How smart is it really to take out a loan right now?
but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick   to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that. Yes, it's a buyer's market. If one is looking to buy a house, comparing the cost to rent vs own is a start. Buying a property to rent to a stranger is a different issue altogether, it's a business like any other, it takes time and has risk.  If today, one has a decent downpayment (20%) and plans to stay in the house for some time, buying may make economic sense. But it's never a no-brainer. One needs to understand that housing can go down as well as up, and also understand all the expenses of owning which aren't so obvious. Ever increasing property tax, repairs, etc. "The logic ""the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy"" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord." I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow. Are things getting better yet or are things still a mess? I have heard people say that right now is a 'good' time to take out a   loan, and that it is a buyer's market in real estate. Something to consider here is what intentions do you have for the real estate you'd buy.  If you intend to sell quickly, then selling into a buyer's market doesn't sound like a great idea.  While real estate may be cheap, there can be the question of how long do you think this will last?  How much of a burden on time and energy are you expecting to take if you do switch residences or buy an investment property? But more specifically, are there any hidden details that come with   taking a loan out when interest rates are low that I should be aware   of? I'd be careful to note if the rate is fixed for the entire length of the loan or does it adjust over time.  If it can adjust then there is the possibility of those adjustments going up. "You are not ""the economy"". The economy is just the aggregate of what is going on with everyone else. You should make the decision based on your own situation now and projected into the future as best you can. Loan rates ARE at historical lows, so it is a great time to take a loan if you actually need one for some reason. However, I wouldn't go looking for a loan just because the rates are low for the same reason it doesn't make sense to buy maternity clothes if you are a single guy just because they are on sale." so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)
Does this plan make sense mathematically? - No not really.  The housing market can be fairly volatile (depending on your location), and it is really a good market for buying right now.  You're going to make 1 or 2% on your money over the next year and risk paying 10% more for the house (or more).  Even if you had a loan at 5% - that would be 5% of what you still owe, not the full value of the house. Does it make sense in terms of the common rules about paying a mortgage off early? - Yes, though make sure you have at least 80% of the house value so you don't get nailed with PMI (which may have a fixed duration). Is there a better strategy that I am overlooking? - Yes, investigate buying a house now.  I'm not saying rush into it - shop around and find a really good deal.  Get a 15-year mortgage (or less) and put what you're able to down (maybe 80% down).  You can then payoff the mortgage over the next year or two and not have the risk of the volatility of the market raising the prices on houses and you getting less for your money. "Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people.  Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%.  I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be ""free money"".  You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%.  Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%.  This money would be significant after 10 years.   Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years.  Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan.  That is a pretty average house in the US.  Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal).  So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan.  Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote:  If people ask how viable is this.  Well I have done this for 8 years.  I have earned an extra 110K.  I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years.  My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region).  I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there.  What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan." "I strongly doubt your numbers, but lets switch the question around anyway.   Would you borrow 10k on your house to buy stocks on leverage?  That's putting your house at risk to have the chance of a gain in the stock market (and nothing in the market is sure, especially in the short term), and I would really advise against it.  The decision you're considering making resolves down to this one. Note: It is always better to make any additional checks out as ""for principal only"", unless you will be missing a future payment." "Well hindsight tells us now that by and large, doing 100% borrowing was not the best policy we could have taken.  It gets nitpicky, but in the US the traditional 20% is the answer I presently feel comfortable with. It could be a reactionary judgement I am making to the current mess (in which I have formed the opinion that all parties are responsible) and arm-chair quarterbacking ""if we had only stuck with the 20% rule, we wouldn't be here right now. The truth is probably much more gray than that, but like all things personal finance it is really up to you.  If the law allows 100% financing ask yourself if it really makes sense that a bank would just loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live somewhere." the math makes sense to invest instead of paying down, but... how much would you borrow at 3.5%, to invest the money into the stock market? It's the same question, just turned around. "The article said $65,000 (rounds numbers imply an estimate) was the original amount she borrowed. However she isn't on the hook for only $65,000. Her loans have interest and ***one*** of the loans had an 8% interest rate.   Let's ASSUME (for the purposes of this exercise to illustrate what compound interest can do to ""good debt"") that all of her loans are at 8% interest over a 30 year repayment period. Her total payments over the course of the 30 years will amount to $172,000. Yes that's a big number. $107,000 going to INTEREST and $65,000 going towards the original loan balance.   More realistically her loans are probably in the 6-8% interest range (since interest rates were higher 20 years ago) so the amount is a little smaller, but the bulk of her payments will be for paying interest not paying down her loan balance. She really couldn't afford to borrow for a master's degree to make so little in a high cost of living area." I don't agree with others regarding paying off debt ASAP. You only have auto loan and auto loans are actually good for your credit score. With a mere $6k balance, it is not like you are going to have a problem paying off the loan. Not only that you will build your credit score and this will come in handy when you are purchasing a home.  With the Federal Reserve setting the interest rate at 0% until 2015, I can't understand why people would pay off anything ASAP. As long as you don't have revolving credit card balances, you are in the clear. I don't know your salary nor how big your porfolio is but I would save 5 months expense in cash and dump the rest in precious metals. Holding cash is the worst thing you could be doing (unless you predict a deflation).  You said you already have 40% in precious metals. You are already way ahead of other 95% of  Americans by protecting your purchasing power. Follow your gut. The stormg is coming and it's not going to get any better. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans.  Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it.  Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later.  It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans.  You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan.  How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment. "In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and   then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over   paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is   recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion ""The general advice"" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low.  However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it." "There is a substantial likelihood over the next several years that the US Dollar will experience inflation. (You may have heard terms like ""Quantitative Easing."") With inflation, the value of each dollar you have will go down. This also means that the value of each dollar you owe will go down as well.  So, taking out a loan / issuing a bond at a very good rate, converting it into an asset that's a better way to store value (possibly including stock in a big stable company like MSFT) and then watching inflation reduce the (real) value of the loan faster than the interest piles up... that's like getting free money. Combine that with the tax-shelter games alluded to by everyone else, and it starts to look like a very profitable endeavour." Just for another opinion, radio host Clark Howard would suggest killing the private student loans as quickly as possible.  The only reason is the industry around private student loans has fewer rules as to how they interact with you, and they have historically been very unpleasant if you have to deal with them in bad financial times. As a safety net, get rid of the private student loans as your main focus while you have the money and rates are low.  Not for financial reasons per se, but for peace of mind. The other advice in this question are great, but nobody mentioned the potential dark side of private student loans. The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question:  Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account. As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest.   One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning. "Debt increases your exposure to risk.  What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment?  Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however.  It's all about what you do with the money you borrow.  Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education.  How much more money will you make with a college degree?  Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan?  Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan?  For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return?  The money goes to better use if it is invested.  (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them.  (Stocks don't always go up.)  You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts.  Paying down the debt is more of a ""sure thing"". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest.  Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move.  Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest!  (And check for early repayment penalties.)" "Whether or not the specific card in question is truly 0% interest rate for the first 12 months, such cards do exist. However, the bank does make money out of it on the average: Still, 12 months of not having to think about paying the bill. Nice. This is exactly what they want you to do. Then in 12 months, when you start thinking about it, you may find out that you don't have the cash immediately available and end up paying the (usually very large) interest. It is possible to game this system to keep the ""free"" money in investments for the 12 months, as long as you are very careful to always follow the terms and dates. Because even one mishap can take away the small profits you could get for a 12 month investment of a few thousand dollars, it is rarely worth the effort."