% on investment loan? Not a chance, that one is a keeper), but you might be able to get rid of the balloon/variable APR problem. For a $350 monthly payment, she is currently paying $200 monthly in interest. You say that no bank will refinance her, but that is not true, I'm sure many banks are happy to refinance her to the value of the car. She should start that process. You'll find that your suggestion to pay $5000 down on the current loan is pretty similar to what she would need to bring to a bank to refinance (maybe as much as $7000 to refinance). After that she would be paying a much lower amount in interest, and she could still retire the loan a year or two (but she would be paying even less in interest). The advantage to borrowing from her emergency fund is that she retires the loan 14 months earlier. The problem is that you are prioritizing the least amount paid, and she is prioritizing an emergency fund. Emergency funds are also very important. You might have better success if you prioritize paying back the emergency fund in your plan. If she puts $7000 down to refinance, assume a 3 year loan at 4.5% with a $150 monthly payment. Instead of paying down the remaining $5000 quickly what if she put the extra $200/month toward paying back her emergency fund? It would take the same 3 years to fully pay it back without impacting the rest of her budget at all. If she has extra room in her budget, she could pay back that emergency fund even faster. Many of us who prioritize minimizing interest paid and maximizing interest earned already have a robust emergency fund. Your girlfriend isn't wrong to value that. Unexpected emergencies can cause much more interest to be paid if there is no way to deal with them. (That's how paycheck and title lenders capture their customers.) Talk to her about what emergencies she might need the money for, and make a plan to replenish the fund, and you're much more likely to have her buy in.