Should I make additional payments on a FHA loan, or save up for a refinance?
You would have to do the specific math with your specific situation to be certain, but - generally speaking it would be smarter to use extra money to pay down the principle faster on the original loan. Your ability to refinance in the future at a more favorable rate is an unknowable uncertainty, subject to a number of conditions (only some of which you can control). But what is almost always a complete certainty is that paying off a debt is, on net, better than putting the same money into a low-yield savings account.
If you're planning to walk away from the house - don't invest any more money in it. Just be aware of the consequences. It may be worth considering a short sale if both the lenders will agree to erase the debt. If you're going to keep the house, then the fact that you're underwater now is irrelevant, and you should do your best to reduce the burden by paying off the higher rate loan. But, I personally think that accumulating enough cash to make you comfortable in case of a job loss for several months is a higher priority. You probably won't save much, if anything at all, by getting another fixed-term mortgage. The last part of a mortgage is mostly principal payments.  If you borrowed $200k (guessing) at 4.75% then during the last five years you'll pay about $10.5k in interest, as opposed to $41.7k in the first five years and $27.9k in the second five.  Another fixed rate loan won't get you a whole lot lower than 4.75%. If you can score a teaser rate (say 2.5% for the first five years) on the balance at the beginning of year 11, and pay the same amount that you were before ($1,555) then you'd knock out the mortgage in 57 months and save yourself a little under $5k.  If the refinance costs only a few hundred, then you might make out. Anyway, you may find other similar options that have a low teaser rate but (goody for you) you won't be around long enough to see it jump up.  Just watch for prepayment penalties. I'd probably just bump up my payments, though.  I went through a refinance and I felt like my hand was forced a lot in that process, but your mileage may vary. :) My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments.  When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed.  What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision. "I'll start by focussing on the numbers. I highly recommend you get comfortable with spreadsheets to do these calculations on your own.  I assume a $200K loan, the mortgage for a $250K house. Scale this up or down as appropriate. For the rate, I used the current US average for the 30 and 15 year fixed loans. You can see 2 things. First, even with that lower rate to go 15 years, the payment required is 51% higher than with the 30. I'll get back to that. Second, to pay the 30 at 15 years, you'd need an extra $73. Because now you are paying at a 15 year pace, but with a 30 year rate. This is $876/yr to keep that flexibility. These are the numbers.  There are 2 camps in viewing the longer term debt. There are those who view debt as evil, the $900/mo payment would keep them up at night until it's gone, and they would prefer to have zero debt regardless of the lifestyle choices they'd need to make or the alternative uses of that money. To them, it's not your house as long as you have a mortgage. (But they're ok with the local tax assessor having a statutory lien and his hand out every quarter.) The flip side are those who will say this is the cheapest money you'll ever see, and you should have as large a mortgage as you can, for as long as you can. Treat the interest like rent, and invest your money.  My own view is more in the middle. Look at your situation. I'd prioritize  In my opinion, it makes little sense to focus on the mortgage unless and until the first 5 items above are in place. The extra $459 to go to 15? If it's not stealing from those other items or making your cash flow tight, go for it.  Keep one subtle point in mind, risk is like matter and energy, it's not created or destroyed but just moved around. Those who offer the cliche ""debt creates risk"" are correct, but the risk is not yours, it's the lender's. Looking at your own finances, liquidity is important. You can take the 15 year mortgage, and 10 years in, lose your job. The bank still wants its payments every month. Even if you had no mortgage, the tax collector is still there. To keep your risk low, you want a safety net that will cover you between jobs, illness, new babies being born, etc.  I've gone head to head with people insisting on prioritizing the mortgage payoff ahead of the matched 401(k) deposit. Funny, they'd prefer to owe $75K less, while that $75K could have been deposited pretax (so $100K, for those in the 25% bracket) and matched, to $200K. Don't make that mistake." I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans.  I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans.  I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score. You don't say what the time remaining on the current mortgage is, nor the expense of the refi.  There are a number of traps when doing the math. Say you have 10 years left on a 6% mortgage, $200K balance. I offer you a 4% 30 year. No cost at all. A good-intentioned person would do some math as follows: Please look at this carefully. 6% vs 4%. But you're out of pocket far more on the 4% loan. ?? Which is better? The problem is that the comparison isn't apples to apples. What did I do? I took the remaining term and new rate. You see, so long as there are no prepayment penalties, this is the math to calculate the savings. Here, about $195/mo. That $195/mo is how you judge if the cost is worth it or the break-even time. $2000? Well, 10 months, then you are ahead.  If you disclose the time remaining, I am happy to edit the answer to reflect your numbers, I'm just sharing the correct process for analysis.  Disclosure - I recently did my last (?) refi to a 15yr fixed 3.5%. The bank let the HELOC stay. It's 2.5%, and rarely used. "I recently requested an off-schedule escrow analysis. We refinanced a house in August and the servicer got confused about when the home owner's insurance was due (in October). They refunded the ""insurance"" money to us in September. That combined with the fact that the insurance amount was different than what they expected, made me request the escrow analysis. That way I can decide whether to pay up the escrow account now or do it over the next year. The servicer agent just said that the monthly payment amounts might change again in January when they do the usual analysis. If you like to set up automatic payments, that would be a downside. I haven't done that yet, so not a problem for me." "There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value.  You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to ""rebalance"" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency" Save up a bigger downpayment.  The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house. When you got your original HUD backed mortgage there were three options: monthly, annual and upfront payments. The plan is designed to insure the lender of the mortgage against your default. The plan is not expected to cover the mortgage for 30 years.  If you are in the early years of the mortgage, you may be owed a refund for the unused years. HUD has a Fact sheet discussing this, and a page to help you determine if they owe you a refund. If you are refinancing back into a HUD/FHA mortgage they will not give you a refund, but will roll the refund back into your new loan. FHA to FHA Refinances: When an FHA loan is refinanced, the refund from the old premium may be applied toward the up-front premium required for the new loan. Note: Depending on the year of the original loan the government has different lengths they used for coverage and refunds. I suggest you use the webpage to determine if you are due a refund, or a roll over. "Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of ""here is a nice house, live in it"". Which do you need more of?  If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)" "Your first question has been answered quite well already. To answer your second question: ""If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or   toward the principal?"" This gives the consumer some flexibility to decide how additional payments are applied. It might seem like a no-brainer to always apply extra payments towards principal - that way, the interest amounts on future payments will be lower and (if you're billed a fixed amount each month) more of each regular payment will then be applied to principal, shortening the term of the loan. However, while it would mean spending more over the life of the loan, there are certain advantages to applying extra payments towards interest†. The main advantage is that it pays your account ahead and means you don't have to make another payment as soon. You could use this strategy to give yourself a buffer of several months, so that if you should ever run into financial hardship you can stop making mortgage payments for a while without the risk of foreclosure. † Note, in most cases it's more likely that you are simply paying more without specifying to the lender that it should be used as principal curtailment. I haven't seen cases where you can explicitly ask the extra to be ""applied toward interest"". In this situation the funds would be held until you've provided enough to cover one or more monthly payments in full, at which point your ""next payment due"" date will simply be extended.  Another advantage is that the funds that are being held (not due yet, not allocated toward any specific payment, maybe held in escrow) may be refundable to you, upon request. This would depend on the lender's policy. Some will permit refunds of credit balances that go beyond what is necessary to cover the current month's bill. Whether you apply extra payments towards principal or not, it makes little difference to the bank. Any additional payments received increase their immediate cash flow. The cash can be reinvested immediately by them into whatever they are currently focusing on." "Do you now own your new home, or are you renting?  This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote ""shoot up considerably."" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have.  There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out.  (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original ""interest only"" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)" If there's no prepayment penalty, and if the extra is applied to principal rather than just toward later payments, then paying extra saves you money. Paying more often, by itself, doesn't. Paying early within a single month (ie, paying off the loan at the same average rate) doesn't save enough you be worth considering A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market.  If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage.