What ETF or other security tracks closest to 30 year mortgage rates?
"TBF - Proshares short 20+ Year Treasury  The TBF fund is designed to track (hopefully) 100 percent of the inverse daily returns of the Barclays Capital 20+ Year U.S. Treasury Index.  there's some risk of tracking error, and also a compounding effect if it's down several days in a row.  (invest with care)   There's also a TBT fund, but the risks are even greater since it is leveraged,  potentially you could make the right long term call, but lose a lot in the short term due to tracking error and effect of compounding) (that would tend to make this one more appropriate for short term 'bets' on interest rates, and less so for a long term investor) There are also quite a few floating rate closed-end funds (Click here, then click on ""loan participation funds"") that should do well in a rising rate environment. Just beware that these funds seem to incorporate a substantial amount of credit risk as well as floating interest rate exposure. Closed end funds trade a lot like securities, since the fund is closed, you have to buy shares from another owner that is selling (just like with stocks), that means the shares can sometimes trade above or below the underlying value of the actual assets held by the fund depending on buying/selling pressure and the relative liquidity of a given fund." Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. The CBOE Interest Rate 10-Year T-Note, TNX, is a security directly related to this rate. Divide the CBOE price of TNX by 10 to get the yield.  One can also track the  10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX).   One can also track the  10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX).
"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot:  shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US:  Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow?  To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the ""ability to borrow"" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments.  I then used Excel's ""PV"" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below.  The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93.  There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly ""gives one furiously to think"" !! Update 2:  OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases.  And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow." Look at a mixture of low-fee index funds, low-fee bond funds, and CDs. The exact allocation has to be tailored to your appetite for risk. If you only want to park the money with essentially no risk of loss then you need FDIC insured products like CDs or a money market account (as opposed to a money market fund which is not FDIC insured). However as others have said, interest rates are awful now.  Since you are in your early 30's, and expect to keep this investment for 10+ years, you can probably tolerate a bit of risk. Also considering speaking to a tax professional to determine the specific tax benefits/drawbacks of one investment strategy (funds and CDs) versus another (e.g. real estate). Well typically you're borrowing a shit ton of money for 30 years so yeah you're paying a lot in interest over that period.   But your situation sounds especially bad, that's over a 10% constant assuming 80% LTV. What are you being quoted, like &gt;9% interest? Your calculations are correct if you use the same mortgage rate for both the 15 and 30 year mortgages.  However, generally when you apply for a 15 year mortgage the interest rate is significantly less than the 30 year rate.  The rate is lower for a number of reasons but mainly there is less risk for the bank on a 15 year payoff plan. The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission.  It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days!  Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment.  1.81% per year?  More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year.  The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions.  BIV's price does fluctuate.  You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund.  Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account.  (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2017090pap.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; 25 Although COFI mortgage rates are similar to traditional fixed-rate mortgage rates in some periods, COFI mortgage rates are considerably below traditional fixed-rate mortgage rates in most periods.  &gt; Some FixedCOFI mortgage simulations are originated in a low interest rate environment and then experience 17 First Draft 2/9/2016 Current Draft 8/18/2017 a string of positive Treasury shocks that push the path of COFI mortgage rates higher than the traditional fixed-rate mortgage rate for the remainder of the mortgage.  &gt; The COFI mortgage rate hovers around the traditional fixed-rate mortgage rate for the following ten years and then rises above the fixed-rate mortgage rate for the rest of the mortgage.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6wouyf/fed_improving_the_30year_fixedrate_mortgage/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~200238 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Mortgage**^#1 **rate**^#2 **Fixed-COFI**^#3 **payment**^#4 **Fixed-Rate**^#5" 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. Yes, take the new rate, but instead of using the new 30 year term, calculate the payment as though the new mortgage were at the remaining term. 3 years into a 30? You calculate the payment as if the new mortgage were 27 years.  This will tell you what you are really saving. Now, take that savings and divide into your closing costs if any. That will give you the break even. Will you be in the house that long?  If you can find a no closing cost deal, it's worth it for even 1/8% savings. 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. What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though. Say one makes $60k/yr. The net gain is that half these funds are received about 2 weeks prior. To keep the math simple, let's assume a 12% return per year on the funds during this time. $30K * 12% is $3600. But 2 weeks is about 4% of a year, so $144. That's at a 12% return. In an offset mortgage the return will be closer to 4%, a $48/yr benefit.  With short term rates at or below 1%, we're really looking at a gain of $12 or so for the extra time with the funds. But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive. Yahoo! Finance would list it as 3.30 for the 20 year corporate AAA bonds. This is using the criteria from the Wikipedia link you stated in the initial question. No citation, but I once read the average holding period of a 30 yr treasury is 8 hours. A rise in the rate by just .1% will drop the value by just under 2% wiping out nearly a full year's gains. With 29 years to go the value of the 3% bond will be worth $981 if the rate were then 3.1% It's at 3.16% the bond would drop to exactly $970 after the year, i.e. you've gotten no return at all.  I view this as pretty high risk. "Why do banks charge a significantly lesser rate for a 15 yr. fixed mortgage than a 30yr. (though they know it will not earn them the same amount of money)?  A simplistic model of where banks get the money to lend to borrowers is that they ""borrow"" money from investors that want to earn a return on the money that they provide.  The actual mechanics of that process are much more complicated, but the gist is that if those investors want to tie their money up for a longer period, they expect to get a higher return, thus 30-year mortgages require a higher interest rate than 15-year mortgages.  In addition, the ""usual"" consensus in the market is that interest rates will rise in the future, so interest rates for longer-term loans are higher  While it's true that the bank gets ""more money"" overall from a higher-rate mortgage, the fact that that additional money doesn't come until several years into the loan (and that money loses value over time due to inflation) makes a lower-rate 15 year mortgage roughly equivalent to a higher-rate 30-year mortgage."