Does it make sense to refinance a 30 year mortgage to 15 years?
You don't say what the time remaining on the current mortgage is, nor the expense of the refi.  There are a number of traps when doing the math. Say you have 10 years left on a 6% mortgage, $200K balance. I offer you a 4% 30 year. No cost at all. A good-intentioned person would do some math as follows: Please look at this carefully. 6% vs 4%. But you're out of pocket far more on the 4% loan. ?? Which is better? The problem is that the comparison isn't apples to apples. What did I do? I took the remaining term and new rate. You see, so long as there are no prepayment penalties, this is the math to calculate the savings. Here, about $195/mo. That $195/mo is how you judge if the cost is worth it or the break-even time. $2000? Well, 10 months, then you are ahead.  If you disclose the time remaining, I am happy to edit the answer to reflect your numbers, I'm just sharing the correct process for analysis.  Disclosure - I recently did my last (?) refi to a 15yr fixed 3.5%. The bank let the HELOC stay. It's 2.5%, and rarely used. There's several different trade-offs wrapped up in your question. In general, refinancing a mortgage to a lower interest rate makes sense if you are certain you'll be living in the house for N years.  N depends on your closing costs and points.  Basically you need to calculate the break-even point for when the savings from the reduced interest rate exceeds the cost of the re-fi.  When I refinanced, the broker did the calculations for me for a range of options, maybe yours could as well. The trade off in selecting 30-year vs. 15-year is between monthly payment and total outlay.  A 15-year mortgage will have a higher monthly payment, but the total money that is paid out the bank (rather than to your equity) will be less. Using the Heloc to do the down payment seems sketchy; plus then you have two loan payments you're making each month.  Why not keep it simple and look for a $250k loan with 5% down?  Presumably with the current mortgage you already put in a good down payment, and have built some equity up. Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't make sense at all.  Why take out money at 3.25% (the Heloc) to reduce the balance on a 3% loan (the refi)?  It would be better to move as much from the Heloc to the refi as possible to get the best rate.  If this results in a lower monthly payment, keep paying the higher payment and you'll be better off.
"So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. Say I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years. By the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank This is incorrect thinking.  On a 30 year loan, at year 15 about 2/3's of the total interest to be paid has been paid, and the principal is about 1/3 lower than the original loan amount.  You may want to play with some amortization calculators that are freely available to see this in action.   If you were to pay off the balance, at that point, you would avoid paying the remaining 1/3 of interest.   Consider a 100K 30 year mortgage at 4.5% In month two the payment breaks down with $132 going to principal, and $374 going to interest.  If, in month one, you had an extra $132 and directed it to principal, you would save $374 in interest.  That is a great ROI and why it is wonderful to get out of debt as soon as possible.   The trouble with this is of course, is that most people can barely afford the mortgage payment when it is new so lets look at the same situation in year 15. Here, $271 would go to principal, and $235 to interest.  So you would have to come up with more money to save less interest.  It is still a great ROI, but less dramatic.   If you understand the ""magic"" of compounding interest, then you can understand loans.  It is just compounding interest in reverse.  It works against you." It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea.  Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan.  I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years.  At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed.  There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more.  While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income.   Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed. 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. A few things to keep in mind.  A 90% mortgage is $76,500, PMI for 10% down is $76,500/2300 = $33/mo. This, plus $557 is still lower than your rent. I'd take the 15 since you want to get rid of that PMI as soon as you can. Often the bank will require the PMI be removed only after the regularly scheduled payments have gotten you to 20% equity, prepayments mat not count. This may have changed recently. Check to be sure.  Even in 5 years, you'll save compared to the rent, and from this point, odds are it will increase in value. I'd not count on any tax deduction. Your standard deduction is $11,400. Even at the higher rate, you'd have $3200 in interest, property tax can't be over $2000. You have an easy tax return, I'd say. Good luck.  UPDATE - it's now 2016 - The standard deduction is $12,600 for a couple. With the interest maybe at $3200, and property tax at $2000, curious why any other readers would think the OP would be itemizing. Our mortgage provider actually took the initiative to send us a refinance package with no closing costs to us and nothing added to the note; took us from a 30-year-fixed ~6.5% note to a 15-year-fixed ~5% note, and dropped the monthly payment in the process.  You might talk to your existing lender to see if they would do something like that for you; it gives them a chance to keep your business, and it cuts your costs. "I haven't heard 30-year mortgages called unwise. As @jared said, the shorter terms often will be cheaper if you are going to pay off within that term anyway, but the extra cost of the 30 may still be justified because it gives you the ""safety net"" of being able to fall back to the lower payment if money gets tight. Cheap insurance if you might need that insurance. That wasn't something I was worried about, so I took a 20-year, later refinanced as 15-year, and got a slightly better rate by doing so. Consider how long you expect to own this house, and shop for the best deal you can find. Remember to figure points into the real cost the loan. There are calculators on many bank/credit-union websites that can help you do this comparison." "When you say ""apartment"" I take it you mean ""condo"", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) ""I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage"" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage." Other people have belabored the point that you will get a better rate on a 15 year mortgage, typically around 1.25 % lower. The lower rate makes the 15 year mortgage financially wiser than paying a 30 year mortgage off in 15 years.  So go with the 15 year if your income is stable, you will never lose your job, your appliances never break, your vehicles never need major repairs, the pipes in your house never burst, you and your spouse never get sick, and you have no kids. Or if you do have kids, they happen to have good eyesight, straight teeth, they have no aspirations for college, don't play any expensive sports, and they will never ask for help paying the rent when they get older and move out.  But if any of those things are likely possibilities, the 30 year mortgage would give you some flexibility to cover short term cash shortages by reverting to your normal 30 year payment for a month or two. Now, the financially wise may balk at this because you are supposed to have enough cash in reserves to cover stuff like this, and that is good advice. But how many people struggle to maintain those reserves when they buy a new house?  Consider putting together spreadsheet and calculating the interest cost difference between the two strategies. How much more will the 30 year mortgage cost you in interest if you pay it off in 15 years? That amount equates to the cost of an insurance policy for dealing with an occasional cash shortage. Do you want to pay thousands in extra interest for that insurance? (it is pretty pricey insurance) One strategy would be to go with the 30 year now, make the extra principal payments to keep you on a 15 year schedule, see how life goes, and refinance to a 15 year mortgage after a couple years if everything goes well and your cash reserves are strong. Unfortunately, rates are likely to rise over the next couple years, which makes this strategy less attractive. If at all possible, go with the 15 year so you lock in these near historic low rates. Consider buying less house or dropping back to the 30 year if you are worried that your cash reserves won't be able to handle life's little surprises. The mortgage is a debt and you pay interest on it, typically more than you can earn elsewhere (especially once taxes are taken into account.) By lowering the principal, you lower the total interest you pay. This is true whether you sell the house after 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years. In your case, prepayments made in the next few years would mean that when you sell, your mortgage principal would be lower than it otherwise would have been, and your house equity will be higher. You can therefore either move up to more house for the same monthly payment, or have a lower monthly payment for the same kind of house. Either of those are good things, right? Now is the easiest time to find a little more money, so do it if you can. Later you will have more obligations, and develop a taste for more expensive things (statistically speaking) and therefore find a few hundred a month much harder to come by. 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. 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. Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life.  The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost.  Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances.  The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%. I would definitely pay down the debt first.  If it is going to take 15 years to do so, you probably need to allocate more money to paying down debt. Cut expenses by going out to eat less, and keeping spending to the bare necessities.  You might even consider getting a second job, just for paying down the debt.  If that isn't enough, consider selling off some assets.  You should be able to come up with a plan to be debt free (excluding maybe a regular mortgage) within 3-5 years. Once the only debt you have is a home mortgage, then its time to look at putting money towards retirement again. Note, you should not take money out of a 401k or IRA to pay off debt.  The costs for doing so are nearly always too great. On a 5% mortgage, after 24 months of payments on a 30 yr amortization, you will have paid 3% of the principal, so all else being equal, you have 15% equity. If the value is up, even a bit, the first step is to call the bank. If you are pretty sure it's up enough, ask them to remove PMI in exchange for you paying the appraisal fee. If they hesitate, ask them if you prepay the remaining missing 5%, if they'll pull the fee. 8% of principal is paid by the end of year 5, at which time they have no choice but to remove it. Doing so any sooner is their call.  If they agree to the pre-pay deal, I'd find a way to raise the funds. It will save you over $5000 in a short period. Last, while 5% really is great, especially NPNC, shop around, you may find another no cost deal at the same or lower rate, no harm to look, and they may appraise you at 80% LTV. If I was bank, I certainly wouldn't give a **30 year** mortgage to a **57 year old** with a property which is worth less than the mortgage!  And I don't see why a bank should.  I get that it sucks for him to have a 6.35% interest mortgage, but that situation sucks for the bank as well.  I wouldn't offer a lower interest to someone in that sort of situation.