Why would you pay off your house when you can keep the cash in an investment account making > 5% APR vs. the house loan which presumably is in the low 3s.
I asked someone that in my mid 20's. He said "It's nice knowing I can support my family working at McDonalds if I have to." That stuck with me. Something fundamental changes in your life when you become debt-free.
This to me is the only legitimate criticism, and it really boils down to risk-reward.
If you're holding cash for say a backup fund, great! That's good security and everyone should aspire to that. But also acknowledge that with 6% inflation, you're actually losing 6% on that backup fund.
Inflation is insipid. You _must_ take risk with your funds just to not lose the value of it.
This certainly seems to be the case, but it's fustrating. I can think of no fundamental reason why it should be so. Other than speculators and govt policies backfiring to destroy the safety of alternative places to keep your money besides cash.
Then add to that the fact that you're taxed on `gains` for investment.
So buy an ounce of gold. 1 year later sell it for 6% more than you paid. Cool, beat inflation right?
Well, no because now you pay capital gains on something that isn't really worth more than when you bought it.
Inflation _is_ a tax...
> govt policies backfiring
Yeah sure, they're `backfiring`...
The stated goal of govt seems to be low (but positive) levels of inflation and high growth. The current situation with high inflation and low interest rates makes even tax-free govt bonds undesirable. And they will need to raise rates. So I'd say policies are backfiring, yes.
> The stated goal of govt seems to be low (but positive) levels of inflation and high growth.
Yes, and I disagree with that position too, but people are taught Keynesian economics, so even beginning to unfurl that mess is asking for a downvote storm.
The same people that will argue inflation is beneficial for growth tend to believe they are also open minded, free thinking, and well `educated`. It makes for a difficult argument often resulting in a lot of pointing to `authorities` on the matter.
At least monetary wealth can be diversely invested; so you have some control over it. Most of the risks that come from owning a house are completely out of your hands.
Being able to pay off a debt at anytime is equally freeing, for me at least. Paying off a loan with an interest rate significantly below inflation is not a great use of money[1] (and an opportunity loss). Putting that lumpsum into bonds (any bond with interest higher than the loan) is better, or even investing in stocks with a stop-loss. If I lose my job and have to flip burgers, that's when I'll pay off the loan and get a little extra from the investment/bond, thanks to the power of compounding interest.
1. Its the equivalent of someone offering you a 6- or 7-figure loan payable in 20/30 years at 2-3% when inflation is 6%, and you decline.
How is a bunch of money tied up in debt, and an equal amount invested to hedge that not a huge opportunity sink?
Let me remind you that in 2008 things were so screwed up, some lenders lost track of who owed what. Having a hard copy document that shows a debt was close out is not the same as having assets that could pay off the loan. Keep in mind too that it was also not a good time to trade investments for cash.
There are risks in every approach. I can't imagine taking out a loan on a property today and investing the money thinking it will beat the interest payments over the next couple years. At other times, it's less risky but the rates will probably also be higher at those times.
You can save up so that you have enough money invested to cover all the remaining loan payments and consider that having paid off the house. But don't send the money to the mortgage company, invest it into something stable that pays more than the mortgage interest and you're better off.
(Not historically always possible, but with today's interest rates pretty easy.)
One is guaranteed, one is not. Markets are volatile. I lived through 2001 and 2008 as a working stiff, that shit can drop on a dime.
Right now, I have no debts. House and vehicle are paid off and I have an "oh shit" account that's pretty good. I can sit here as a hermit for at least a year or two, three if I really hunkered down and pinched pennies. It's a good feeling; one less thing to worry about.
Now if I put all that money into the market and shit hit the fan, not only would I not be willing to sell stocks due to their price plummeting, I would still have a mortgage and car payment. I'd be in this situation for 6 months to a year. Not a great situation.
Ensure your freedom / ability to live first, then invest heavily, IMO.
That 3 years of cash on hand would be better off in some kind of investment and if you're worried, supported by a volatility buffer.
Source: https://www.straight.com/news/canadian-home-prices-have-rise...
Go buy a house that will increase by >5%/year, but then don't pay it off any sooner than you have to.
Make the minimum payments, and invest in something that will return a stable 5%+ with your remaining income.
Just because the house itself increases in value, doesn't mean you should pay down the ~3% interest rate loan any faster than you have to.
And really, once you've built enough via this strategy, you should either invest in a more expensive house or buy a house to rent afterward.
This is all the consequence of inflation and easy money/loans, but the smart money move is to never pay off low interest rate loans. This is particularly true when inflation (acknowledged anyway) is 6%.
Using the 6% number, you're actually gaining (on average) 3% on a 3% loan just by using the cash.
Make 3 columns, "mortgage paid," "investment", "no-mortgage". Pretend the house is $100k. With the mortgage you get to keep that money and invest it, so first row in "investment:" should be $100k. Put $0 in the "no-mortgage" column, put $-421 * 12 in the "mortgage paid" column. I got that number from a mortgage calculator, assuming $100k loan and 3% interest over 30 years.
Then in row 2, "mortgage paid" cell should be previous cell - $421 * 12. You will keep paying this for 30 years.
"investment cell" should be previous cell * 1.05. We assume the investment return is 5% over long term.
The no-mortgage column stays 0. You spent the $100k to pay for the house, so it's gone right off the bat.
Repeat this for 30 rows (years). Then at the end look at the difference between investment vs. mortgage paid columns.
And then get back to me and tell me if you still think that is a "smaller total return" :-)
I'm just old enough to remember what the financial crisis did to people's pensions. I'm happier to take risks with the rest of my money if my home isn't exposed to them.
During a crash I'd expect to lose on both earnings and investments. Losing my home as well would suck.
You never know when they're going to pull the rug from the infinite growth market. Maybe Crypto will do that? Maybe a few more years of lockdown? Who knows?
I agree that it's an unlikely scenario, but I'd rather be poorer and own my house than be dependant on a bank - even if that means compromising on its size or location.
The worst ever 20-year return for S&P 500 was +6.4% per year for the 240 month period ending in May 1979.