Is it preferable to move emergency savings/retirement into offset mortgage?
"Assuming no constraints on how much you can move (or how frequently) into and out of your offset mortgage account, the question becomes one of what rate of return you expect from your long-term savings/emergency cash fund. The rate you are getting from the offset mortgage account is known; since it reduces the principal amount owing and thus reduces interest charges, the return is the mortgage rate (though I would not be surprised if the offset mortgage account contract has bells and whistles reducing the effective rate, saying something like 3 pounds reduction of principal for every 5 pounds you put in). So, as a movie character once said, ""Do you feel lucky today?""  If so, move money from your offset mortgage account to savings, and earn more.  If not, move money in the opposite direction. A ""guaranteed"" 2% return on the offset mortgage account might be better than taking a risk on the vagaries of the stock market, and even the possibility of loss in your long term savings account." I think the key thing is flexibility - the money is not tied in with the offset mortgage. If you find a better investment, you can always take some of it out and put it towards that instead. Once it matures, if there is nothing good to reinvest in, then it can go back into the offset mortgage. Once you have had money in the offset account, even if you take it out, you have already (irreversibly) saved money on your mortgage. Right now you would be pressed to find an instant access ISA with a rate higher than 1.5%, so if you need immediate access, then the offset account seems good. On the other hand, for retirement, you might be saving longer term, and then you can get an ISA rate of 3%, currently, which may be better for a part of the money (or perhaps the upcoming Lifetime ISA with 25% yearly bonus may make sense for part of the money), if you do not need easy access to all of it. As Dilip says, this assumes you want safe investments. The way offset mortgages work, you are keeping savings in an account effectively earning the rate of the mortgage. You have the ability to leave it, paying the mortgage off early, or borrowing back, any time.
"You probably want to think about pools of money separately if they have separate time horizons or are otherwise not interchangeable. A classic example is your emergency fund (which has a potentially-immediate time horizon) vs. your retirement savings. The emergency fund would be all in cash or very short-term bonds, and would not count in your retirement asset allocation. Since the emergency fund usually has a capped value (a certain amount of money you want to have for emergencies) rather than a percentage of net worth value, this especially makes sense; you have to treat the emergency fund separately or you'd have to keep changing your asset allocation percentages as your net worth rises (hopefully) with respect to the capped emergency amount. Similarly, say you are saving for a car in 3 years; you'd probably invest that money very conservatively. Also, it could not go in tax-deferred retirement accounts, and when you buy the car the account will go to zero. So probably worth treating this separately. On the other hand, say you have some savings in tax-deferred retirement accounts and some in taxable accounts, but in both cases you're expecting to use the money for retirement. In that case, you have the same time horizon and goals, and it can pay to think about the taxable and nontaxable accounts as a whole. In particular you can use ""asset location"" (put less-tax-efficient assets in tax-deferred accounts). In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it. Getting around to rebalancing could be more important than tax-motivated asset location. You could also take a keep-it-simple attitude: as long as your asset allocation is pretty balanced (say 40% bonds) and includes a cash allocation that would cover emergencies, you could just put all your money in one big portfolio, and think of it as a whole. If you have an emergency, withdraw from the cash allocation and then rebuild it over time; if you have a major purchase, you could redeem some bonds and then rebuild the bond portion over time. (When I say ""over time"" I'm thinking you might start putting new contributions into the now-underallocated assets, or you might dollar-cost-average back into them by selling bits of the now-overallocated assets.) Anyway there's no absolute rule, it depends on what's simple enough to be manageable for you in practice, and what separate shorter-horizon investing goals you have in addition to retirement. You can always make things complex but remember that a simple plan that happens in real life is better than a complex plan you don't keep up with in practice (or a complex plan that takes away from activities you'd enjoy more)." i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market) so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account. First, what country are you in? Canada doesn't offer a mortgage interest tax deduction, the US does. This changes the math a bit, and in the US, the current after tax cost of a mortgage is below our long term inflation rate.   Is the mortgage your only debt? I've seen people religiously pay extra each month to their 6% mortgage while carrying 18% interest debt on credit cards.  Next, there are company matched retirement plans, in the US, a 401(k) plan, where if you put up to 6% or so of your pay into the account, it's effectively doubled upon deposit. I'd be sure not to miss such an opportunity. After these considerations, prepaying is equal to buying a risk free fixed instrument. If that appeals to you, and you've considered the above first, go for it. Keep in mind, money paid to the mortgage isn't easily borrowed back, short of a HELOC. I'd strongly advise that your emergency fund be fully funded (6 months worth of spending) before starting to make extra mortgage payments. I would suggest your local credit union or local bank for security and liquidity.  Liquidity is probably the most important issue for a emergency fund. A: Rollover the cash from the previous account into the new one a low-cost IRA like Vanguard. This, and only this.  Because your mortgage is, less than 4%, while your retirement plan will earn 7% over the long term. I have no 'retirement' plans because Because you're 28. and essentially will be happy working until I die Unless circumstances change. but as far as I see it this is not such a bad deal because it is like paying taxes on income. (Principal says I will lose up to 30%) You're ignoring the 10% early withdrawal penalty. I am wise with my money for the most part Then don't piss away $3,000 just for a temporary feel good. I earn a high salary in a tech job.  As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. So -- after building up an Emergency Fund -- throw as much as possible of your high salary against your mortgage to get rid of the PMI. "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." This is a somewhat subjective question, but if you are following a particular personal finance methodology, just do whatever they recommend. For example, I believe that Dave Ramsey's program calls for the emergency fund to be in a different account. The range is fine. It's ~ 1-2X your annual income.  First, and foremost - your comment on the 401(k), not knowing the fees, is a red flag to me. The difference between low cost options (say sub .25%) and the high fees (over .75%) has a huge impact to your long term savings, and on the advice I'd give regarding maximizing the deposits.  At 26, you and your wife have about 20% of your income as savings. This is on the low side, in my opinion, but others suggest a year's salary by age 35 which implies you're not too far behind.  Given your income, you are most likely in the 25% federal bracket. I'd like you to research your 401(k) expenses, and if they are reasonable, maximise the deposit. If your wife has no 401(k) at work, she can deposit to an IRA, pre-tax.  It's wise to keep 6 months of expenses as liquid cash (or short term CDs) as an emergency fund in case of such things as a job layoff. They say to expect a month of job hunting for each $10K you make, so having even a year to find a new job isn't unheard of.  One thing to consider is to simply kill the mortgage. Before suggesting this, I'd ask what your risk tolerance is? If you took $100K and put it right into the S&P, would you worry every time you heard the market was down today? Or would you happily leave it there for the next 40 years? If you prefer safety, or at least less risk, paying off the mortgage will free up the monthly payment, and let you dollar cost average into the new investments over time. You'll have the experience of seeing your money grow and learn to withstand the volatility.  The car loan is a low rate, if you prefer to keep the mortgage for now, paying the car loan is still a guaranteed 3%, vs the near 0% the bank will give you. It doesn't matter if you aren't maxing out your IRA contributions anyway.  If you are maxing out IRA contribution and you still have extra money to deposit then yes you better have all the money inevested, but if you aren't maxing out your contribution then it doesn't really mattter where you stick your emergency savings.  But if you fall into money later you will be glad you put your emergency in a roth. Only having 1200 dollars sounds extremely dangerous and in my opinion is not a sound situation to intentionally put yourself into.   You have what, 11k total? That is roughly a rainy day fund, depending on your expenses and clarity of cash flow. I think you should keep that money in the bank as your new baseline. At least 10k of it. Don't touch that money unless you need to pay for an unexpected expense.  Now, you have $0 to work with, but a safe-ish cushion.   Then, and only then, should any extra money be used for either paying down the loan or tax advantaged accounts. A retirement account is probably the right long term financial choice. However, if it were me and I were (back) in that kind of situation, I would pay off the loan first, primarily for personal satisfaction, then start maxing retirement contributions. As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate.   An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account).  As you approach retirement, that number should increase.  At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses.  At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses.  You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund.  You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement.   The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share.  For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate.   That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment.  Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy.  Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now.   Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate.  Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership.  If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds.  50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified.   If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match.   I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages.  This matches the overall market diversification.  Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security.  Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities.  So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work.   Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate.  This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties.   If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses.  These include:   Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change.  Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero.  What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack?   Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants.  Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants.  So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent.  You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time.   Don't forget the sales value of your current house.  Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper.  Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage.  Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it.  Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house?   I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k.  Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me.  What will you do if there is another housing crash?  With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.  Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either.   All that said, maybe it's a good deal.  You have more information about it than we do.  Just...be careful. Emergency funds, car funds etc tend to have to be accessible quickly (which tends to rule out CDs unless you have the patience to work something like a monthly CD ladder, an I don't) and you'll want your principal protected. The latter pretty much rules out any proper investment (ETFs, mutual funds, stock market directly, Elbonian dirt futures etc). It's basically a risk-vs-return calculation. Not much risk, not much return but at least you're not losing from a nominal standpoint). Another consideration is that you normally aren't able to decide freely if and when you want to pull money out of an emergency fund. If it is an emergency, waiting three weeks to see if the stock market goes up a little further isn't an option so you might end up having to take a hit that would be irrelevant if you were investing long term but might hurt badly because you're left with no choice. I'd stick that sort of money into a money market account and either add to it if necessary to keep up with inflation or make sure that my non-retirement investments over and above these funds are performing well, as those will and should become a far bigger part of your wealth in the longer run. justkt's answer lays out the opportunity costs aspect of your question pretty well.  But if I were in your position, extra payments on principal for a home I wasn't planning to retire in isn't the way I'd invest the money.  Housing prices are awful (hence the great deal on what you just bought), and given the number of foreclosures outstanding and the existing uncertainty over the legality of some of them, they're likely to remain awful for years.  Depending on the size of your monthly mortgage payment, if you've got that much free cash after expenses each month, I'd consider the following options instead: You could go with a non-qualified (no tax-deferral benefit) account for the cash emergency fund so you could put any amount above and beyond 3-6 months of living expenses into stocks, index funds, mutual funds, etc. All of these options have the advantage of being more likely to provide a positive return in the 5-7 year time frame.  The cash emergency fund option has the additional advantage of being more liquid than housing--regardless of the current economic environment. Generally speaking, an emergency fund's primary purpose for being is to be available in an emergency. Income generation is a distant second. As long as you have immediate access to it via checks or an atm card, you're doing ok. If you live in a high-tax state or a place like New York City with federal, state and local income tax, I'd probably err on the side of the municipal fund for your state. Borrowing against your retirement is borrowing against your future -- you shouldn't do it expect for the most serious financial crises. The market is down, and 12% is a pretty darn good down payment. You'll hit the threshold where they waive PMI in a few years when you hit 80% LTV, or when you get the house appraised when the market heats up again. Another option is to find a lender that doesn't do PMI. A few local banks and credit unions do this... I managed to find one in my area that doesn't require PMI or escrowed tax/insurance!