Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Mortgages: I've learned that

Razorguns

Well-known member
more and more rich people take out interest loans.

They take out i-only loans, and from the difference they save - they invest in an investment or fund (at 4.5%-9%/yr).

Since most loans are interest only first 5-10 years, they don't miss out much. But at least the money is in THEIR hands, gaining interest. And if you ever lose a job or what have you - you got money right there in your hands. Not in a mortgage lender's hands for 30 years.

makes sense.
 
Foregoing the paydown on principal is the same as saying that you think you can get a higher return on your money than the interest rate on your mortgage (taking into account the tax deductible nature of interest).

The return you receive by paying down principal on your mortgage is 100% risk free, which makes the return more appealing than a similar investment returning a simlar rate.

Some people have the ability to earn a higher rate than the rate on their mortgage, others don't.

Some rich people are also overconfident in their investment skills. Other are justified in taking this approach.

The comment you made cuts both ways. Since the first 5-10 years of a mortgage are mostly interest, you aren't missing out on much principal paydown, but you also don't save that much on an I/O mortgage either.

A rich person is more able to withstand a negative equity situation on their home should the situation present itself and they had to sell their home, they'd have cash to make up the difference.
 
By the way, just to take your example there, you're a little bit mistaken in your acceptable range of return to implement this strategy.

If mortgage rates are say, 7%, getting an I/O mortgage and putting the money you save into a fund returning 4.5% would be a wealth destroying maneuver.
 
And as a final thought, poor people are more likely to say they would take the money they save each month and invest it to build wealth, but would most likely actually use the money to finance the purchase of a plasma screen TV over the next 3 years at a 20% annual interest rate.

Having the money go directly to paydown a traditional mortgage is a way to FORCE a person to have savings. Which is good for a lot of people.
 
But If the value of the House goes down or the property market they live in collapses....

They end up owing 300K-500K more than the house is worth & they will need to pay to sell their home....

Much of the California market is interest-only, the Houses are way Over-Valued & they're job market is always in flux....

Interest-Only is always a loser's bet, you'd be better off renting....

At least you wouldn't possibly lose something you don't even own.



:coffee:
 
TanOsaurus said:
But If the value of the House goes down or the property market they live in collapses....

They end up owing 300K-500K more than the house is worth & they will need to pay to sell their home....

Much of the California market is interest-only, the Houses are way Over-Valued & they're job market is always in flux....

Interest-Only is always a loser's bet, you'd be better off renting....

At least you wouldn't possibly lose something you don't even own.



:coffee:
incorrect. as I said before, certain individuals have the ability to allocate investable cash in such a manner as to earn a higher rate of return than paying the money toward a mortgage each month. In this way, we are looking at a mortgage interest rate as a cost of capital, to use traditional financial terms. If you can return higher than the mortgage rate in other investments (i.e. invest at a rate higher than your cost of capital) you will create wealth. If you cannot, you are destroying wealth. The value of the home is independent of this decision. If a house loses $500,000 of value, it doesn't matter what kind of mortgage you have. You also have to adjust the rate you believe you can return in other investments for RISK, as I said, paying down your mortgage is a 100% risk free investment, returning your the rate on your mortgage. And also have to adjust for the tax deductible nature of interest on a mortgage.
 
bran987 said:
incorrect. as I said before, certain individuals have the ability to allocate investable cash in such a manner as to earn a higher rate of return than paying the money toward a mortgage each month. In this way, we are looking at a mortgage interest rate as a cost of capital, to use traditional financial terms. If you can return higher than the mortgage rate in other investments (i.e. invest at a rate higher than your cost of capital) you will create wealth. If you cannot, you are destroying wealth. The value of the home is independent of this decision. If a house loses $500,000 of value, it doesn't matter what kind of mortgage you have. You also have to adjust the rate you believe you can return in other investments for RISK, as I said, paying down your mortgage is a 100% risk free investment, returning your the rate on your mortgage. And also have to adjust for the tax deductible nature of interest on a mortgage.

interesting. but i'd rather have cash on-hand, making good rates - then in someone else hands, making a lousy rate. The key is to invest (not spend) and provide protection in case u lose a job or have a medical emergency.

---- here's the original post i read: -----

All the stuff you posted is basicly what I'm doing except for one part -how to handle debt - this might be kind of a long read too but worth it.

I have sat down with my accountant - mortgage broker and my investment consultant at Ameriprise to set up my plan - this might not work for everyone but for me this is the perfect plan.

Here is my debt plan that we are putting into place next week actually when we close on our new refinance. Here it goes - I hope it will help some of you -


I had a long two hour conversation with my mortgage broker. What he told me blew my mind. People today look at debt the wrong way - esp since the old way of debt no longer holds true. This is what we disscussed for me as the best plan.

Back when our parents generation finally had gotten enough money to buy a house they took out a 30 year mortgage - why 30 years?? Who came up with that number?? Well - people used to work for the same company from 18 till retirement - my father for example started at First National City Bank as a bike messenger at the age of 18 - left Citibank at the age of 58 as a Vice President!!!! With no college education mind you - just night school. He had 10 years of no mortgage payments to add to his savings and then sell the house - buy a retirement house in FLA or some where cheaper - live on the difference (the equity that was built up over the 40 years) and his stock options and investments in retirement accounts and 401k's.

My father died 2 weeks after he retired. What did paying down his mortgage get him??? Well in the end - nothing. None of us know what our future brings - is this going to happen to everyone?? No - but it could. No one knows.

The plan I am putting in place.

I sold the house my parents bought just last year. They paid $19,000 for it in 1962 - I sold it in 2005 for $440,000.(my father passed away in 1991) That is serious growth. I also sold at the peak time in the market so that helped. I owed $100k so I walked away with $300k in equity.
My wife and I bought the house we live in now for $677,000. We took out a frist mortgage for $450k and a second for $100k. Between those loans and our credit cards and car payments school loans we were still $600k in debt but we were paying between 6.5% and 29% on various loans and credit cards.

Here's where I had my mind blown -
My motgage guy and account almost at the same time said - " Just take out a single $600k loan- INTEREST ONLY!!!!!"
WTF - HOW THE HELL IS THAT GOING TO HELP ME?????
Here's how - now this only works IF you are willing to SAVE MONEY on a regular basis.

My mortgage guy does a lot of BIG loans - $1mil loans on a daily basis - almost all of them are interest only - why is that?? Rich people know how to SAVE MONEY!!!! He started doing a little research with some of his buddies that only work with really wealthy clients - those with assets over $5 mill. They all had a mortgages that are interest only and total 80% of their homes value when they bought it.

First he asked me - do I intend to move again with in 5 years?? My wife and I have really bought our dream home and we pretty much won't sell till we retire - maybe not even then. Then he asked me if we were done with any improvments that needed to be done for the next 5 years?? We are - we have done over $100k in inprovments on the house over the last year.

He had me add up what I send every month to ALL of my debt. Mortages - car payments - school loans etc. My monthly nut was $6100 a month just in debt payments which included paying $500 a month towards principle every month for the big mortgtage.

A $600k interest only mortgage - $3750 a month!!!!!!!!! Add on $1100 a month for prop taxes and insurance - we would save $1250 a month.
We take $1000 a month and automaticly put it into an online savings account like ING getting 4.5% interest - we have already doubled our "savings" of $500 a month in "equity" if we were to still pay a reg mortgage.

In 5 years - we would have gained approx. $35,000 in house equity by paying the mortgage down - when we put $1000 a month in savings @ 4.5% in 5 years we have $67,000+ in the bank - I put the plus there cause here is where it gets crazy.
The government will "pay" basicly two of your mortgage payments!!!!!!!!! WTF - Yes - the interest of a first mortgage is tax deductable -credit cards are not - my tax returns - with the added child deduction - sholud be about $7500 - put that into savings as well- do not pay down your mortgage with it - save it - that equals $37,500 in 5 years - you now have $105,000 IN CASH IN THE BANK!!!!!!!!

Here is an extra bouns - my house was just appraised for $800K - if we add only 3% increase in value each year - that is what the market should be not the 15-20% it has been - in 5 years the home is now worth $920K -and you still only owe $600K - on top of the $105 in the bank - I now have $320k in value again!!!

Now you have $100k CASH in the bank and lets say you lose your job - how different is your life now??? What bank is going to give you your $35k in equity back with no job???

The last part - and here is why I told you all the story about my father - I have over $1 mil in life insurance - god forbid something happens to me - the house is paid off - with tax free life insurance money - my wife and child now have no mortgage payments - over $500k in the bank and a house worth over $1 million dollars.

That is how the rich get richer - and you ain't going to learn that in school......

My numbers might seam big to some people - it's the principle and putting it into action - you could start with much lower numbers and come out with the same result - it just might take 10 years instead of 5 - the math works.
 
Razor

I sort of agree with you. Just bought a $450k townhouse in Northern VA w/a 30 yr IO loan. With credits from the seller/buyer agents, it covered my closing costs of and still had $6500 left over to get hardwood flooring in the master, formal dining and living rooms.. I still have $12k sitting in my ING acct earning like you said 4.5%...

I plan on putting away approx $1800/month into the ing acct each month, so thats already $21600 a year not counting the interest compounding. The goal is to have as much liquidity and at the same time make 1 extra mortgage payment to cut down the years. Yeah my mortgage is high $2800/month, but i plan on putting as much away into savings or investment.

Learned this from my friend who is my age and owns 3 townhouses and 1 condo
 
Razor....

What you posted sounds like me making a sale LOL...

that was written by someone that got sold up and down the river by someone or someone in the business. Probably someone in the business as the term "monthly nut" is way too common in the industry.

It's not that hard of a premise to consolidate higher rate and payment loans(2nd's, credit card's) into 1 loan.
 
If someone has the discipline and is in a market where this loan would make sense, a neg am loan is the way to go. Without having my calc on me, a $600K home would roughly have a $2300 payment at a rate of 1.5%. It's a difference of about $1200 if you go I.O., and probably close to $1500-1700 fixed. ARM's are as high or higher than fixed right now, so neither of those make a difference. The average person refinances every 5 years anyway, so I don't get why so many insist upon fixed rates.

Anyhoo, at the end of 3 years with the neg am loan, if you are in an area with a 2% appreciation rate, you'll be in the same boat LTV wise that you were when you took the loan out, only you saved at least $42K in 3 years. Aside from a few shithole ares in the country, nothing appreciates at 2%, so you're fine there. There isn't a loan program in existence that will apply that much toward your principlein 3 years, so if paying your house off faster is your goal, do that.

Thing is, it's usually a new Rover Sport that shows up in the driveway instead of a lower balance, a savings account, or 2 years at Villanova. Long story short, mortgages work the way you make them work. You fuck up, and somehow it's the loan officer's fault. I hate people.
 
jnevin said:
If someone has the discipline and is in a market where this loan would make sense, a neg am loan is the way to go. Without having my calc on me, a $600K home would roughly have a $2300 payment at a rate of 1.5%. It's a difference of about $1200 if you go I.O., and probably close to $1500-1700 fixed. ARM's are as high or higher than fixed right now, so neither of those make a difference. The average person refinances every 5 years anyway, so I don't get why so many insist upon fixed rates.

Anyhoo, at the end of 3 years with the neg am loan, if you are in an area with a 2% appreciation rate, you'll be in the same boat LTV wise that you were when you took the loan out, only you saved at least $42K in 3 years. Aside from a few shithole ares in the country, nothing appreciates at 2%, so you're fine there. There isn't a loan program in existence that will apply that much toward your principlein 3 years, so if paying your house off faster is your goal, do that.

Thing is, it's usually a new Rover Sport that shows up in the driveway instead of a lower balance, a savings account, or 2 years at Villanova. Long story short, mortgages work the way you make them work. You fuck up, and somehow it's the loan officer's fault. I hate people.
I am just having a hard time believing this, but I know you're a mortgage guy. Is there any way you could show me an amortization schedule on a neg am loan vs. an I/O loan under the above scenario you describe? I know how to do a fixed, arm or I/O loan amort. schedule but we never use neg ams in commercial investment so I'm not even sure I know how to build one. How fast does it negatively amortize? PM me if want to send me to my email or if you could?
 
bran987 said:
I am just having a hard time believing this, but I know you're a mortgage guy. Is there any way you could show me an amortization schedule on a neg am loan vs. an I/O loan under the above scenario you describe? I know how to do a fixed, arm or I/O loan amort. schedule but we never use neg ams in commercial investment so I'm not even sure I know how to build one. How fast does it negatively amortize? PM me if want to send me to my email or if you could?


I'll do it Monday, but shoot me a PM with your email, I'll be happy to.
 
Top Bottom