How is not paying off mortgage better in normal circumstances?
"The reason is that although the American economy is functioning normally, mortgage rates are stupid-low, and are below a prudent expectation of long-term (30 year) rates of return in the market.   I manage endowments, so I say ""prudent"" in the context of endowment investment, which is the picture of caution and subject to UPMIFA law (the P being prudent).    What's more, there are tax benefits.  Yes, you pay 15% long-term capital gains tax on investment income.  But your mortgage interest is tax deductible at your ""tax bracket"" rate of 25, 28 or 33% - this being the tax you would pay on your next dollar of earned income.  And in the early years of a mortgage, mortgage payments are nearly 100% interest.  So even if it's a wash: you gain $10k in the market but pay $10k in mortgage interest -- you pay $1500 tax on the gains, but the interest deduction redudes tax by $2800. So you are still $1300 ahead.   TLDR: the government pays us to do this." Lets do the math, using your numbers. We start off with $100K, a desire to buy a house and invest, and 30 years to do it.  Scenario #1 We buy a house for $100K mortgage at 5% interest over 30 years. Monthly payment ends up being $536.82/month. We then take the $100K we still have and invest it in stocks, earning an average of 9% annually and paying 15% taxes.  Scenario #2 We buy a house for our $100K cash, and then, every month, we invest the $536.82 we would have paid for the mortgage. Again, investments make 9% annually long term, and we pay 15% taxes.  How would it look in 30 years?  Scenario #1 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $912,895 in investments Scenario #2 Results: 30 years later we would have a paid off house and $712,745 in investments Conclusion: NOT paying off your mortgage early results in an additional $200,120 in networth after 30 years. That's 28% more. Therefore, not paying off your mortgage is the superior scenario.  Caveats/Notes/Things to consider Play with the numbers yourself: There are several reasons: "In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a ""safe"" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities." One way of looking at it is that your equity in your house is an investment in a particular class of asset, and investing further in that asset class may drive you away from, rather than towards, your preferred asset mix. It's pretty common here in New Zealand for people's only investments to be their homes and rental properties. I wish those people luck when our current property boom ends. Certainly there are people who do pay off their homes.  Others do not.  It's a question of risk tolerance and preference.  Some considerations relevant to this question: Taxes - Interest on a mortgage is tax deductible.  Particularly for high earners, this is a significant incentive to maintain a mortgage balance and place extra money in the market instead. Liquidity - If you lose your job, you can sell stocks to pay the mortgage.  But if you have made principle payments on your mortgage but still owe some outstanding balance, you are still required to make monthly payments without any source of income. Rates - In recent years it is been common to get a mortgage for 3.2% to 3.5%.  The difference between those rates and 9% rate of return for the market is substantial.   There are other considerations but the answer in the end is that for many people the risk / reward calculus says the ~5% difference in rate of return is worth the potential risks.
It also reduces risk from the bank's eyes. Believe it or not, they do lose out when people don't pay on their mortgages. Take the big 3 (Wells, Chase and BoA). If they have 50 million mortgages between the 3 of them and 20% of people at one point won't be able to pay their mortgage due to loss of income or other factors, this presents a risk factor. Although interest payments are still good, reducing their principal and interest keeps them tied down for additional (or sometimes shorter) time, but now they are more likely to keep getting those payments. That's why credit cards back in 07 and 08 reduced limits for customers. The risk factor is huge now for these financial institutions. Do your research, sometimes a refi isn't the best option. Sometimes it is. "Because ""my accountant said I'm in the 28% bracket and need more write-offs."" When I hear someone say this I tell them to get a new accountant/advisor/tax guy.  The benefit, if any, is the fact that if, and only if, (a hat tip to @staticx) you are already itemizing your deductions.  It means that for me, my 3.5% mortgage is really costing me 2.625%.  The only effect of this is the when I line up my debts, the mortgage might fall to a lower priority for payback. This is where there's a balance between the choice of a robust emergency fund, earning close to 0% today, or using those funds to pay the mortgage at an accelerated rate.  If the sentiment expressed by the question implies that one should carry a mortgage, needed or not, it really comes down the a question of risk over the long term. I don't suggest that people take a mortgage today to invest in the market. A zero return as we just saw in the '00s will show you that the 10% market return is an average over the very long term. FWIW, the '96-'05 period returned 9.08%, and '06-'13 (2 years short of the 10) 7.26%. Few have the discipline to patiently wait out the dips and see the returns I quoted.  That said, the fact that the interest is deductible is a small factor given the low rates we are currently enjoying.  Each of the points above can be expanded into its own answer. A great question with not-so-simple answers." 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 "One way to think of the typical fixed rate mortgage, is that you can calculate the balance at the end of the month. Add a month's interest (rate times balance, then divide by 12) then subtract your payment. The principal is now a bit less, and there's a snowball effect that continues to drop the principal more each month.  Even though some might object to my use of the word ""compounding,"" a prepayment has that effect. e.g. you have a 5% mortgage, and pay $100 extra principal. If you did nothing else, 5% compounded over 28 years is about 4X. So, if you did this early on, it would reduce the last payment by about $400. Obviously, there are calculators and spreadsheets that can give the exact numbers.  I don't know the rules for car loans, but one would actually expect them to work similarly, and no, you are not crazy to expect that. Just the opposite." "There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that ""should I call this principal or interest"" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting." The problem comes when the borrower cannot afford his home.  If a borrower buys more home than they can afford, as long as he can sell the house for more than he owes, he's not in a disastrous situation. He can sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and choose more affordable housing instead.  If he is upside-down on his home, he doesn't have that option. He's stuck in his home. If he sells it, he will have to come up with extra money to pay off the mortgage (which he doesn't have, because he is in a home he can't afford). It used to be commonplace for banks to issue mortgages for 100% of the value of the home. As long as the home keeps appreciating, everybody is happy. But if the house drops in value and the homeowner finds himself unable to make house payments, both the homeowner and the bank are at risk. Recent regulations in the U.S. have made no-down-payment mortgages less common. I would say generally, the answer is No.   There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay.  This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture.  The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed.  Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests.  Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it?  This might mean taking several part time jobs.  Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible.  However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford.   People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home.  Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan.  Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means.  If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working.  This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people.  You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt.  Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards.  If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible.  Which one gets paid first.  Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation.  They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over).  There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters).     People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first.  Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc...  Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors.  They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt.  It is there and real despite many people noticing it.  There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank.  This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life.  I can tell you it is quite liberating. "I'm going to give a simpler answer than some of the others, although somewhat more limited: the complicated loan parameters you describe benefit the lender.  I'll focus on this part of your question: You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Here ""you"" refers to the borrower.  Sure, yes, it would be great for the borrower to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, increasing or decreasing the loan balance by paying or not paying arbitrary amounts at their whim.  But it doesn't benefit the lender to let the borrower do this.  Adding various kinds of restrictions and extra conditions to the loan reduces the lender's uncertainty about when they'll be receiving money, and also gives them a greater range of legal recourse to get it sooner (since they can pursue the borrower right away if they violate any of the conditions, rather than having the wait until they die without having paid their debt). Then you say: And if you want, you can set a legal deadline. But the mere deadline in the contract doesn't affect how much interest is paid—the interest is only affected by how much money is borrowed and how long has passed. I think in many cases that is in fact how it works, or at least it is more how it works than you seem to think.  For instance, you can take out a 30-year loan but pay it off in less than 30 years, and the amount you pay will be less if you pay it off sooner.  However, in some cases the lender will charge you a penalty for doing so.  The reason is the same as above: if you pay off the loan sooner, you are paying less interest, which is worse for the lender.  Again, it would be nice for the borrower if they could just pay it off sooner with no penalty, but the lender has no reason to let them do so. I think there are in fact other explanations for these more complicated loan terms that do benefit the borrower.  For instance, an amortization schedule with clearly defined monthly payments and proportions going to interest and principal also reduces the borrower's uncertainty, and makes them less likely to do risky things like skip lots of payments intending to make it up later.  It gives them a clear number to budget from.  But even aside from all that, I think the clearest answer to your question is what I said above: in general, it benefits the lender to attach conditions and parameters to loans in order to have many opportunities to penalize the borrower for making it hard for the lender to predict their cash flow." "Good debt and ""Bad debt"" are just judgement calls.  Each person has their own opinion on when it is acceptable to borrow money for something, and when it is not.  For some, it is never acceptable to borrow money for something; they won't even borrow money to buy a house.  Others, of course, are in debt up to their eyeballs. All debt costs money in interest.  So when evaluating whether to borrow or not, you need to ask yourself, ""Is the benefit I am getting by borrowing this money worth the cost?"" Home ownership has a lot of advantages: For many, these advantages, coupled with the facts that home mortgages are available at extremely low interest rates and that home mortgage interest is tax-deductible (in the U.S.), make home mortgages ""worth it"" in the eyes of many. Contrast that with car ownership: For these reasons, there are many people who consider the idea of borrowing money to purchase a car a bad idea.  I have written an answer on another question which outlines a few reasons why it is better to pay cash for a car." As mentioned, the main advantage of a 15-year loan compared to a 30-year loan is that the 15-year loan should come at a discounted rate.  All things equal, the main advantage of the 30-year loan is that the payment is lower. A completely different argument from what you are hearing is that if you can get a low interest rate, you should get the longest loan possible.  It seem unlikely that interest rates are going to get much lower than they are and it's far more likely that they will get higher.  In 15 years, if interest rates are back up around 6% or more (where they were when I bought my first home) and you are 15 years into a 30 year mortgage, you'll being enjoying an interest rate that no one can get. You need to keep in mind that as the loan is paid off, you will earn exactly 0% on the principal you've paid.  If for some reason the value of the home drops, you lose that portion of the principal.  The only way you can get access to that capital is to sell the house.  You (generally) can't sell part of the house to send a kid to college.  You can take out another mortgage but it is going to be at the current going rate which is likely higher than current rates. Another thing to consider that over the course of 30 years, inflation is going to make a fixed payment cheaper over time.  Let's say you make $60K and you have a monthly payment of $1000 or 20% of your annual income.  In 15 years at a 1% annualized wage growth rate, it will be 17% of your income.  If you get a few raises or inflation jumps up, it will be a lot more than that.  For example, at a 2% annualized growth rate, it's only 15% of your income after 15 years. In places where long-term fixed rates are not available, shorter mortgages are common because of the risk of higher rates later.  It's also more common to pay them off early for the same reason.   Taking on a higher payment to pay off the loan early only really only helps you if you can get through the entire payment and 15 years is still a long way off.  Then if you lose your job then, you only have to worry about taxes and upkeep but that means you can still lose the home.  If you instead take the extra money and keep a rainy day fund, you'll have access to that money if you hit a rough patch.  If you put all of your extra cash in the house, you'll be forced to sell if you need that capital and it may not be at the best time.  You might not even be able to pay off the loan at the current market value. My father took out a 30 year loan and followed the advice of an older coworker to 'buy as much house as possible because inflation will pay for it'.  By the end of the loan, he was paying something like $250 a month and the house was worth upwards of $200K.  That is, his mortgage payment was less than the payment on a cheap car.  It was an insignificant cost compared to his income and he had been able to invest enough to retire in comfort.  Of course when he bought it, inflation was above 10% so it's bit different today but the same concepts still apply, just different numbers.  I personally would not take anything less than a 30 year loan at current rates unless I planned to retire in 15 years. "I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate?  Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble?  The ""pay early"" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to ""would you be happy with a long term 5% return?"" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than ""paid in full"" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily.  If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point.  Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free." "Math says invest in the Market (But paying off your mortgage early is a valid option if you are very risk averse.) You are going to get a better return by investing in the stock market.  In the US in 2015/2016, mortgages are 3%-4%, and give you a tax break.  The rate of return on the stock market is ~10%, (closer to 6% after you subtract out inflation, taxes, fees, etc.) Since 10 > 3, (or 6% > 4%, to use the pessimistic numbers)  investing in the market is the better deal. But... The market has risk, and your mortgage does not.  If you are very risk averse paying off the mortgage may make sense. As an example:  Family A has a single ""breadwinner"", who works a low skilled job. Family B has 2 working spouses, both in high skill white collar positions.   These two families are going to have wildly different risk tolerances.  It may make sense for family A to ""invest"" its extra money in paying off the mortgage, after they have tackled high interest debt, built an emergency fund, maxed the 401k, etc. Personally I would not: in the US you cannot recoup pre-payments if you lose your job.  If I was very risk averse, I would keep my extra money as cash, so I could pay my mortgage after I lost my job.  It is never going to make sense for family B to pay the mortgage early.  At that point, any decision to pre-pay is going to be based on emotion and not logic." "Pete and Noah addressed the math, showing how this is, in effect, converting a 30yr to a ~23yr mortgage, at a cost, plus payment about 8% higher (1 extra payment per year). No magic there. The real issue, as I see it, is whether this is the best use of the money. Keep in mind, once you pay extra principal, which in effect is exactly what this is, it's not easy to get it back. As long as you have any mortgage at all, you have the need for liquidity, enough to pay your mortgage, tax, utilities, etc, if you find yourself between jobs or to get through any short term crisis.  I've seen people choose the ""sure thing"" prepayment VS the ""risky"" 401(k) deposit. Ignoring a match is passing up a 50% or 100% return in most cases. Too good to pass up.  2 points to add - I avoided the further tangent of the tax benefit of IRA/401(k) deposits. It's too long a discussion, today's rate for the money saved, vs the rate on withdrawal. Worth considering, but not part of my answer. The other discussion I avoid is Nicholas' thoughts on the long term market return of 10% vs today's ~4% mortgage rate. This has been debated elsewhere and morphs into a ""pre-pay vs invest"" question." But now you have cash on hand that wasn't used to pay debt, no change in net worth. In fact, if you refuse to pay your mortgage for two years until you're kicked out of your underwater house, your net worth goes up. While, from a money-saving standpoint, the obviously-right course of action is to make only the minimum payment on the 0% loan, there are potentially legal reasons to try to pay off a car loan early. With a mortgage, you are the legal owner of the property and any action by the lender beyond imposing fees (e.g. foreclosure) requires going through the proper legal channels. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, you are not the legal owner of a car purchased on a loan, and a missed or even lost payment can result in repossession without the lender even having to go to court. So from a risk-aversion standpoint, there's something to be said for getting rid of car loans as soon as you can.