Millionaires: do they pay off their mortgages?

Where do you stand with respect to net worth and mortgage payments?

  • Milliionaire making mortgage payments

    Votes: 106 25.9%
  • Non-millionaire making mortgage payments

    Votes: 96 23.5%
  • Non-millionaire with paid off home

    Votes: 43 10.5%
  • Milliionaire with paid off home

    Votes: 147 35.9%
  • Renter, live with parents, or other housing arrangements

    Votes: 17 4.2%

  • Total voters
    409

LOL!

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
10,252
Since the net worth poll shows lots of millionaires around these parts, I thought it would be interesting to see where folks stand with their money and the heated argument of "Pay off mortgage vs Investing".

No need to rant, expound at length, condemn the other side, etc., but please vote. Thanks!
 
... but the rants and condemnations are more than half the fun of it!
 
One couple I know in their 50s took out 3 million in 30-yr 5.5% fixed debt by mortgaging a number of investment properties. For every 1% above 5.5% they earn on the money, they make $30k per year. And they have much more flexibility with the money. 30 years is a long time. Over the long haul, it shouldn't be hard for them to earn 7-10%. Of course there is risk too, but that's part of the game.
 
Still have a 60K mortgage at 6% on a $200K+ home. $400/mo P&I. I'll keep the money invested and make the payment. Not that big of a deal.
 
I was doing the risk-free arbitrage thing for a while (5% mortgage, 6% CD), but we sold that house, and I haven't bothered leveraging the current home. If fixed rates drop down to 5% (with no points), I'll probably do it again.
 
We sold our condo 1.5 years ago and are currently renting. We will probably be buying a home this year and have been talking about putting a large down payment and mortgage the remainder. It really comes down to where we buy and the price of the housing market.
 
We have a 5.625% fixed rate, 30-year loan, with the option of interest-only payments for 8 more years, plus some paid off investment properties. No logical reason to pay off the home debt ... prefer the liquidity of taking those principal payments and investing.
 
We are paid off where we are now, but would not be opposed to a mortgage depending on rates, pricing, future use of property, etc., in the future.
 
tio z said:
We are paid off where we are now, but would not be opposed to a mortgage depending on rates, pricing, future use of property, etc., in the future.

This is my thought. I have alot of money to put to work in the coming year or so. The plan is to do that and if interest rates fall; take out a mortgage and invest the equity.
 
My home was paid off when I was forced ER'd before I thought it was appropriate to really ER. I now think (thanks to this forum) we could have done fine but that's another story. I found that most of my assets were tied up in my IRA. We had a bit of a liquidity problem. That house was sold and I moved across town to a new j*b. The new house has a 6 1/8% mortgage and the cash is available should I need it in the next few years. My plan is to sell this house soon and pay cash for a less expensive retirement place. I am working on improving my liquidity and now understand 72(t).
 
1 year left on a 15 year mortgage. Having the mortgage has let me pay cash for other consumer items (vehicle, home improvements) while continuing to fully fund all my investments in my financial plan. When the mortgage is done next year, the P&I payments will be made out each month to the mutual fund of my choice.
 
A few years ago I received a windfall and decided to pay off all of my liabilities, including my mortgage. At the time, I had about four years or so to go on a 15 year committment and a balance due of about $65K. Prior to receiving the windfall, I didn't bother to refinance my 7.75% rate because I figured that the benefits of a lower rate would have been eaten up by the costs of refinancing. Anyway, not having to pay a P&I of about $1250 per month, two car payments of about $700 per month, and other consumer debt of about $500 per month has been a real windfall. After paying off all of my liabilities, I have redirected all of that cash to savings which I have managed to increase to somewhere in the $3,000 per month range. This has been invaluable as I come down the homestretch to early retirement. Another side benefit of having no debt is how it has changed my mindset about buying things. Now I think in terms of accumulating the money FIRST for a purchase and then buying it rather than the habitual tendency to go into hock.

I am sure that much of this improvement has only been psychological in nature but I've never been sorry that I did it.
 
We continue to pay. The interest on the mortgage is very low as are the monthly payments (under $500/month)We can earn more by investing the money instead of paying off the mortgage early.
 
ScaredtoQuit,
Where did you get your avaitar?
 
I paid off my house in the early 90s. The note was at 10.25%. Been mortgage free ever since.
 
I decided not to vote since I just past the million. I would have voted "renter".
 
Just cannot abide debt of any kind. Liability is a 4 letter word to me. So no mortgage and no other debt. Earmark funds for major expenses before they become necessary (now saving for a new car to be purchased sometime after 2009).
 
i tend to agree with no debt though i still have a $70k mortgage at 5something% on a $4-500k house. currently studying the situation. might pay off this year. not sure if this is the house forever, if i will sell and travel or sell and move onto a boat.

there is a post on this very subject elsewhere on this forum which i found so interesting i hadn't realized until i got into the 2005 stuff that it was started in 2004. i like some of the argument in both directions. personally, i think i might pay off even if i sell soon. it speaks to the inner lazy in me, having one less check to write. even if all my bills are done automatically by the bank anyway, one less thing to think about.
 
One of the first things we did after reaching a 7 digit net worth was to pay off our (small) mortgage! At the time, our net worth was >90% company stock, and we assumed that risk hoping for greater appreciation. By paying off the house, we provided ourselves a little cushion in case things didn't turn out so well.

Of course a financial advisor would have told us to take a lot more off the table than just paying off our house! What we did was very, very risky.

On the other hand our peers thought we were insane at the time to sell ANY company stock at all - especially not to pay off the house!

It was nice having a paid off house for a couple of years while we waited until we could actually RE and then started seriously divesting company stock and building a diversified portfolio to retire on. I'm happy we took the path we did. And of course we were very lucky too!

Audrey

P.S. One of my peers took a very different approach. While employed, he took out a margin loan against company stock to build a $1M plus home! This in a city with low house prices. Boy - I don't think I would have been able to sleep at night!
 
We paid ours off last year and it is one of the best feeling in the world.
 
I'd never pay off a mortgage as long as we have the current tax laws in place. In fact, I am only paying interest. Why pay off a home? It actually costs you money to pay off a mortgage. It shocks me to see so many on this forum who find hundreds of ways to save money, but cling to the idea that being mortgage free is a good thing. Its old school thinking that costs you serious money. The higher your tax bracket the more important it is to have a mortgage. Even the lowest tax brackets would be far better off with a mortgage. Here is an example.
Ric Edelman has educated his clients for years on the benefits of integrating their mortgage into their overall financial plan. In his book, The New Rules of Money, Ric tells the story of two brothers, each of whom secures a mortgage to buy a $200,000 home. Each brother earns $70,000 a year and has $40,000 in savings.
The first brother, Brother A, believes in the old way of paying off a mortgage, which is as soon as possible. Brother A bites the bullet and secures a fifteen-year mortgage at 6.38% APR and shells out all $40,000 of his savings as a 20% down payment, leaving him zero dollars to invest. This leaves him with a monthly payment
of $1,383. Since he has a combined federal and state income tax rate of 32%, he is left with an average monthly net after-tax cost of $1,227. Also, in an effort to eliminate his mortgage sooner, Brother A sends an extra $100 to his lender every month.

Brother B, in contrast, subscribes to the new way of mortgage planning, choosing instead to carry a big, long-term mortgage. He secures a 30-year, interest-only loan at 7.42% APR. He outlays a small 5% down payment of $10,000 and invests the remaining $30,000 in a safe, moneymaking side account. His monthly payment is $1,175, 100% of which is tax deductible over the first 15 years, and 64% over the life of the loan, leaving him a monthly net after-tax cost of $799. Every month he adds $100 to his investments (the same $100 Brother A sent to his lender), plus the $428 he’s saved from his lower mortgage payment. His investment account earns an 8% rate of return. Which brother made the right decision?
The answer can be found by looking into the future. After just five years
Brother A has received $14,216 in tax savings, however he made zero dollars in savings and investments. Brother B, on the other hand, has received $22,557 in tax savings and his savings and investment account has grown to $83,513.

Now, what if both brothers suddenly lose their jobs? The story here turns rather bleak for Brother A. Without any money in savings, he has no way to get through the crisis. Even though he has $74,320 of equity in his home, he can’t get a loan because he doesn’t have a job. With no job and no savings, he can’t make his monthly payments and has no choice but to sell his home in order to avoid foreclosure. Unfortunately, at this point it’s a fire sale so he must sell at a discount, and then pay real estate commissions.
Brother B, while not particularly happy at the prospects of searching for a new job, is not worried because he has $83,513 in savings to tide him over. He doesn’t need a loan and can easily make his monthly payments, even if he is unemployed for years. He has no reason to panic, as he is still in control. Remember… Cash is King!

Now, let’s say neither brother lost his job. We’ll check in on them after fifteen years have passed since they purchased their homes and evaluate the results of their financing strategies.
Brother A has now received $25,080 in tax savings, he has $30,421 in savings and investments (once his home was paid off he started saving the equivalent of his mortgage payment each month), and owns his home outright. Not too bad, right?

Now let’s check on his Brother. Brother B has received $67,670 in tax savings and has $282,019 in savings and investments. If he chooses to, he can pay off the remaining mortgage balance of $190,000 and still have $92,019 left over in savings, free and clear.
I'd rather be brother B...... When I retire I will still have a mortgage. When they change the tax laws, then I'll change my strategy. :)
 
Alex said:
I'd never pay off a mortgage as long as we have the current tax laws in place. In fact, I am only paying interest. Why pay off a home? It actually costs you money to pay off a mortgage. It shocks me to see so many on this forum who find hundreds of ways to save money, but cling to the idea that being mortgage free is a good thing. Its old school thinking that costs you serious money. The higher your tax bracket the more important it is to have a mortgage. Even the lowest tax brackets would be far better off with a mortgage. Here is an example. I'd rather be brother B...... When I retire I will still have a mortgage. When they change the tax laws, then I'll change my strategy. :)

Alex, that's just the point. I'm retiring May 1st, at age 59. I will not have any income. I will not be drawing SS till age 66, I don't have a pension, and I don't have a mortgage. I don't need the "tax deduction", since I have no income ;) (other than what I draw from my retirement investments, which tax-wise, will be lower). However, if I still had to make a mortgage payment (based upon the 4% rule) I would have to take the mortgage payment x number of years I still need to pay it off and have this included in my retirement "base".

Remember, the view from before retirement (and having a steady income) is different from those "on their own", financially - folks like me that have no other income.

We built our home in 1994 (30-yr fixed mortgage). We paid it off in late 1999 (5.5 years, as a matter of fact). We "converted" our mortgage payment into an "investment payment" (100% of it). Guess what happend in the market from late 1999 till late 2002, and the subsequent run-up since then :D - that early mortgage payoff (with the subsequent investment in the market) allowed us to become FI at a much earler age...

- Ron
 
Alex said:
I'd rather be brother B...... When I retire I will still have a mortgage. When they change the tax laws, then I'll change my strategy. :)
We have this debate all the time. Most of us carried mortgages throughout our earning, saving and high tax lives. But some of us don't carry them into negative cash flow, low tax retirement. The flip side to the benefits is when Mr Permanent Mortgage retires in 2000 with $1M in savings and $40K in expenses. In 2003 with his portfolio battered that $1,000+ monthly payment (remember the deduction is only whatever exceeds his standard deduction * his new very low tax rate) looks like it needs $300K in the nest egg that he doesn't have anymore. Either strategy has its pluses and minuses.
 
Alex said:
I'd never pay off a mortgage as long as we have the current tax laws in place. In fact, I am only paying interest. Why pay off a home? It actually costs you money to pay off a mortgage. It shocks me to see so many on this forum who find hundreds of ways to save money, but cling to the idea that being mortgage free is a good thing. Its old school thinking that costs you serious money. The higher your tax bracket the more important it is to have a mortgage. Even the lowest tax brackets would be far better off with a mortgage. Here is an example. I'd rather be brother B...... When I retire I will still have a mortgage. When they change the tax laws, then I'll change my strategy. :)

I just did a quick read of that quote and I'm confused about the math...

His monthly payment is $1,175, 100% of which is tax deductible over the first 15 years, and 64% over the life of the loan, leaving him a monthly net after-tax cost of $799.

If it is 64% deductible over the life of the loan, shouldn't it be $1,175*64%*32% tax savings = $241 tax savings making the monthly net after-tax cost $934, not $799?
 
Back
Top Bottom