Extended family investment or pay debt and save
I would suggest, both as an investor and as someone who has some experience with a family-run trust (not my own), that this is probably not something you should get involved with, unless the money is money you're not worried about - money that otherwise would turn into trips to the movies or something like that.  If you're willing to treat it as such, then I'd say go for it. First off, this is not a short or medium term investment.  This sort of thing will not be profitable right away, and it will take quite a few years to become profitable to the point that you could take money out of it - if ever.  Your money will be effectively, if not actually, locked up for years, and be nearly entirely illiquid. Second, it's not necessarily a good investment even considering that.  Real estate is something people tend to feel like it should be an amazing investment that just makes you money, and is better than risky things like the stock market; except it's really not.  It's quite risky, vulnerable to things like the 2008 crash, but also to things like a local market being a bit down, or having several months with no renter.   The amount your fund will have in it (at most $100x15/month) won't be enough to buy even one property for years ($1500/month means you're looking at what, 100-150 months before you have enough?), and as such won't have enough to buy multiple properties for even longer, which is where you reach some stability.  Having a washing machine break down or a roof leak is a big deal when you only have one property to manage; having five or six properties spreads out the risk significantly. You won't get tax breaks from this, of course, and that's where the real issue is for you.  You would be far better off putting your money in a Roth IRA (or a regular IRA, but based on your career choice and current income, I'd strongly consider a Roth).  You'll get tax free growth, less risky than this fund AND probably faster growing - but regardless of both of those, tax free.  That 15-25% that Uncle Sam is giving you back is a huge, huge deal, greater than any return a fund is going to give you (and if they promise that high, run far and fast). Finally, as someone who's watched a family trust work at managing itself - it's a huge, huge headache, and not something I'd recommend at least (unless it comes with money, in which case it's of course a different story).  You won't agree on investments, inevitably, and you'll end up spending huge amounts of time trying to convince each other to go with your idea - and it will likely end up being fairly stagnant and conservative, because that's what everyone will be able to at least not object to. It might be something you all enjoy doing, in which case good luck - but definitely not my cup of tea. Here's a little different perspective. I'm not going to talk about the quality of the investment, the expected return, or any of the other things you normally talk about when evaluating investments. This is about family, and the most important thing here is the relationships.  What you need to do here is look at the different possible scenarios and figure out how each of these would make you feel. Only you can evaluate this. For example, here are some questions to ask yourself: I know how I would answer these questions, but that wouldn't help you any. But the advice I would give you is, assuming you have this money to lose, and are also investing elsewhere, evaluate this solely on the basis of the effect on your family relationships.  The only other piece of advice I would give you is to knock out that student loan and car loan debt as fast as you possibly can. Minimize your investments until that debt is gone, so you can get rid of it even faster. It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke.
Oh, don't expect us to take sides, we love both our parents the same! As to the pragmatic decision making - simple math. The disagreement is whether to pay off the HELOC or to invest into the mutual fund instead. Well, check the yield of the fund, compare to the costs of keeping the HELOC balance, and see which one makes more sense. Just compare the expected payments and gains for each of the scenarios and you'll get your answer. My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent.  The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed.  You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse.  The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early.  However, this cost is only temporary.  By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost.  By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk. "There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt.  I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans.  I've seen people refer to saving as ""paying yourself"" if that helps justify it in your mind.  My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn.  Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off?  Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off.  There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever.  If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement.  Don't get suckered into their high-fee ""Retirement 20XX"" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans." "From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward.  Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008.  So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse.  You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is).  If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead.   The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as ""irrational"".  Paying off debt feels good.  Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well).  If that makes them mindless ""minions"" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)" "Investing the money is only wise if the return on the investment outpaces your highest interest debt. Otherwise, you are making less than is going out. Given that you are in your late 50's, High risk investments are probably a poor idea.   If you're truly worried about having enough to retire, I would take 15% of that money and put it toward your emergency fund. Then the rest I would use to pay down your highest interest credit line.  You are short on funds right now so I would avoid using the HELOC. Your HELOC is available now, but if times get tight, the bank can decide to freeze your credit line. Instead, if you need a line of credit, look into a personal line of credit. The interest rate wont be as good as your HELOC but it's more stable.  If you haven't already, I would pickup ""The Richest Man in Babylon"". Read the lessons in it and see if you can use the tools it provides to tighten your situation up. The lessons mostly apply to people in the first half of life, but they are fundamentals regardless. Good Luck! (Information on the HELOC was stolen from Jasper's answer here... HELOC with no first mortgage (for liquidity--no plans to spend it) )" There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often. If you can get a rate of savings that is higher than your debt, you save.  If you can't then you pay off your debt.  That makes the most of the money you have. Also to think about:  what are you goals?  Do you want to own a home, start a family, further your education, move to a new town?  All of these you would need to save up for.  If you can do these large transactions in cash you will be better off. If it were me I would do what I think is a parroting of Dave Ramsay's advice Congratulations by the way.  It isn't easy to do what you have accomplished and you will lead a simpler life if you don't have to worry about money everyday. "My biggest concern with this plan is that there's no going back should you decide that it is not going to work, either due to the strain on the relationship or for some other reason.   If you were borrowing from a relative in place of a mortgage or a car loan, you can always refinance, and might just pay a little more interest or closing costs from a bank.  Student loans are effectively unsecured, so your only option for a ""refinance"" would be to get a personal, unsecured loan (or borrow against existing collateral if you have it). You are going to have a tough time getting another 50k unsecured personal loan at anywhere near student-loan rates.   The other negative aspects (overall risk of borrowing from family, loss of possible tax deduction) make this plan a no-go for me. (I'm NOT saying that it's always a good idea to borrow from family for homes or cars, only that there's at least an exit plan should you both decide it was a bad idea)." An extra payment on a loan is, broadly speaking, a known-return, risk-free investment. (That the return on the investment is in reduced costs going forward instead of increased revenue is basically immaterial, assuming you have sufficient cash flow to handle either situation.) We can't know what the interest rates will be like going forward, but we can know what they are today, because you gave us those numbers in your question. Quick now: Given the choice between a known return of 3.7% annually and a known return of 7% annually, with identical (and extremely low) risk, where would you invest your money? By putting the $15k toward the $14k loan, you free up $140 per month and have $1k left that you can put toward the $30k loan, which will reduce your payment term by $1k / $260/month or about 4 months. You will be debt free in 14 years 8 months. You pay $14,000 instead of $16,800 on the $14,000 loan, reducing the total cost of the loan by $2,800, and reduce the cost of the $30,000 loan by four months' worth of interest which is about $175 (so the $30,000 loan ends up costing you something like $46,600 instead of $46,800). By putting the $15k toward the $30k loan, you cut the principal of that one in half. Assuming that you keep paying the same amount each month, you will reduce the payment term by 7 ½ years, and will be debt free in 10 years (because the $14,000 10-year loan now has the longer term). Instead of paying $46,800 for the $30k loan, you end up paying $23,400 plus the $15,000 = $38,400, reducing the total cost of the $30,000 loan by $8,400 while doing nothing to reduce the cost of the $14,000 loan. To a first order estimate, using the $15,000 to pay off the $14,000 loan in full will improve your cash flow in the short term, but putting the money toward the $30,000 loan will give you a three-fold better return on investment over the term of both loans and nearly halve the total loan term, assuming unchanged monthly payments and unchanged interest rates. That's how powerful compounding interest is. According to Dave Ramsey you should pay off the house. What I've found is that I'm willing to work a lot harder at saving money to put toward the house when I have that specific goal in mind.  If I were to put the money in the market instead then I would be less likely to make as many sacrifices and would inevitability end up putting less money away. I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described. "Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become ""house- rich but cash-poor"". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire." I've read the answers and respect the thought behind them.  I'd like to focus on (a) the magnitude of the emergency, and (b) the saving rate of the people affected. 3-6 months is interesting. It's enough not just to fix the car, repair the A/C, etc, but more than enough to lose one's job and recover. (Let's avoid the debate of how long it take to find a job, no amount of 'emergency savings' can solve that.) If one is spending below their means, any unexpected expense that can paid off within, say 3 months, doesn't really need to tap emergency funds (EF). And, at some level of income and retirement savings, one can more easily run a much lower EF.  My own situation - I had 9mo worth of expenses saved as EF. We were living well beneath our means, and I was looking at the difference between our mortgage (6%+) vs bank interest (near 0%). I used the funds to pay down principal, refinanced to a lower rate, and at the same closing got a HELOC. The psychology of this is tough, it then appears that for simple expenses, I'd be borrowing from my HELOC. On the other hand, the choice was between a known cost, the $5K/year the money was costing by sitting there plus the lower rate by going to a non-jumbo loan at the time, vs the risk of using 3% money from the HELOC. In the end, the HELOC was never tapped for more than a small portion of its line, and I never regretted the decision. Ironically, it's the person who isn't saving much that need the EF most. If you are a saver, you need to judge how long it would take to replace the funds.  I offer the above not as a recommendation, but as devil's advocate to the other excellent advice here. All cash flows are a choice, $100 going here, can't go there. I'd slip in a warning that one should capture matching 401(k) contributions, if offered, before funding the EF. And pay down any high interest debt. After that, the decision of how liquid to be is a personal choice, what worked for my wife and me may not be for everyone. The breakeven amount isn't at 8 years. You calculated how many years of paying $500 it would take to break even with one year of paying $4000. 8 x 10 years = 80 years. So by paying $500/year it will take you 80 years to have spent the same amount ($40000 total) as you did in 10 years. At this point it may seem obvious what the better choice is. Consider where you'll be after 10 years: In scenario #1 you've spent $5000 ($500*10) and have to continue spending $500/year indefinitely. In scenario #2 you've spent $40000 ($4000*10) and don't have to pay any more, but you currently have $35000 ($40000 - $5000) less than you did in scenario #1. If you had stayed with scenario #1 you could invest that $35000 at a measly 1.43% annual return and cover the $500 payments indefinitely without ever dipping into your remaining $35000. Most likely over the long term you'll do better than 1.43% per year and come out far ahead. "I did a rough model and in terms of total $$ paid (interest + penalty - alternative investment income) both options are almost the same with the ""paying it all upfront"" being perhaps a $300 or so better ($9200 vs $8900) However, that doesn't factor in inflation or tax considerations. Personally I'd go with the ""no-penalty"" scenario since you have more flexibility and can adjust along the way if anything else comes up in the meantime."