That makes no sense. You'll be better off paying a lower interest rate than you would be not having a loan in a high rate environment?
So, if you bought shares of an Emerging Markets ETF [1] with the money that you would have otherwise paid for accelerated mortgage payments. Today these shares are paying you around 3.5% in dividends alone.
Fast forward ten years to a high rate environment, and ten years of buying ETF shares and reinvesting dividends, I'm assuming that the dollar amount of your shares would be higher than the amount of debt you would have otherwise paid off already.
That's why no other country on Earth that I know of has 30-year fixed mortgages. They are essentially a government subsidy to homeowners via Fannie/Freddie.
You're financing two assets, you home and your portfolio with some mixture of debt and equity. Without making assumptions about the expected return of the housing market, the return on your portfolio, the variance of those returns and the horizon, its not clear that you'd still be better off.
You say take advantage of the cheap (tax-favored too) leverage -- I'd be concerned medium term variance in returns. That ETF you pointed to is down over the past 10 years and underperformed the market -- and it looks like it missed a few dividend payments during the crisis.
https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=1&...
> That's why no other country on Earth that I know of has 30-year fixed mortgages. They are essentially a government subsidy to homeowners via Fannie/Freddie.
So yes, technically some people now could have loans with negative interest rates, but there is usually an extra clause for a minimum or 0% or 1% or somesuch.