Sanity check on choosing the term for a mortgage refinance
One thing you didn't mention is whether the 401(k) offers a match. If it does, this is a slam-dunk. The $303 ($303, right?) is $3636/yr that will be doubled on deposit. It's typical for the first 5% of one's salary to capture the match, so this is right there.  In 15 years, you'll still owe $76,519. But 15 * $7272 is $109,080 in your 401(k) even without taking any growth into account. The likely value of that 401(k) is closer to $210K, using 8% over that 15 years, (At 6%, it drops to 'only' $176K, but as I stated, the value of the match is so great that I'd jump right on that.) If you don't get a match of any kind, I need to edit / completely rip my answer. It morphs into whether you feel that 15 years (Really 30) the market will exceed the 4% cost of that money. Odds are, it will. The worst 15 year period this past century 2000-2014 still had a CAGR of 4.2%. If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight. Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA?  VA loans are not a great deal.  Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA.  While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs.   If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K.  Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit.   While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off.  Are you intending on working that long?  Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage.  Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement?  You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-.  It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions.  Your success comes in the execution.  Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that?  A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month.  Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there?  Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids.  While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college.  A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college.  They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation.   Thank you for your service. So I will attempt to answer the other half of the question since people have given good feedback on the mortgage costs of your various options. Assumptions:   It is certain that I am off on some (or all) of these assumptions, but they are still useful for drawing a comparison.   If you were to make your mortgage payment, then contribute whatever you have left over to savings, this is where you would be at the end of 30 years. Wait, so the 30 year mortgage has me contributing $40k less to savings over the life of the loan, but comes out with a $20k higher balance?  Yes, because of the way compounding interest works getting more money in there faster plays in your favor, but only as long as your savings venue is earning at a higher rate than the cost of the debt your are contrasting it with. If we were to drop the yield on your savings to 3%, then the 30yr would net you $264593, while the 15yr ends up with $283309 in the bank.  Similarly, if we were to increase the savings yield to 10% (not unheard of for a strong mutual fund), the 30yr nets $993418, while the 15yr comes out at $684448.  Yes in all cases, you pay more to the bank on a 30yr mortgage, but as long as you have a decent investment portfolio, and are making the associated contributions, your end savings come out ahead over the time period.  Which sounds like it is the more important item in your overall picture. However, just to reiterate, the key to making this work is that you have an investment portfolio that out performs the interest on the loan.  Rule of thumb is if the debt is costing you more than the investment will reliably earn, pay the debt off first.  In reality, you need your investments to out perform the interest on your debt + inflation to stay ahead overall.  Personally, I would be looking for at least an 8% annual return on your investments, and go with the 30 year option. DISCLAIMER: All investments involve risk and there is no guarantee of making any given earnings target.
Taking a slightly different approach, I would have the following priorities: I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to renogotiate either the HELOC or the mortgage if you think you are only going to have them for a year. If you can renegotiate the HELOC with the same lender that might be worth it. "The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion).  For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called ""Private Mortgage Insurance"", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money.  Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month.  Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it." "You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application.  Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a ""good faith estimate"" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application.  On the other hand, government regulations make the ""good faith estimates"" somewhat misleading.  (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to ""bring to the closing table"".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic ""appraisal value"".  Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications.  (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt.  Banks tend to round up the minimum payments.  Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income.  Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years.  Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns.  There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay.  Many banks are willing to lower your ""note rate"" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front.  The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan.  These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher ""note rate"". Unless you ask for a ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers.  Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount.  Divide that percentage by 4.  Add that percentage to the ""note rate"" for a loan with ""no points"".  Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers.  (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay ""points"" to lower the ""note rate"".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application.  Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day.  You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:" Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance.  I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information.  In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them. If you can deal with phone calls instead of a face to face meeting, for the average person with an average refinance online tools just offer another way to shop for deals. For new mortgages, I think having a person you can meet face to face will avoid problems, but for just a simple refi, online is one of the places you should check. Compete your current mortgage company, your bank (hopefully credit union), a local broker or two and the online places. The more competition you have, the more power you have in making a good choice. "Another option would be to not refinance but also not pay any extra each month but to continue as you are making the existing payments and just put the ""extra"" you would have paid aside in an investment of some type (something you are comfortable with)  This as the added benefit of not tying up this extra money in your house should you need it in the next few years for something else. You would then have the option in 2 or 3 years of continuing on this path or closing the investment and paying off the remaining principal in one lump sum.   If nothing else that big payment would be a really fun check to write." Forget about terms.  Think about loans in terms of months.  To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month.   This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis.  In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest.  With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month.  So on and so forth.   The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest).  You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54.  The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing.  You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month.  So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.).  The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing.  So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing.  It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest.   If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different.  Say  You borrow $1000 for one month.  Then 834 for one month.  So on and so forth.  Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed.  Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest.  And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54.   That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere).  Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations.   I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter.  But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments.  And they ended up crediting me with an early release.  In fact, they rebated part of my last payment.  I saved several hundred dollars through the early release.  Perhaps your loan did not work the same way.  Perhaps it did.  But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe. tl;dr: I think you can find a much better deal. Doing a strait refi will cost you some amount of money.  However, a 2.5% fee ont top of closing costs seems really high.  You can get a quote from Quicken loans pretty quick and compare their fee.  Also I would check with a local bank, preferably one you already do business with.  The 2.5% is probably their commission for originating the loan.  If you are in the Southeast I have had great luck with Regions bank.  They are large enough, but also small enough.  Please know that I have no affiliation with either company. BTW the rate also seems high.  Doing a quick search of Bank Rate, it seems you can get 3.25% with zero fee as of this writing.  The worse deal they show is 3.46 with a .75% fee, much better than you were quoted. If you can afford it I would also encourage you to think outside the box.  A client of mine was able to obtain a Home Equity Loan (not line of credit) to replace their mortgage.  They went for a 7 year pay off, with the loan in first position, at a rate about .75 below the then current 15 year rate.  The key was there was zero closing costs.  It saved them quite a bit of money. Also look at a 10 year fixed.  It might not be much more than you are paying now. You mentioned 15-20 years in your comment on mhoran_psprep's response. This is the most important factor to consider in the points vs. rate question. With a horizon that long it sounds like the points are probably a better option for you. There is a neat comparison tool at The Mortgage Professor's website that may help you build your spreadsheet or simply check the numbers you are getting. I’d say No, it’s not crazy. I did that even for a mortgage, because the bank tended to lose my checks or let them sit for some days, and then claim I paid late. They were known on the internet for their poor processing department, so I decided to avoid that monthly hassle with calling and arguing, and refinanced. Compare the pain with the cost for refinancing, and if you think it’s worth it, change. You might even get a cheaper credit, and save on it. Two reasons are typically cited (I've heard these from Dave Ramsey): So I wouldn't refinance to a 15-year loan just for item 2, but would definitely look at it for the better interest rates. I concur that you should probably go with option 1.  And that is coming from a guy that refinanced all three of his properties with down to 20% equity 3 years ago to lock in either 4% 30 year fixed or 2.75% 15 year mortgage.  And I will not pay them off early because I do think I can do better than that in the market even if inflation is 0% for the next 30 years.  Just imagine when the fed stops manipulating tax rates.  I could be making more than 4% just in a checking account. Dan - there are other choices. What rate do you have on this mortgage? And what is the value of the home? With a bit of patience and effort, you may be able to lower your rate and save some portion of that $100k you think you can grab.  There is no factual answer here. The negative will show for 7 years, and only you can determine whether that's worth it. If in that time the value comes back you may very well be in a worse position, looking to buy a new home that's now well above where it is today. It's possible the current prices are overshooting on the downside, if unemployment drops and consumer confidence returns, you may be back to break-even sooner than you think. As an aside, I find it curious that the Trumps of this world can manipulate the system, creating multiple entities, filing for bankruptcy, yet protecting his own assets, and his wealth is applauded. Yet, asking the question here so many attack you, verbally. The Donald has saved himself billions through his dealings, I don't judge you for asking this question when it comes to $100k. When Trump's net worth was negative, he should have had his property taken away, and been handed a broom. "The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is ""reasonable"" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender.  Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an ""education expense"", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now.  Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans." Sounds fishy - taking out more debt to pay the main mortgage down faster? There are a couple of issues I can see: I would think that a much more sensible strategy with a lot less risk is to save up extra cash and send your lender a check every quarter or six months.