Expecting to move in five years; how to lock mortgage rates?
You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable. First consider the basic case of what you are asking: you expect to have a future obligation to pay interest, and you are concerned that the rate when you pay it, will be higher than the rate today. In the simplest case, you could theoretically hedge that risk by buying an asset which pays the market interest rate. As the interest rate rises, increasing your costs, your return on this asset would also increase. This would minimize your exposure to interest rate fluctuations. There are of course two problems with this simplified solution:  (1) The reason you expect to pay interest, is because you need/want to take on debt to purchase your house. To fully offset this risk by putting all your money in an asset which bears the market interest rate, would effectively be the same as just buying your house in cash. (2) The timing of the future outflow is a bit unique: you will be locking in a rate, in 5 years, which will determine the payments for the 5 years after that. So unless you own this interest-paying asset for that whole future duration, you won't immediately benefit. You also won't need / want to buy that asset today, because the rates from today to 2022 are largely irrelevant to you - you want something that directly goes against the prevailing mortgage interest rate in 2022 precisely. So in your specific case, you could in theory consider the following solution: You could short a coupon bond, likely one with a 10 year maturity date from today. As interest rates rise, the value of the coupon bond [for it's remaining life of 5 years], which has an implied interest rate set today, will drop. Because you will have shorted an asset dropping in value, you will have a gain. You could then close your short position when you buy your house in 5 years. In theory, your gain at that moment in time, would equal the present value of the rate differential between today's low mortgage rates and tomorrow's high interest rates. There are different ways mechanically to achieve what I mention above (such as buying forward derivative contracts based on interest rates, etc.), but all methods will have a few important caveats: (1) These will not be perfect hedges against your mortgage rates, unless the product directly relates to mortgage rates. General interest rates will only be a proxy for mortgage rates. (2) There is additional risk in taking this type of position. Taking a short position / trading on a margin requires you to make ongoing payments to the broker in the event that your position loses money. Theoretically those losses would be offset by inherent gains in the future, if mortgage rates stay low / go lower, but that offset isn't in your plan for 5 years. (3) 5 years may be too long of a timeline for you to accurately time the maturity of your 'hedge' position. If you end up moving in 7 years, then changes in rates between 2022-2024 might mean you lose on both your 'hedge' position and your mortgage rates. (4) Taking on a position like this will tie up your capital - either because you are directly buying an asset you believe will offset growing interest rates, or because you are taking on a margin account for a short position (preventing you from using a margin account for other investments, to the extent you 'max out' your margin limit). I doubt any of these solutions will be desirable to an individual looking to mitigate interest rate risk, because of the additional risks it creates, but it may help you see this idea in another light. If interest rates have gone up, don't sell when you move. Refinance to lock in a low rate and rent out your current house when you move. Let the rent pay your new mortgage. "Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the ""Pro"" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own." You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home.   By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.
If you're truly ready to pay an extra $1000 every month, and are confident you'll likely always be able to, you should refinance to a 15 year mortgage. 15 year mortgages are typically sold at around a half a point lower interest rates, meaning that instead of your 4.375% APR, you'll get something like 3.875% APR.  That's a lot of money over the course of the mortgage.  You'll end up paying around a thousand a month more - so, exactly what you're thinking of doing - and not only save money from that earlier payment, but also have a lower interest rate.  That 0.5% means something like $25k less over the life of the mortgage.  It's also the difference in about $130 or so a month in your required payment. Now of course you'll be locked into making that larger payment - so the difference between what you're suggesting and this is that you're paying an extra $25k in exchange for the ability to pay it off more slowly (in which case you'd also pay more interest, obviously, but in the best case scenario).  In the 15 year scenario you must make those ~$4000 payments.  In the 30 year scenario you can pay ~$2900 for a while if you lose your job or want to go on vacation or ... whatever. Of course, the reverse is also true: you'll have to make the payments, so you will.  Many people find enforced savings to be a good strategy (myself among them); I have a 15 year mortgage and am happy that I have to make the higher payment, because it means I can't spend that extra money frivolously. So what I'd do if I were you is shop around for a 15 year refi.  It'll cost a few grand, so don't take one unless you can save at least half a point, but if you can, do. Although it may be a little late for you, the real answer is this:  When you close on a mortgage for a primary residence you are affirming (in an affidavit), two intents: Now, these are affirming intentions — not guarantees; so if a homeowner has a change of circumstance, and cannot meet these affirmed intentions, there is almost always no penalty.  Frankly, the mortgage holder's primary concern is you make payments on time, and they likely won't bother with any inquiry.   That being said, should a homeowner have a pattern of buying primary residences, and in less than 1 year converting that primary to a rental, and purchasing a new primary; there will likely be a grounds for prosecution for mortgage fraud. In your specific situation, you cannot legally sign the owner-occupancy affidavit with the intention of not staying for 1 year.  A solution would be to purchase the condo as a second home, or investment; both of which you can still typically get 80% financing.  A second home is tricky, I would ask your lender what their requirements are for 2nd home classification.   Outside that, you could buy the condo as a primary, stay in it for a year, then convert.  If you absolutely had to purchase the 2nd property before 1 year, you could buy it as a primary with a 2 month rent back once you reach 10 months.  Should you need it earlier, just buy the 2nd house as an investment, then once you move in, refinance it as a primary. This last strategy requires some planning ahead and you should explain your intention to the loan officer ahead of time so they can properly price the non-owner occupied loan. "In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with ""less than 20%"" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan.  If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total).  Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?).  Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo ""in cash"" later.  Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it.  So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose.  In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard.   It's not immediately clear if ""rent backs"" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional ""non owner occupied"" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing).  Or buy one as a ""secondary residency"" mortgage?  Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like ""geographic distance"" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you ""will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control"" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case.  Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them.  Might not hurt to ask." It seems like you are asking two different questions, one is, how do I know if I can afford a house? The other is, how do I know what type of mortage to get? The first question is fairly simple to answer, there's plenty of calculators out there that will tell you what you can afford, but rule of thumb is 30% of income can goto housing. Now what type of mortgage to get can be much more confusing, because the mortgage industry makes money off of these confusing products. The best thing to do in my opionion in situations like this is to keep it simple. You need to be careful buying a house. So much money is changing hands and there are so many parasites involved in the transaction I would be extremely wary of anybody who is going to tell you what mortgage to get. I've never heard of a fee only independent mortgage broker, and if I found one that claimed to be I wouldn't believe him. I would just ignore all the exotic non-conforming products and just answer one simple question. Are you the type of person that buys an insurance policy or that likes to self insure? If you like insurance, get a 30 year fixed mortgage. If you like to self insure, get a 7 year ARM. The average lenghth someone owns a house is 7 years, plus in 7 years time, it might not adjust up, and even if it does, you can just accelerate your payments and pay it off quickly (this is the self insurance part of it). If you're like me, I'm willing to pay an extra .5% for the 30 year so that my payment never changes and I'm never forced to move (which is admitedly extremely unlikely, but I like the safety). I don't like 15 year term loans because rates are so low, you can get way better returns in the stock market right now, so why pay off sooner then you need to. Heck, if I had a paid off house right now I'd refi into a 30 year and invest the money. In summary, pick 30 year or ARM, then just shop around to find the lowest rate (which is extremely easy). On average, you should be saving at least 10-15% of your income in order to be financially secure when you retire.  Different people will tell you different things, but really this can be split between short term savings (cash), long term savings (401ks, IRAs, stocks & bonds), and paying down debt. That $5k is a good start on an emergency fund, but you probably want a little more.  As justkt said, 6 months' worth is what you want to aim for.  Put this in a Money Market account, where you'll earn a little more interest but won't be penalized from withdrawing it when its needed (you may have to live off it, after all). Beyond that, I would split things up; if possible, have payroll deductions going to a broker (sharebuilder is a good one to start with if you can't spare much change), as well as an IRA at a bank. Set up a separate checking account just for rent and utilities, put a month's worth of cash in there, and have another payroll deduction that covers your living expenses + maybe 5% put in there automatically.  Then, set up automatic bill payments, so you don't even have to think about it.  Check it once a month to make sure there aren't any surprises. Pay off your credit cards every month.  These are, by far, the most expensive forms of credit that most people have.  You shouldn't be financing large purchases with them (you'll get better rates by taking a personal loan from a bank). Set specific goals for savings, and set up automatic payroll deductions to work towards them.  Especially for buying a house; most responsible lenders will ask for 20% down.  In today's market, that means you need to write a check for $40k or $50k.  While it's tempting to finance up to 100% of the property value, it's also risky considering how volatile markets can be.  You don't want to end up owing more on the property than it's worth two years down the road. If you find yourself at the end of the month with an extra $50 or so, consider your savings goals or your current debt instead of blowing it on a toy.  Especially if you have long term debt (high balance credit cards, vehicle or property loans), applying that money directly to principal can save you months (or years) paying it back, and hundreds or thousands of dollars of interest (all depending on the details of the loan, of course). Above all, have fun with it :)  Think of your personal net worth as you do your Gamer score on the XBox, and look for ways to maximize it with a minimum of effort or investment on your part!  Investing in yourself and your future can be incredibly rewarding emotionally :) Generally, interest-only mortgages are a bad idea, because a lot of people get them so that they can buy more house than they could otherwise afford (lower payment = affordable, in their minds).  If the house continues to go up in value, they probably get away with it, because when the balance becomes due, they can refinance.  However, the last few years has shown how risky that strategy can be, and this kind of things is what cost a lot of people their houses. In your case, if the house is something you could afford on a regular 15 or 30-year mortgage, and you really are as disciplined as you say you are, you might get away with it.  But you have to take into account the risk, and consider what happens if there is a job loss or similar difficulty in the future. Another thing to consider is the term of the mortgage.  How many years will you get this lower interest rate?  Interest rates are at historic lows right now, and pretty much everyone thinks they're going up soon.  You might be better off locking in a higher rate for 15 years. I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house.  So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house.  If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be. Here's one way of looking at it. The first years of a 30-year mortgage are mostly interest payments.  Even with a 4% 30-year loan -- I seem to recall seeing rates that low! --  the interest part of your payments for the first five years are double the principal part. You will pay less in interest if you throw extra money at the mortgage.  How much extra? Let's say you have a loan of $100,000 for 30 years at 4.5%.  The monthly payment is $506.69.  After five years, you've paid $8,842.43 toward principal and $21,558.97 toward interest. Let's bump that payment up $200 per month to $706.69.  Now, after five years, you've paid $22,284.24 toward principal and $20,128.56 toward interest.  You've saved yourself from paying $1,430.41 in interest. But if you can swing $706.69, can you swing $752.28?  That's the payment on a fifteen year mortgage at 4.25%.  After five years you'll have paid $26,562.31 on principal and $18,574.49 in interest:  $1,500 less in interest than even paying an extra $200/month on your 30-year. Now, another way of looking at it. If you're getting a 30-year, get one.  Pay only the minimum, and save what you would have paid toward your mortgage to fund a down payment for your next house, since you're planning to get out in 5-7 years.  Rather than try to sell your current house, rent it out.  Rents go up, but your mortgage payment won't.  Fixed-rate mortgages are a great protection against inflation. The new mortgage qualification rules were introduced to cool a hot Canadian housing real estate market. The rules are a pre-emptive measure intended to avoid a bubble (and later crash) in real estate. The government wants to make sure anybody buying a house can handle higher interest rates. Those rates, currently at record lows, are expected to go up later this year and into the future. The tighter mortgage rules include: Borrowers will need to qualify against a minimum standard 5-year fixed rate mortgage, even if they'll contract their mortgage at a lower or variable rate.  Previously, the 3-year fixed rate mortgage was used as the minimum qualification standard. The amount a homeowner can borrow in a refinanced mortgage drops to 90% of the home value, down from 95% of the home value.  A home is not meant to be an ATM machine. Anybody wanting to borrow to buy an investment property – i.e. a property that won't be their principal residence – will need a 20% downpayment instead of a 5% downpayment. The new rules go into effect April 19th, 2010.  However, according to the backgrounder (see below): Exceptions would be allowed after   April 19 where they are needed to   satisfy a binding purchase and sale,   financing, or refinancing agreement   entered into before April 19, 2010. Definitive information about the new rules can be found at the Department of Finance of Canada.  Specifically, refer to: Some additional news media sources: "Interest rates are at a record low and the government is printing money. You can get a fixed rate loan at a rate equal to inflation in a healthy economy. Unless you know that you are moving in < 5 years, why would you expose yourself to interest rate risk when rates are about as close to zero as they can be? If your thought with respect to mitigating interest rate risk is: ""What's the big deal, I'll just refinance!"", think again, because in a market where rates are climbing, you may not be able to affordably refinance at the LTV that you'll have in 5-7 years.  From 1974-1991, 30 year mortgages never fell below 9%, and were over 12% from 1979 to 1985. Think about what those kinds of rates -- which reduce a new homeowner's buying power by over 40%, would do to your homes value." Presumably, the inverse of the advantages? You are guaranteed the interest rate that is written on your mortgage commitment as long as the first draw happens before the rate hold expiry date (typically 120 days from application date). In most cases, it takes at least 6 months or more to build a home from the ground up. That means that you are taking a chance at what the interest rates and qualifying criteria will be several months down the road. You can normally only lock in 120 days prior to possession with a 'Completion Mortgage'. Lenders are constantly changing their guidelines and rates are predicted to increase over the coming months. That means you are much better to obtain draw mortgage financing to avoid any of these uncertainties. You will know that you have your financing in place right away before construction even starts. This is a huge peace of mind so you can relax and get ready for the big move. So thus, if interest rates are lower 6 months or a year from now, that'd be the disadvantage -- a longer lock-in period. "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." Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan.  You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home.  Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you.  Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal.  PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer).  Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI.  Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages.  This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations.  Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment.  Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in.  Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget.  All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit.  So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking.  Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs.  Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition.  With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be.  I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid.  This calculator can help you figure that out.  This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification I would think it depends on when within the 7 years you're planning to move. If you want to move within a year or two, the closing costs for the new mortgage may postpone the break even until after your move date; that wouldn't be a financially smart decision. If your plans suggest you're going to move after the break even point I'd definitely refi sooner rather than later and would try to reduce the term, either by overpaying or by choosing a 15 year mortgage that should have an even lower interest rate anyway. "When you're calculating the cash flows used to compute an IRR, with regard to the expenses used to calculate those cash flows:  Do you assume that expenses are going to be higher than they would be today, by using an assumed inflation rate?   Or is everything (all cash flows) assumed to be in today's dollars, and you account for inflation's effect on your actual returns at ""the end"" by subtracting off the inflation rate from the IRR?"