Why you shouldn’t pay off your home mortgage.

The full title of this article is really…

Why you shouldn’t pay off your home mortgage when you have a house but invest in assets instead

Ok – now that I have your attention I hear you ask- Why shouldn’t I pay off our home mortgage?- that is what our parents did, isn’t it?

Our parents worked, bought a nice house in the suburbs –and now 25 years later it is paid off (or nearly) and if they sold it they would make a lot of money (which would probably be exempt from capital gains because it has been their main residence the whole time).

Rich people think differently to middle class

So isn’t paying off your mortgage smart financial advice? Well Yes and No.

Paying off your mortgage is a lot better than blowing your money on clothes, coffee and the gym membership (or whatever you spend your money on).

And your accountant will often tell you to pay off your mortgage to reduce non-tax deductible debt (as if you are paying interest – if you can get a tax deduction for it you can get a refund of 30% – or whatever your marginal tax rate is).

An idea that is different to the masses

However –  what if you were to switch your home loan to be interest only and never pay it off?

And with the extra money saved by making principal repayments (which might be a few hundred dollars a month) – buy an investment property (or better yet a few!).

Here’s how it works

Option A- Pay off your home: If you bought your unit/house at 400,000 – in 30 years you would have paid off the home loan. Also the house would have gone up in value. If the house increased by 3.25% a year on average (e.g. year one worth $400k x 3.25% = $413,000, Year 2, $426,423, etc.) by the 30th year it would be worth $889,839 by my calcs. Estimated Home future value.   So your NET WORTH (assets less liabilities) would be $889,839 house (as you have paid off the loan (less property selling costs).

Option B - Invest in More Properties If however you switched your loan to interest only your home would be still worth $889,839   and you would still have the $400,000 loan = so if you sold your home (net home) you would get $489,839 less costs.

BUT WAIT… if you purchased the house next door for 400,000 – then at the end of the day you would have equity on the 2nd property of $489,839.

489,839 x 2 =$979,678 (less selling costs)

Also with the investment property you would be able to claim the negative gearing each year on the property (probably save yourself a few grand of tax each year).

Convincing your banker

It might be a bit harder convincing your banker on this idea.

The drawbacks to this more risky idea

1. You can’t make repayments and have to sell out early

2. You end up worse off (although at 3.25% you end up better off.. and some people say that real estate can go up up to 7% a year)

Other investments rather than property

This also works a bit with shares – but it doesn’t work as well because you don’t get the same leverage as shares. Also with shares there is the risk of trading in and out (for example if you thought the market was still going down and sold in Feb   – you would have missed the large growth in the sharemarket since March 2009.

Posted in Property
  • Alistair

    Mate, All sounds well and good although in theory if you are making repayments on a principle and intrest loan of 450k at approx $650 a week how would you make the money you would save from doing intrest only work if intrest only repayments were $550.
    In essence how do I use that $100 to benifit me more so?

    I cannot see how it works when if you pay P&I not only are you in effect saving money but you are reducing the amount of intrest you pay over time, and in saying that, for your theory to work you would need to keep the dwelling (realistically) for approx 10yrs to cover stampduty, legal, cap gains etc , can you show me some more details to support your theory?

Sign up




Tweet This
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline