Making higher payments on primary residence mortgage or rental?
You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house.  Then, things start to get fun.  You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments.  Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier. "I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate?  Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble?  The ""pay early"" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to ""would you be happy with a long term 5% return?"" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than ""paid in full"" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily.  If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point.  Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free." A lot depends on whether your mortgage payments are interest only or 'repayment' and what the remaining term is on each of the mortgages.  Either way I suspect that the best value for the money you put in will be had by making payments to the larger, newer mortgage.  This is because the quicker you reduce the capital owed the less interest you will pay over the whole term of the mortgage and you've already had the older mortgage for sometime (unless you remortgaged) so the benefit you can get from an arbitrary reduction in the capital is inevitably less than you will get from the same reduction in the capital of the newer mortgage.  Even if the two mortgages are the same age then the benefit of putting money into the one on the new house is greater due to the greater interest charged on it. Pay down the lower balance on the rental property. Generally speaking, you are more likely to need/want to sell the rental house as business conditions change or if you need the money for some other purpose. If you pay down your primary residence first, you are building equity, but that equity isn't as liquid as equity in the rental. Also, in the US, you cannot deduct the interest on a rental property, so the net interest after taxes that you're paying on the rental narrows the gap between the 4.35% loan and the 5% loan. One advantage of paying down your primary residence is that you can refinance it later for 10-15 years when the balance is low. Refinancing a rental is much harder and interest rates are often higher for investors. This also assumes that you can refinance for a lower rate in the nearest future. The question is really which would you rather sell if you suddenly need the money? I have rental properties and i'd rather move myself, than sell the investments (because they are income generating unlike my own home). So in your case i'd pay off primary residence especially since the interest is already higher on it (would be a harder decision if it was lower)
How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year.  You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it. Make sure to get a Homestead Exemption if your state has one. This can keep your taxes from rising quite as steeply, and in some cases the county assessment office can get you a retroactive refund when your application is approved.  Also, if you really think you're paying too high based on home resale values around you, most county assessors will also let you dispute your valuation. A higher value is great if you intend to sell, not so good if you're staying long term. Kind of like the difference between trading bonds and investing in them.  Also, as I think one of the other posters pointed out, you can usually make extra small payments and direct them to escrow or to principal. With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters?  Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it. When I was a contractor I prioritize this way. 6 months salary nest egg while contributing to tax deferred retirement then after that you can pre pay your mortgage.  Remember you can't skip a month even if you prepay.  So once you pay that extra to your mortgage you lose that flexibility. yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning. "Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. ""Safe as houses"" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee." "If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second.   You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes.  Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable.  I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why.  Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle?  No.  It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of ""passive"" income.  Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk.  Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs.  You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure.  You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt." The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments. "that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage.  So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home.  From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for ""retirement income"".  Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone.  Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage).  You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments." First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner.  If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase.  If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way.  So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years).  After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year).  There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters.  (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.)  However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank.  So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate.  If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates.  These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time.  For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%.  On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%.  (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest.  The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are.  If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high.  I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option. You say  My work is steady; even if I lost my job it'd be easy to get another. Location has been static for a few years now, but I'm not sure that'll extrapolate to the future; I'm lazy, so I don't want to move, but for a significantly better job opportunity I wouldn't mind.   The general rule of thumb is that you'll come out ahead if you buy a house (with a mortgage) and live there for five years.  What you lose in interest, you make up in rent.  And living there for five years, you make back your closing costs in equity.  If you're there less than five years though, you don't make back the closing costs.  You'd have been better off renting.   Historically (up to about twenty years ago), your mortgage payment and rent payment for the same basic property would be about the same.  I.e. if your current landlord sold you what you are renting, your mortgage payment would be roughly the same as your rent.  Maybe a little lower or a little higher but about the same.  More recently, it hasn't been strange to see a divergence in those.  Now it is not uncommon for a mortgage payment to be 50% higher than rent on the same property.   This has some consequences.  First, your $1000 rent probably won't stretch as far as a $1000 mortgage payment.  So you'll be buying something that you'd only pay $650 or $700 rent.  Second, if you move and can't sell immediately, you'll get less in rent than you'd pay in mortgage.  Rather than contributing to your income, the property will require subsidy just to maintain the mortgage.  And in the early years of the mortgage, this means that you're paying all of the principal (equity) and some of the interest.   Buying a duplex makes this worse.  You have your side and their side.  You can substitute your $1000 rent for half of the mortgage payment.  Meanwhile, they are paying $700 in rent.  You have to subsidize the mortgage by $300.  Plus, you are talking about hiring a property management company to do things like lawn maintenance.  There goes another $100 a month.  So you are subsidizing the mortgage by $400.   I don't know real estate prices in Utah, but a quick search finds a median house price over $200,000.  So it seems unlikely that you are buying new construction with new appliances.  More likely you are buying an existing duplex with existing appliances.  What happens when they fail?  The renter doesn't pay for that.  The property management company doesn't pay for that (although they'll likely arrange for it to happen).  You pay for it.   Also, it often takes a bit of time to clean up the apartment after one tenant leaves before the new tenant starts paying rent.  That's a dead weight loss.  If this happens during a local recession, you could be carrying the mortgage on a property with no offsetting rental income for months.   There are some countervailing forces.  For example, if house prices in your area are increasing, the rent will increase with them (not necessarily at the same pace).  But your mortgage payment stays the same.  So eventually the rent may catch up with the mortgage payment.  If you wait long enough in a strong enough market, the rent on the other half of the duplex may cover the entire mortgage payment.   If you currently have an urban apartment within walking distance of work and switch to a suburban apartment with a commute, you have a better chance of finding a duplex where the entire mortgage payment is only the $1000 that you pay in rent.  Your half of the duplex won't be as nice as your apartment is, and you'll have a half hour or hour long commute every morning (and the same to get home in the evening).  But on strictly fiscal terms you'll be doing about as well.  Plus you have the income from the other half.  So even if your mortgage payment is more than your rent payment, you can still break even if the rent covers it.   Consider a $1400 mortgage and $400 in rent from the other half (after property management fees).  So long as nothing goes wrong, you break even.  Perhaps the agreement is that your parents take care of things going wrong (broken appliances, troublesome tenants, time between tenants).  Or perhaps you drain your emergency fund and adjust your 401(k) payment down to the minimum when that happens.  Once your emergency fund is replenished, restore the 401(k).   If you're willing to live in what's essentially a $500 apartment, you can do better this way.  Of course, you can also do better by living in a $500 apartment and banking the other $500 that you spend on rent.  Plus you now have the expenses of a commute and five hours less free time a week.   You describe yourself as essentially living paycheck to paycheck.  You have adequate savings but no building excess.  Whatever you get paid, you immediately turn around and spend.  Your parents may view you as profligate.  Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were.  You go out more often.  You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement).   It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space.  For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs.  Then they'd build up equity.  So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house.   The duplex plan leads to one of two things.  Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half.  Now you have a rental property providing income.  And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house.   From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending.  Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood.  Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends.  And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone.   If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage.  You are responsible even if something happens to the house.  For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away.  Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation.  So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed.   Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house.  Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000.  With General Motors, even if they go bankrupt tomorrow, you're only out $10,000.  With the house, you're out $200,000.  Admittedly it's much hard to lose the entire $200,000 value of the house.  But even if the house loses $80,000 in value, you are still $70,000 in the hole.   You don't need a disaster for the house to lose $80,000 in value.  That's pretty much what happened in the 2006-2010 period.  People were losing all of what they invested in houses plus having to declare bankruptcy to get out of the excess debt.  Of course, if they had been able to hold on until 2015 markets mostly recovered.  But if you lost your job in 2008, they wouldn't let you not make mortgage payments until you got a new one in 2012.   When you declare bankruptcy, you don't just lose the house.  You also lose all your emergency savings and may lose some of your belongings.   There are some pretty prosaic disasters too.  For example, you and your tenant both go away for a weekend.  It rains heavily and your roof starts to leak due to weak maintenance (so not covered by insurance).  The house floods, destroying all the electronics and damaging various other things.  Bad enough if it's just you, but you're also responsible for the tenant's belongings.  They sue you for $20,000 and they move out.  So no rent and big expenses.  To get the house livable again is going to take $160,000.  Plus you have a $190,000 mortgage on a property that is only worth about $40,000.  That's at the extreme end. Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her. I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest.  In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances.  You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property.  Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced.  The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2.  I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future.  I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification.  Don't put all of your money into one basket.  This includes real estate.  Like any other investment, real estate goes down too.  In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year.  While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio. "littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold -  Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line ""extra principal."" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up.  Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage." I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format.