So what am I missing?

pb4uski

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
36,424
Location
Sarasota, FL & Vermont
I'm using a Schwab Bank Pledged Asset Line of Credit on my brokerage account as bridge financing for a home purchase instead of selling the collateral, using the proceeds to buy the house and replacing it later when the old house sells.

The underlying portfolio being used as collateral is a mix of preferred stock and money market funds and yields 6.1%.

If I were to liquidate the portfolio and use the proceeds for the house purchase and replace it later from the proceeds from the sale of the old home, my cost would be the 6.1% lost yield.

If I use the collateral loan it costs me 8.7% but I still get the 6.1% portfolio return, so my net cost is 2.6%. Once the old house sells I just use the proceeds to pay off the collateral loan.

So paying 2.6% is better than losing 6.1%. It seems too good to be true.

What am I missing?
 
No loan money stays the same.
With loan money loses 2.6%.
 
AFAIK that’s how collateral loans work. The broker has almost no risk. Earning 2.x on a risk free loan is better than any commission they would’ve earned (if any) if the collateral was sold to get the funds.

EDIT: My credit union has share secured loans. They charge 2% above the interest rate on the shares. I’ll never have enough shares to get a decent loan and of course IRA accounts can’t be used.
 
Last edited:
No loan money stays the same.
With loan money loses 2.6%.

No loan money does not stay the same because I would have to sell the collateral and use the proceeds to buy the house... so my cost is zero vs 2.6%.

Or put another way let's say that I borrow $100,000 and the loan is outstanding for a year.

If I take the loan I'll pay $8,700 in interest but the collateral will earn $6,100 so my net cost will be $2,600.

If I don't take the loan then I'll pay no interest, but I will earn nothing on the collateral since I sold it so my cost is nil.

Makes more sense now... thanks.
 
If the portfolio has appreciated, then you will have to pay capital gains tax. I was in this situation, and it seemed that the PAL was a better bet.
 
Seems a sound strategy, especially if it lets you avoid capital gains by not selling the paper assets, though preferreds and mms may not have much in gains.
 
In 3 months interest rates recede due to fed and the spread changes to less than you expect. I don't think it goes negative in a year, but it is a consideration.
 
I bought a car that way back in the 80's. I margined a $20,000 portfolio for $6000 loan. Over 2 years, the portfolio went up $6,000 and I sold some of the underlying stocks and paid off the loan. they took interest only payments out of the monthly cash flow. I thought it was a good move then.
 
Seems a sound strategy, especially if it lets you avoid capital gains by not selling the paper assets, though preferreds and mms may not have much in gains.

While the account does have one equity position with a significant unrealized gain I could sell the preferreds and MMF and raise the amount needed at a negligible capital gain. Part of my reason for not selling is I spent a fair about of time getting this portfolio where I want it to be and I don't want to sell, especially if the old house sells quickly. OTOH, it the old house take longer to sell then it might be worth it.
 
In 3 months interest rates recede due to fed and the spread changes to less than you expect. I don't think it goes negative in a year, but it is a consideration.

Declining interest rates will benefit me as the rate that I pay on the LOC will decline (based on 3m SOFR + a spread) but the 6.1% return is baked in based on dividends I'll receive in relation to what I paid.

So the 2.6% net cost will decline if rates decline.
 
Hope that piggybacking on this thread is OK.

I am in a similar situation. I am considering buying a new (to me) home in another state. But I would like to do the purchase prior to selling my current home (for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good).

In any case, I am now retired (for the second time, sort of), so living on pension(s) plus occasional withdrawals from a taxable account/accumulated savings. So far I am not taking social security or doing tax-deferred withdrawals (only Roth conversions). Because of this, looking at typical online "how much can I borrow" mortgage calculators shows that my current "income" (pension plus dividends from taxable accounts) isn't enough to get a mortgage on the new place, even after using the cash I have on hand (about 250K at the moment but will have about $350K later this summer after some CD's mature).

The true affordability of doing this isn't really in question (from my perspective at least) as properties I am looking at are under 10% of my net worth. Even assuming I was taxed at 50% on my net worth, that would still put the purchase under 20%.

I could sell appreciated assets or take money from a tax-deferred account but both of these approaches have tax implications: Most of my holdings in my taxable accounts have large % capital gains, and of course any distribution from a tax-deferred account is taxable as ordinary income.

My projected taxable income (job before retirement/cash out (mostly to a Roth), adjunct teaching pay (mostly going to tax deferred), old pension from mega-corp, new (small) pension from teaching gig -> puts me close to the 161K IRMAA threshold. [I was able to get it reduced to the $349.40 Part B + $33.30 Part D levels via appeal given I had retired (reduced hours)]. Single Filer. Thus, any appreciable sale of stock (e.g. 150K capital gains) or IRA withdraw will catapult me up additional IRMAA brackets and/or even beyond the 32% federal bracket...plus state tax considerations.

So, what to do? Some things I've been thinking of:
1) Stop this silliness - SSTOP looking at new places until I sell the current house, use the proceeds towards the new location. Issues: This will take time, and will likely require a double move (ugh). Also prices seem to be moving up in the new location (faster than the current). Leaves me in a high tax state vs. a lower tax situation.
2) Buy cheap at the new location - give up on finding the kind of place I really want and concentrate on something "good enough" so that I would be able to buy it for cash. Even if I desire to move/upgrade I would be *there* and the logistics would be better - plus taking capital gains or tax-deferred withdraws would be less costly in terms of taxes due to lower/no state taxes.
3) Do a Pledged Asset Loan - This would likely be the easiest logistically. Borrow a couple/few hundred K on the PAL, pay it back after eventually selling my current home. This would allow me to purchase the new place for "cash". Negative is that the rates are fairly high, about 9%-9.5%? So if I (as an example) borrowed $250K, my interest-only carry cost would be just under $2K/month.

4) Cash out some of my precious Roth IRA funds. I could likely fund the difference (between cash on hand and purchase price) by pulling funds from my Roth. I would need to calculate (and make sure I fully comprehend) the 5-year rule regarding Roth Conversions, but at first glance I think I would be OK. Negative: This would seriously deplete my Roth $.

5)Apply for social security (My FRA is 6/2024). This would up my income and making getting a mortgage for the gap (purchase price minus cash down) possible. Negatives: I now have social security income (which will make further Roth conversions more difficult) and more importantly stop my social security benefits growth. Ugh. However, I found the "Withdrawal of Application" option: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-521.pdf. If I were past June (FRA), I could do a Suspend of benefits? https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/suspend-social-security-then-restart/. For both of these, I would need to understand the ramifications/process better....

6) Gift assets to my child including appreciated stock and go partners on the property. The idea is my child, who is now a resident of the new location would do a joint purchase of the new place with me. My child would get the place anyway (eventually when I kick) and while this loses the step up in basis (in terms of the child's half), the state in question has an inheritance tax (so if I don't kick soon, it saves that %). Advantage: Child is in a lower tax bracket and lower capital gains situation. I estimate the child's tax impact on a 100K LTCG is worse case 19-20K. I would likely gift more (to make up for the tax impact on selling the appreciated securities.) I would gift cash for part (enough for my child to be half owner with me). This of course requires my child to freely and without coercion want to do this...as the money gifted from me is well, a gift. (I would have to file a Form 709.)
Advantages: Disadvantages: Somewhat complicated, assets are no longer mine (not really an issue), other that I'm not thinking of?
 
No loan money does not stay the same because I would have to sell the collateral and use the proceeds to buy the house... so my cost is zero vs 2.6%.

Or put another way let's say that I borrow $100,000 and the loan is outstanding for a year.

If I take the loan I'll pay $8,700 in interest but the collateral will earn $6,100 so my net cost will be $2,600.

If I don't take the loan then I'll pay no interest, but I will earn nothing on the collateral since I sold it so my cost is nil.

Makes more sense now... thanks.
IMO, there's nothing wrong with your logic. You're paying interest. You will post about a CD or bond and discuss the difference of 1 or 2% interest. What would be the difference between taking out a loan to invest in the market? When interest rates were 2-3% people (family members) were taking out loans to invest in the market. But at that time, you were pretty much guaranteed a positive return. You're paying interest whether you lose or win in the market. Not something we do. Although I did pay a small interest on a car loan to get the big discount, then paid off the loan in 3 months following the purchase. But we gained, not lost.
 
No loan money does not stay the same because I would have to sell the collateral and use the proceeds to buy the house... so my cost is zero vs 2.6%.

Or put another way let's say that I borrow $100,000 and the loan is outstanding for a year.

If I take the loan I'll pay $8,700 in interest but the collateral will earn $6,100 so my net cost will be $2,600.

If I don't take the loan then I'll pay no interest, but I will earn nothing on the collateral since I sold it so my cost is nil.

Makes more sense now... thanks.
I looked A LOT at this option a few months ago. There are 3 more points that made me decide against it in my case:
1) I would also pay tax on the $6,100 (although less in my case) earnings which increases the net cost.
2) The loan can be called at any time for any reason - not just a drop in assets. While a slim chance it would wipe out any possible benefits.
3) I would lose control of the account and have to ask permission to even take out gains to pay towards the loan. I didn't want the complexity of opening another account just to borrow against for this loan,
 
I bought a car that way back in the 80's. I margined a $20,000 portfolio for $6000 loan. Over 2 years, the portfolio went up $6,000 and I sold some of the underlying stocks and paid off the loan. they took interest only payments out of the monthly cash flow. I thought it was a good move then.

I bought two cars in a somewhat similar fashion. The first was in 1994. I bought a '67 Pontiac Catalina convertible. I could have paid the cash for it, but didn't want to. And of course nobody is going to finance something that old. So I did a secured loan through Bank of America (I think they were still Nations Bank back then, or maybe even Sovran Bank?). That was back when interest rates on savings accounts and CDs were still pretty good, as I remember the savings account was paying 4.75%, while the loan was 3% above that. I forget how long the loan was, but I didn't keep it long. In the fall of 1994, I started seriously house (or rather townhouse/condo) shopping, and that secured loan was a bit of an achilles heel, so I paid it off.

In the fall of 1999, I bought an '89 Gran Fury the same way. This one was through the NASA credit union, and as I recall by then, a savings account (I think they called is something slightly different) was paying 3%, and the loan was 6% I got fed up and paid that one off early, too.

I had thought about trying to do a secured loan through Bank Of America, when I bought my 2023 Charger, but they weren't offering them anymore. But, since most MMAs are paying around 5% or a bit more, and my loan was 8.04%, I guess I could have left the money in an MMA, and used it to pay the loan, which was effectively 3%. But, I know I wouldn't have had the patience for it, and as it was I paid that car off in about 3-4 months.

Plus, there's no guarantee that these MMAs are going to keep paying 5+%. But then, those savings accounts back in the 90s didn't maintain their rates, either.
 
Hope that piggybacking on this thread is OK.

I am in a similar situation. I am considering buying a new (to me) home in another state. But I would like to do the purchase prior to selling my current home (for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good).

In any case, I am now retired (for the second time, sort of), so living on pension(s) plus occasional withdrawals from a taxable account/accumulated savings. So far I am not taking social security or doing tax-deferred withdrawals (only Roth conversions). Because of this, looking at typical online "how much can I borrow" mortgage calculators shows that my current "income" (pension plus dividends from taxable accounts) isn't enough to get a mortgage on the new place, even after using the cash I have on hand (about 250K at the moment but will have about $350K later this summer after some CD's mature).

The true affordability of doing this isn't really in question (from my perspective at least) as properties I am looking at are under 10% of my net worth. Even assuming I was taxed at 50% on my net worth, that would still put the purchase under 20%.

I could sell appreciated assets or take money from a tax-deferred account but both of these approaches have tax implications: Most of my holdings in my taxable accounts have large % capital gains, and of course any distribution from a tax-deferred account is taxable as ordinary income.

My projected taxable income (job before retirement/cash out (mostly to a Roth), adjunct teaching pay (mostly going to tax deferred), old pension from mega-corp, new (small) pension from teaching gig -> puts me close to the 161K IRMAA threshold. [I was able to get it reduced to the $349.40 Part B + $33.30 Part D levels via appeal given I had retired (reduced hours)]. Single Filer. Thus, any appreciable sale of stock (e.g. 150K capital gains) or IRA withdraw will catapult me up additional IRMAA brackets and/or even beyond the 32% federal bracket...plus state tax considerations.

So, what to do? Some things I've been thinking of:
1) Stop this silliness - SSTOP looking at new places until I sell the current house, use the proceeds towards the new location. Issues: This will take time, and will likely require a double move (ugh). Also prices seem to be moving up in the new location (faster than the current). Leaves me in a high tax state vs. a lower tax situation.
2) Buy cheap at the new location - give up on finding the kind of place I really want and concentrate on something "good enough" so that I would be able to buy it for cash. Even if I desire to move/upgrade I would be *there* and the logistics would be better - plus taking capital gains or tax-deferred withdraws would be less costly in terms of taxes due to lower/no state taxes.
3) Do a Pledged Asset Loan - This would likely be the easiest logistically. Borrow a couple/few hundred K on the PAL, pay it back after eventually selling my current home. This would allow me to purchase the new place for "cash". Negative is that the rates are fairly high, about 9%-9.5%? So if I (as an example) borrowed $250K, my interest-only carry cost would be just under $2K/month.

4) Cash out some of my precious Roth IRA funds. I could likely fund the difference (between cash on hand and purchase price) by pulling funds from my Roth. I would need to calculate (and make sure I fully comprehend) the 5-year rule regarding Roth Conversions, but at first glance I think I would be OK. Negative: This would seriously deplete my Roth $.

5)Apply for social security (My FRA is 6/2024). This would up my income and making getting a mortgage for the gap (purchase price minus cash down) possible. Negatives: I now have social security income (which will make further Roth conversions more difficult) and more importantly stop my social security benefits growth. Ugh. However, I found the "Withdrawal of Application" option: https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-521.pdf. If I were past June (FRA), I could do a Suspend of benefits? https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/suspend-social-security-then-restart/. For both of these, I would need to understand the ramifications/process better....

6) Gift assets to my child including appreciated stock and go partners on the property. The idea is my child, who is now a resident of the new location would do a joint purchase of the new place with me. My child would get the place anyway (eventually when I kick) and while this loses the step up in basis (in terms of the child's half), the state in question has an inheritance tax (so if I don't kick soon, it saves that %). Advantage: Child is in a lower tax bracket and lower capital gains situation. I estimate the child's tax impact on a 100K LTCG is worse case 19-20K. I would likely gift more (to make up for the tax impact on selling the appreciated securities.) I would gift cash for part (enough for my child to be half owner with me). This of course requires my child to freely and without coercion want to do this...as the money gifted from me is well, a gift. (I would have to file a Form 709.)
Advantages: Disadvantages: Somewhat complicated, assets are no longer mine (not really an issue), other that I'm not thinking of?


Disadvantage to buying joint with the kid is that if you make the purchase on your death the kid's basis in the place jumps to 100% of the FMV at your date of death.

I would rent, sell and then buy. So what double move. Stay where you are if it is all too inconvenient.

SS at 70.
 
Back
Top Bottom