At what interest rate should debt be used as a tool?
"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." "Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to ""buy"" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make ""capital"" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase.  Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view." "Average return on the S&P500 over the last 10 years has been 1.6 %; so if you'd invested in that with money borrowed at 3 % you would have lost (so far). Investing with borrowed money implies you think you can beat the market: that you're a cleverer investor than whoever decided to lend you the money. Whoever decided to lend you the money decided that you are the best (return/risk ratio) investment for their money. It might make sense to invest borrowed money if you don't need to pay it back if things go wrong: if you're an investment professional whose bonus depends on the profit you make, but who won't need to repay any loss. It might also makes sense to borrow money if you're going to 'add value', e.g. sweat equity: for example if you use it to renovate a house or (if you're a business) to hire more staff. But the question was ""What guidelines do you use"" and the answer is, ""I don't make passive investments with borrowed money."" My Dad did it, i.e. didn't repay his mortgage as soon as he could have: but that was because (back in the '70s) he had a long-term (government-sponsored) mortgage for about 1.5 % (designed to help first-time buyers or something like that), at a time when banks were paying higher interest rates on (ultra-safe) deposits." This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past. It's not so much the rate of the debt as it is the total cost of the debt relative to the gain you expect to see from using it to purchase something of value. I've known people who were quite happy to pay 12% on personal loans used to buy investment properties for flipping.  They're happy to pay that because conventional loans from banks require too much documentation and out-of-pocket expense.  For some investors, 12% without all of the documentation burden is money well spent. So if I'm the investor, and the interest on this 12% loan is $5,000 and I can flip a property for $20,000 after all of the other expenses, then the 12% loan was an enabler to netting $15,000 profit. This post has a great discussion on the topic. Basically, there is no single interest rate above which you should pay off and below which you should keep. You have to keep in mind factors such as It's tough to borrow fixed and invest risk free. That said, there are still some interesting investment opportunities. A 4% loan will cost you 3% or less after tax, and the DVY (Dow high yielders) is at 3.36% but at a 15% favored rate, you net 2.76% if my math is right. So for .5%, you get the fruits of the potential rise in dividends as well as any cap gains. Is this failsafe? No. But I believe that long term, say 10 years or more, the risk is minimal. I don't really see it as worth it at any level because of the risk. If you take $10,000,000 using the ratios you gave making 2% return. That is a profit of $200,000. Definitely not worth it, but lets go to 20% profit that is $2,000,000. To me the risk involved at beint 10 million in debt isn't worth it to make $2,000,000 quickly it would be pretty easy doing something wrong to wipe out everything.
One big factor that no one has mentioned yet is whether you believe in a deflationary or inflationary future. Right now, we are leaning towards a deflationary environment so it makes sense to pay off more of the debt. (If you make just one extra payment a year, you will have paid off your house 7 years early). However, should this change (depending on government and central bank policy) you may be better off putting down the very minimum.  In a year or three from now, you should have a clearer picture. In the meanwhile, here is a recent Business Week article discussing both sides of the argument. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186004424615.htm I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive.  It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired.  His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low.  The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment.  Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns. There's no standard formula. You can compare the going rates on the market for unsecured LOCs and take that as the starting anchor. Unsecured lines of credit run in the US at about 8-18%. Your risk should be reflected in the rate, and I see no reason why the rate would change throughout the loan. As to the amount of principal changing? Just chose one of the standard compounding options - daily (most precise, but most tedious to calculate), monthly average balance, etc. Not applicable.  Or, at least totally unrealistic.  Lots of assumptions about returns, no discussion of time frames, and no discussion of volatility.  If it's a personal choice you wouldn't do it this way, plus there are other factors to consider.  As far as the math of the question, you use a discount rate that allows you to account for alternatives, typically a RFR, but again, that doesn't apply to an individual quite in the same way since it's not a debt vs equity question. I assume you're looking for advice, not an actual guaranteed-to-appreciate answer, yes? If you believe Treasury bonds will increase as fast as inflation, that may be the way to go. It's all about the question's wording. Here they are saying interest is 1.25% *per month* - not per year. This is why in your earlier post, I encouraged you to internalize what P/Y and C/Y mean in the solver. It's best to think of things in terms of *per period of time*. I hope this helps, but more practice certainly will. "I was amazed to find out that many people think that credit ratings are equivalent across asset classes.   Rating agencies DO NOT and CAN NOT rate assets based on market exposure. There ratings represent the assets idiosyncratic risk, obviously assets that are more exposed to the market have higher risk in a market downturn but higher reward in a boom.    This is pretty well known and documented. The agencies that are paid by debt issuers are there to establish that the asset meets certain established criteria, often this involves the interest rate. Thus, as most people that are familiar with financial markets know, the major CRA's tend to be reactionary, and a much better gauge of actual credit worthiness is the market interest rate. However these ratings do have a purpose for creating standardized practices for governments and other public organizations. Subscriber based CRAs will almost always give much more accurate and detailed information, just as with everything else, if you want something done right, your gonna have to do it yourself.   That said it will be interesting to see how the agencies adapt to Dodd Frank which mandates that their ratings translate across asset classes. Especially since gov debt is in a whole different tax category and thus intrinsically has lower interest rates and thus lower default rates. In the end the rating agencies are just going to have to say... ""well since the interest rate is under inflation we know that it is Aaa..."" lol Thus they are useless. In addition the rating of government debt has less to do with ability to pay back obligations and more to do with (at least in a democracy) political will. How is this supposed to be quantified?" "Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; ""junk bonds"" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price.  So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently.  One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a ""fixed-income security"". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means ""I can get more money in the future for less money now"", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest." "I think there's value in charging family members/friends interest if it will make them take the loan seriously.  The problem is that if you're thinking about charging interest because the person seems to be borrowing from you too cavalierly, it may be too late to make them take it seriously. In the situation you describe, if you're concerned about the loans being paid back, I think you need to have a serious conversation with the kids and make it clear you expect them to pay the loans back on whatever schedule you agreed to.  If, based on your knowledge of your kids, you think charging interest would help motivate them to do this, great.  If not, charging interest is unlikely to accomplish anything that the conversation itself won't accomplish.  If you haven't previously outlined a specific schedule or set of expectations for how you want to be paid back, just doing that (in writing) may be enough to make them realize it's not a joke. The conventional wisdom is that you shouldn't lend money to anyone unless you're either a) okay with never being paid back; or b) willing to pursue legal remedies to ensure you're paid back.  Most people aren't willing to sue their own family members over small loans, which means in most cases it's not a good idea to loan money to family unless you're ""okay with"" never being repaid (whatever level of ""okay with"" makes sense for you). I should note that I don't have kids; my advice here is just how I would handle it if I were considering loaning money to my brother or a close friend or the like.  This means I don't really know anything about ""teaching the kids about the real world"", but I have to say my hunch is that if your kids are 25+ and married, it's too late to radically change their views on how ""the real world"" works; unless they had a very sheltered early adulthood, they've been living in the real world for too long and will have their own ideas of how it works." "It may be the case that some of your debts have a flat regular fee in addition to the interest, which will go away when the debt is completely paid. For example, my mortgage has an approximately $400/year ""package fee"" as well as its (quite low) interest. When I finish paying the mortgage, I won't have to pay that fee anymore, so it is theoretically possible that spending extra money on paying off my mortgage would be better than spending it on paying off some other debt. I think it's unlikely that it would actually ever be my optimal move in practice, but the point is, there may be an advantage, financial or otherwise, to getting rid of a particular debt, other than merely removing the burden of interest. Those are special situations, though, and in the majority of cases, starting with the highest interest loan will be the right move." "I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use ""END"" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default." "This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment.   If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets.  Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same.  Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of ""loan"" to yourself.  We call the ""interest"" on that loan ""inflation"", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart).  So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%.  But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of.  There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much.  If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially ""invested"" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people." 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% Welcome to the world of personal finance.  IMO, you are heading for trouble. To answer your question, the APR is the annual percentage rate, or what you pay to borrow money from the CC issuer.  For example, if you charge $100, and the bill comes, and you pay $100 on or before the due date you pay nothing.  If you pay the minimum payment, which would be around $15, you would then borrow $85 (100-15) and pay interest on that amount.  The next month's balance would be 85 + any new charges + interest.  The interest in this case can be estimated as follows:  85*.199/12 = 1.41. For your information that is a very high interest rate especially given the current market for borrowed money.  Many people become saddled with debilitating debt starting off just like you are planning.  If we were friends, I would implore you not to get a CC, instead save up and pay for things with cash. "To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is.  You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down.  Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to ""twist"" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy."