Was this a good deal on a mortgage?
That seems a very bad offer, it borders on fraud. In the current US economy, you should be able to get between 3 and 4 % APR (and that number is what you should look at). That means that for $300,000 over 30 years, you'd pay $1,265 to $1,432 per month. If you are able to pay more than that monthly rate, you should go for less than 30 years - 20, 15, 10, whatever you can afford - but don't overextend yourself. Google 'mortgage calculator' to do your own calculations. I'm calculating that to about a 7% apr, which given loan rates available today seems a bit high.   I wouldn't get too caught up on what that equates to over the life of the loan.  There are a lot of forces in play over a 30 year period, namely the time value of money.  30 years from now a dollar will be less valuable in real terms due to the forces of inflation.  At 2% per year in inflation today's $1 will be worth about $0.55 in 30 years. Some part of the payment is probably also going for tax escrow, insurance payments, probably PMI if you aren't  putting at least 20% down. Get a complete breakdown of the costs. Remember to budget for upkeep. And please see past discussion of why buying a home at this point in your career/life may be very, very premature. The key question is whether this number includes taxes and insurance. When you get a mortgage in the U.S., the bank wants to be sure that you are paying your property taxes and that you have homeowners insurance. The mortgage is guaranteed by a lien on the house -- if you don't pay, the bank can take your house -- and the bank doesn't want to find out that your house burned down and you didn't bother to get insurance so now they have nothing. So for most mortgages, the bank collects money from the borrower for the taxes and insurance, and then they pay these things. This can also be convenient for the borrower as you are then paying a fixed amount every month rather than being hit with sizeable tax and insurance bills two or three times a year. So to run the numbers: As others point out, mortgage rates in the US today are running 3% to 4%. I just found something that said the average rate today is 3.6%. At that rate, your actual mortgage payment should be about $1,364. Say $1,400 as we're taking approximate numbers. So if the $2,000 per month does NOT include taxes and insurance, it's a bad deal. If it does, then not so bad. You don't say where you live. But in my home town, property taxes on a $300,000 house would be about $4,500 per year. Insurance is probably another $1000 a year. And if you have to get PMI, add another 1/2% to 3/4%, or $1500 to $2250 per year. Add those up and divide by 12 and you get about $600. Note my numbers here are all highly approximate, will vary widely depending on where the house is, so this is just a general ballpark. $1400 + $600 = $2000, just what you were quoted. So if the number is PITI -- principle, interest, taxes, and insurance -- it's about what I'd expect. The price of the loan may be justified if you're considered a high-risk applicant for some reason (e.g. you're putting very little money in initial payment), and if it includes all the associated expenses. What is more relevant to your situation is that you're probably better off renting. Think about it: your $300'000 house will require some repairs in those 30 years (let's estimate those at $100'000). That means in 30 years you'll build $200'000 of equity spending $720'000 on it. Of course this assumes that the value of the house will remain constant. You're effectively be throwing away $520'000, or more than $1'400 a month. If you can rent a place for $1'400 a month or less, you'll build more equity by renting that place for 30 years and saving the excess money in a bank account. If you consider the interest that money in your bank account will earn you (e.g. 3% annually), you'll build more than $200'000 equity in 30 years even if you spend as much as $1'650 on your rent and save only $350 a month. "I'm a visual person so the idea of a 30 year mortgage didn't make much sense to me until I could see it  This isn't exact but it's pretty close. The green Interest lines represent the money you're giving to the bank as a ""thank you"" for lending you a large amount of cash up front. As you've already figured out, that's at least the same amount as the price of the home! As much down-payment as is reasonable. Keep one eye on beating the interest Best of luck!"
On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you.  Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops. Forget about terms.  Think about loans in terms of months.  To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month.   This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis.  In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest.  With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month.  So on and so forth.   The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest).  You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54.  The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing.  You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month.  So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.).  The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing.  So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing.  It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest.   If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different.  Say  You borrow $1000 for one month.  Then 834 for one month.  So on and so forth.  Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed.  Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest.  And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54.   That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere).  Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations.   I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter.  But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments.  And they ended up crediting me with an early release.  In fact, they rebated part of my last payment.  I saved several hundred dollars through the early release.  Perhaps your loan did not work the same way.  Perhaps it did.  But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe. "I will echo the others; your home should be worth more to you than its market value. It is YOUR HOME. It's where you come home every day to your wife and kids, where you build a life. Yes it's an investment, but it's not like a stock or bond that you hold for a little while and then cash out for the profit. The one time you should be worried about being ""upside-down"" on your mortgage is if you're getting out. If you're moving to a new job at a new company in a new city, you have to make good on the remaining loan balance, and that won't all be from the sale of the house. Unless you're at that point however, if you can afford making the payments and have no reason to move or to cash in equity (of which you have none), then just keep making the payments. Hey, it's better than rent; you'll never see rent money again, while even if you're underwater, you're making headway with each payment." Sounds fishy - taking out more debt to pay the main mortgage down faster? There are a couple of issues I can see: I would think that a much more sensible strategy with a lot less risk is to save up extra cash and send your lender a check every quarter or six months. Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it. There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates.  As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates.  This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there.  Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%.  Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks).  That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation.  Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about?  Those were in the 70's and early 80's.  Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years?  Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%.  Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually.  That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing.   In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation.  They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%).  This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point.  Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board).  Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less.  The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term.   Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also.  Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace.  Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for.  Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level.  If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references: tl;dr: I think you can find a much better deal. Doing a strait refi will cost you some amount of money.  However, a 2.5% fee ont top of closing costs seems really high.  You can get a quote from Quicken loans pretty quick and compare their fee.  Also I would check with a local bank, preferably one you already do business with.  The 2.5% is probably their commission for originating the loan.  If you are in the Southeast I have had great luck with Regions bank.  They are large enough, but also small enough.  Please know that I have no affiliation with either company. BTW the rate also seems high.  Doing a quick search of Bank Rate, it seems you can get 3.25% with zero fee as of this writing.  The worse deal they show is 3.46 with a .75% fee, much better than you were quoted. If you can afford it I would also encourage you to think outside the box.  A client of mine was able to obtain a Home Equity Loan (not line of credit) to replace their mortgage.  They went for a 7 year pay off, with the loan in first position, at a rate about .75 below the then current 15 year rate.  The key was there was zero closing costs.  It saved them quite a bit of money. Also look at a 10 year fixed.  It might not be much more than you are paying now. If you are a subprime borrower, that may not be an unreasonable rate given the risk they are accepting. In any case, it's what you agreed to. As others have said, you could/should have shopped elsewhere for the loan. In fact, you can still shop elsewhere for a loan to refinance that vehicle and thus lower the rate, unless the existing loan has equally obnoxious rules about that. Seems like a bad deal to me. But before I get to that, a couple of points on your expenses: Onward. You value a property by calculating its CAP rate. This is what you're calculating, except it does NOT include interest like you did -- that's a loan to you, and has no bearing on whether the unit itself is a good investment. It also includes estimations of variable expenses like maintenance and lack of income from vacancies. People argue vociferously on exactly how much to calculate for those. Maintenance will vary by age of the building and how damaging your tenets are. Vacancies vary based on how desirable the location is, how well you've done the maintenance, and how low the rent is. Doing the math based on your numbers, with just the fixed expenses: 8400 rent - 2400 management fee - 100 insurance = 5900/year income. 5900/150000 = 0.0393 = 3.9% CAP rate. And that's not even counting the variable expenses yet! So, what's a good CAP rate? Generally, 10% CAP rate is a good deal, and higher is a great deal. Below that you have to start to get cautious. Some places are worth a lower rate, for instance when the property is new and in a good location. You can do 8% on these. Below 6% CAP rate is usually a really bad investment.  So, unless you're confident you can at least double the rent right off the bat, this is a terrible deal. Another way to think about it You're looking to buy with your finances in just about the best position possible -- a huge down payment and really low interest. Plus you haven't accounted for maintenance, taxes (if any), and vacancies. And still you'd make only a measly 1.2% profit? Would you buy a bond that only pays out 1.2%? No? What about a bond that only pays 1.2%, but also from time to time can force YOU to pay into IT a much larger amount every month? Interesting thing is not all of this analysis is typically done by the person you are speaking with re: your mortgage.  Likely there is an economic team (at some institution or another, as many many loans are sold/distributed in some fashion), finance team, and all of them are looking at various rates etc.  Typically what is offered is matching an offsetting liability somewhere else.  So there may be cases where the spread someone is looking to pick up might be tighter or looser within institutions or types of institutions vs others, even though the overall market is at one place.  (e.g. banks vs. insurance companies).    So you may have negotiating room at a certain term, but not another, or the reverse at another firm.  One firm might have lots of 10 year money, while another might be limited, so will be picky in what they choose.  Either more conservative loan terms/ltv, or a higher spread, for example.  So many things go into the ultimate rate someone can get, but in theory the blog did a decent job. "The simple answer is that, even though mortgages can go for 10, 15, 20 and 30 year terms in the U.S., they're typically backed by bonds sold to investors that mature in 10 years, which is the standard term for most bonds. These bonds, in the open market, are compared by investors with the 10-year Treasury note, which is the gold standard for low-risk investment; the U.S. Government has a solid history of always paying its bills (though this reputation is being tested in recent years with fights over the debt ceiling and government budgets). The savvy investor, therefore, knows that he or she can make at least the yield from the 10-year T-note in that time frame, with virtually zero risk. Anything else on the market is seen as being a higher risk, and so investors demand higher yields (by making lower bids, forcing the issuer to issue more bonds to get the money it needs up front). Mortgage-backed securities are usually in the next tier above T-debt in terms of risk; when backed by prime-rate mortgages they're typically AAA-rated, making them available to ""institutional investors"" like banks, mutual funds, etc. This forms a balancing act; mortgage-backed securities issuers typically can't get the yield of a T-note, because no matter how low their risk, T-debt is lower (because one bank doesn't have the power to tax the entire U.S. population). But, they're almost as good because they're still very stable, low-risk debt. This bond price, and the resulting yield, is in turn the baseline for a long-term loan by the bank to an individual. The bank, watching the market and its other bond packages, knows what it can get for a package of bonds backed by your mortgage (and others with similar credit scores). It will therefore take this number, add a couple of percentage points to make some money for itself and its stockholders (how much the bank can add is tacitly controlled by other market forces; you're allowed to shop around for the lowest rate you can get, which limits any one bank's ability to jack up rates), and this is the rate you see advertised and - hopefully - what shows up on your paperwork after you apply." "add the interest for the next 5 payments and divide that by how much you paid on the principal during that time Let's see - on a $200K 6% loan, the first 5 months is $4869. Principal reduction is $1127. I get 4.32 or 432%. But this is nonsense, you divide the interest over the mortgage balance, and get 6%. You only get those crazy numbers by dividing meaningless ratios.  The fact that early on in a mortgage most of the payment goes to interest is a simple fact of the the 30 year nature of amortizing. You are in control, just add extra principal to the payment, if you wish.  This idea sounds like the Money Merge Account peddled by UFirst. It's a scam if ever there was one. I wrote about it extensively on my site and have links to others as well. Once you get to this page, the first link is for a free spreadsheet to download, it beats MMA every time and shows how prepaying works, no smoke, no mirrors. The second link is a 65 page PDF that compiles nearly all my writing on this topic as I was one of the finance bloggers doing what I could to expose this scam. I admit it became a crusade, I went as far as buying key word ads on google to attract the search for ""money merge account"" only to help those looking to buy it find the truth. In the end, I spent a few hundred dollars but saved every visitor the $3500 loss of this program.  No agent who dialoged with me in public could answer my questions in full, as they fell back on ""you need to believe in it."" I have no issue with faith-based religion, it actually stands to reason, but mortgages are numbers and there's order to them. If you want my $3500, you should know how your system works. Not one does, or they would know it was a scam.  Nassim Taleb, author of ""The Black Swan"" offered up a wonderful quote, ""if you see fraud, and do not say 'fraud,' you are a fraud.""  The site you link to isn't selling a product, but a fraudulent idea. What's most disturbing to me is that the math to disprove his assertion is not complex, not beyond grade school arithmetic.  Update 2015 - The linked ""rule of thumb"" is still there. Still wrong of course. Another scam selling software to do this is now promoted by a spin off of UFirst, called Worth Unlimited. Same scam, new name." "Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit.  The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be ""other than house debt"" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment.  PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering.  I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low.  By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?" All of the answers given so far are correct, but rather narrow. When you buy a 30-year-mortgage, you are buying the right to pay off the debt in as long as 30 years.  What you pay depends on the interest rate and how long you actually take to pay it off (and principal and points and so on). Just as you are buying that right, the mortgager is selling you that right, and they usually charge something for it, typically a higher rate.  After all, they, and not you, will be exposed to interest risk for 30 years. However, if some bank has an aneurism and is willing to give you a 30-year loan for the same price as or lower than any other bank is willing to go for a 15-year loan, hey, free flexibility.  Might as well take it.  If you want to pay the loan off in 15 year, or 10 or 20, you can go ahead and do so. Whether applying for a job or buying a house, Offer a more specific price like $72,500, which tells them you thought hard about the price. $70K is too 'round' of a number. Additionally, your financial ability/condition can be a factor too. If you have 20% down, and your Realtor assures the seller that your transaction will go down without a hitch, and you'll be approved for a mortgage, they may accept your offer of $72,500 over the other guys $78K offer if [s]he has less desirable finances. Good Luck!