Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

Paying Off Your Mortgage Isn’t Always a Good Thing

By Scott Burns

Q. My wife and I are 43 and have a young child. I make $140,000 a year. We are fortunate to have $1.3 million in an investment account.  Of that amount, about $160,000 is earning very little in money markets. Our home is worth $400,000 and we don't plan on moving. Our only debt is a 5 percent 30-year mortgage with a 2024 maturity date and monthly payments of $1,100. We always pay a little extra toward principal each month. We could pay off the mortgage early for $150,000. Should we use our cash to become debt free?  ---B.C., Dallas, Texas

A. Young people aren’t harmed by delaying the payoff of debt because inflation is on their side. Since you are probably in the 25 percent tax bracket, the after-tax cost of your 5 percent mortgage is 3.75 percent. That’s more than the current rate of inflation— but it may not be by the end of the year. Making regular--- but not extra--- payments on the mortgage can benefit you.

The mortgage is a fixed payment.  It can reduce the overall pressure on your income if there is inflation in the future. In the 1970s, for instance, many people treasured their 6 percent mortgages as inflation reduced the real value of the payments they had to make because their incomes were rising, if only with the rate of inflation. You can also view your mortgage as a hedge against a dull-witted government that believes it can restore an economy over-burdened with debt by adding more debt.

If you were older and starting to think about how to manage your retirement spending the answer would be different. For most people approaching retirement, eliminating debt is the fastest way to increase the net cash available to meet ongoing living expenses. Also, paying off a mortgage before retiring can reduce the amount of cash you need to withdraw from an IRA account in retirement. That, in turn, can work to reduce the amount of your Social Security benefits that will be subject to taxation.

Relatively affluent people, whether working or retired might consider keeping a mortgage for two reasons. First, if they have a fixed pension, the pension can be used to pay the (fixed) mortgage. Second, the mortgage can function as the same hedge as it does for younger people.

Q. I am a retiring educator with an investment decision to make.  When I retire I have the option of taking a lump sum and a lower monthly retirement check for life, or no lump sum and receiving my full monthly retirement for life.  In my case, the lump sum is $140,000. The
difference in my monthly check is about $1,000 per month.  And here's another important fact: I am only 54 years old.

 I do plan to go on to a second career, but at this time there is no guaranteed income from my new business venture. I also have $70,000 in 403(b) accounts that have accrued over the years.

Should I take the lump sum?  If I do, what investments would you suggest?   ---G. G., by email

A. If your numbers are right, taking the full retirement check is a very sweet deal. Basically, that $1,000 monthly check difference represents a cash flow return of 8.57 percent on $140,000. Trust me; you won't be able to get that kind of income if you try to invest the $140,000. Worse, if you try to get an income return at that level you will likely be making a very risky investment.

That monthly check is as though you loaned $140,000 to someone as a 15 year mortgage at a bit under 5 percent,  because that's close to the payment you would get, about $1,000 a month. The better news is that after 15 years are up, you'll still be getting those $1,000 monthly checks because you will get them as long as you live. At 54 the odds say you'll live well beyond 15 years.

Only published comments... May 18 2011, 03:00 PM by admin


Comments

 

AVIDREEDUR said:

About making a withdrawal from a teacher's retirement fund--this story is about someone who did take the lump-sum.

My friend retired from teaching the same year that I did--about 8 yrs ago now.  She had more years of experience and a Master's degree, so her retirement annuity was a good deal larger than mine. I did not have that option of withdrawal because I was an early retiree.

Her husband had died earlier that same year.  She was receiving a reduced portion of his retirement pension, She would also receive the survivor portion of his SS when she turned 60--a few months away. She had good invested resources including her house which they bought in cash and which has increased in value since then despite the weak housing market.

She thought she would do very well with a reduced retirement amount from TRS with those two checks and money from subbing--and she subbed almost every day the first year or so after retirement.

She decided to take 100K out of her retirement account and put into IRA that she could leave separately to their daughter vs the inheritance of combined assets that would be between her two step-children from her husband's first marriage and their daughter. Adding her daughter to her TRS benefit meant receiving a reduced portion for X years and lowering her monthly pension too much. Her daughter/SIL were doing well--did not need the money currently but in the future that IRA could grown and help them or future grandchildren. If she died after starting her TRS annuity--nothing would be passed to her daughter.  In her mind she had earned that money and did not want it to just melt away if she died sooner than later.

It seemed like a good decision at the time. But that was before the financial markets took nose dive, before she reduced the days she subbed, before she faced paying for Medicare vs the insurance she basically had for free from her husband's employer, before inflation started to wear away the purchasing power of her income.

She said last year that she regretted taking the money out simply because she lost a buffer in her income. Her pension had dropped about 1K a month from the value of the full amount. No way she could get that type of return investing the 100K and it might still be in the negative from the market dump.

Each person facing the decision has different individual factors influencing his.her choice and it is difficult to predict the success. TRS has one of the strongest retirement plans in the nation and from what I read it has made up the losses from the last couple of years.  It should be very safe investment unless the Legislature gets it hands on the funds.

If you have to reason to try to capture part of those funds to put to another purpose, then you won't get a better rate of return anywhere that is half as safe.

May 18, 2011 3:59 PM
 

ericb said:

Here's my view of whether to pay off your mortgage early. Ask yourself if you are positioned to eventually pay it off all at once when your kids are grown. That is, when you sell your family house and buy a 2-person house.

For example:

Event: 1995: You buy a house in "the burbs" for $200k and get a 30 year fixed mortgage. The house is a 2-story, four bedroom, but otherwise modest. You have 3 kids; Your age is 38.

Over time, you refinance 2 or 3 times to capture lower monthly payment opportunities. You always get a 30 year fixed (for lower monthly payments, more money in your pocket now). As a result, your payoff date extends to 2037.

Event: 2020: Sell house for $600k, but still owe $100k. Your age is now 63 and your kids are in their 20s and 30s. You buy a nice empty-nester house somewhere for $500k.

Done. That makes sense doesn't it? You are now mortgage-free and you didn't have to steal from your happiness in your 40s and 50s to get there.

Why fear extending your payoff date? It's just a date. Or am I missing something?

May 18, 2011 9:31 PM
 

gronwolm said:

I'm a big fan of Scott Burns writing.  Reading him I've learned a lot.  Today I'm trying to understand why not paying off your house if you can afford to, is a good idea and an inflation hedge.  Granted assuming the payments are fixed, if you pay later rather than sooner, your inflated dollars are worth less so it's a hedge.  However, if you keep the mortgage instead of paying it off, you pay more dollars in interest to the mortgage holder in the first place so isn't that a wash?  

Other factors:  If your interest rate is historically low, say between 4 and 5 %, you could put the money to work in the market and theoretically come out ahead.  However, having just come out of the lost decade where the S&P stayed essentially flat, it's not a slam dunk that the market will give you a better return than the guaranteed "return" you get not paying that 4 or 5 % interest.  

Another factor is the write-off you get on your taxes.  Which is nice but as Scott points out in other articles, not all that much of a subsidy unless you have a big mortgage.  A 150K mortgage doesn't seem like it would generate enough of a tax write-off to beat the standard deduction if filing jointly.  So I'm not sure what I'm missing here and why this is good advice and an inflation hedge.  Please advise because Scott rules and I'm sure I'm missing something.  Thanks.  

May 26, 2011 12:28 PM

Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075