Why Paying Down Your Mortgage Early Can Be A Smart Investment

Still no house yet. But I have been reading about mortgages, and one common debate amongst mortgage holders is whether to send in extra money towards the principal in addition to the required monthly payments. Usually, the argument evolves into these two opposing views:

No, you shouldn’t pay extra because:

If you put that money in stocks instead, you would most likely get a higher return on your money in the long term. Mathematically, paying down a mortgage is like leaving money on the table.

Yes, you should pay it down because:

Stock market returns aren’t guaranteed, whereas paying down the mortgage is guaranteed savings. Debt is a burden, and it’s hard to put a price tag on the psychological benefit of owning your house free and clear.

Now, I understand both of these views, and in the big picture, I really think if this is what you’re worrying about then you’re already ahead of the game. You might even think you already know which view I personally lean towards. But what if there was another perspective that satisfied both sides?

What happens when you pay extra towards your mortgage?
With a mortgage, your monthly payments are amortized, which means each one includes a portion that goes to pay interest and a portion to pay down your remaining loan balance, or the principal. If you make an extra payment towards principal, then this in turn directly decreases the amount of interest you’ll be paying in the future.

So if you pay $1,000 towards your mortgage with an interest rate of 6%, then you’re saving $60 of interest that you would have otherwise had to pay every single year for the rest of your mortgage term.

Put differently, it’s like you’re earning an after-tax return of 6% every year on your money.

But wait, what about the tax benefits of mortgage interest?
Yes, mortgage interest is tax-deductible, but you have to temper this with a few realizations:

  1. Everyone already gets the standard deduction, which in 2007 is $5,350 for singles, and $10,700 for married folks. Only the amount that your itemized deductions exceed this amount actually saves you money.
  2. The amount of interest you pay on your mortgage decreases every year, so your tax benefit will decrease as well over time.

For example, let’s say you are a married couple with a $250,000 mortgage loan balance for 30 years at a fixed 6% rate, and in the 25% income tax bracket. $250,000 x 6% is only about $15,000 of interest paid in the first year. Subtract out the standard deduction of $10,700, and your additional deduction is only $4,300. So you’re only saving 25% of $4,300 and not the whole $15,000. This means your 6% interest rate only goes down to the equivalent of about 5.6%. In addition, according to the standard amortization schedule your annual interest paid will go down to less than $11,000 in year 15. So after 10-15 years, your mortgage deduction will be less than the standard deduction, leaving you with possibly no benefit at all.

Now, if you have a large mortgage or have lots of other itemized deductions, then your tax benefits may be much more significant. In this case, your equivalent interest rate may be extraordinarily low. But for many homeowners, it’s not as large as they might think. (If you have a ton of other itemized deductions, also be wary of the AMT.)

For this example, you could be conservative and say that paying extra towards your mortgage is only earns about a 5.5% annual after-tax return for the rest of the scheduled term of the loan.

A fixed rate of return, every year, for a long time. Hmmm… that sounds like a bond! In comparison the 30-year Treasury bond is currently yielding only 4.88%. After a 25% federal tax, that return is only 3.66%! I choose Treasury bonds because they also contain essentially zero risk of default.

In other words, paying down your mortgage can very similar to holding an attractively-priced long-term bond. (If you have a rock-bottom rate, it could also be an unattractive bond.) So maybe that’s how we should treat it. Just like you don’t compare stocks directly to bonds because they have different risk/reward relationships, perhaps we shouldn’t compare paying down a mortgage to stocks either.

Right now, I currently hold about 10% bonds in my retirement investment portfolio. My prospective interest rate is around 6% if I get a mortgage. I could simply decrease my position in bond mutual funds and put that money instead towards paying extra towards a mortgage. When looking solely at my mutual fund accounts, this would result in my percentage of stocks increasing. This way, I can potentially get the best of both worlds:

  • I’m improving my overall investment portfolio. I am essentially buying a bond that brings me a return higher than what is otherwise available, perhaps by up to 1-2 percentage points. I do lose some liquidity as I can’t get my money out without taking a home equity line of credit and paying additional fees. But as long as it’s not my whole bond allocation, I can still rebalance as needed. My intended bond allocation will only increase as I get older, in any case.
  • I also pay my house off earlier, complete with all the happy fuzzy feelings attached. 😀

What if you don’t own any bonds? Well, if you’re the type of person who’s 100% stocks, then you’re probably so confident in the markets that you wouldn’t want to pay down your mortgage early anyhow. If you do want to pay it down, then consider it a small allocation to bonds that will lower the overall volatility of your portfolio.

Now, this doesn’t mean that paying down a mortgage should be a higher priority than things like maxing out your IRA, paying down higher-interest debt, or even an emergency fund. But it does provide me a way to pay down my future mortgage without having to worry that I am losing money somewhere else.

More Roth vs. Traditional 401k/IRA Data: Historical Marginal Tax Rates vs. Median Income

In my Roth or Traditional 401k decision process, I chose the Roth for the rest of this year. This essentially means that I’d rather pay up to 28% of tax right now on my contribution rather than pay whatever the going rate will be 30+ years from now. But why? I’m have relatively high income right now – Shouldn’t my income in retirement be less if I really want to be a beach bum? Probably, but here’s why I think 28% is still a pretty good deal based on history…

Having to guess what tax rates will be 40 years into the future is a daunting task! So let’s start by looking 40 years in the past. From 1967 to 2005, I found the both the median household income and the 95th percentile income from the U.S. Census Bureau. I chose these to roughly represent “middle” and “high” income levels.

altext

As you can see, both grow with time. (Yes, the gap between them is increasing. Let’s sidestep that hot potato right now.)

Next, I found the corresponding marginal tax rates that such incomes would have paid each year. Since we are looking at households, I used the tax information for the Married Filing Jointly status as an approximation. I ignored things like standard or itemized tax deductions across the board to keep it simple. With this information, we can roughly see how the marginal tax rates have changed over time, while still adjusting for the gradual increase in incomes:

altext

Results and Conclusions
We are currently experiencing some of the lowest marginal tax rates in recent history. The average marginal tax rate for a median, or “middle income”, household from 1967 to 2005 was 33%. The average marginal tax rate for a “high income” household was 44%. Today, we are only at at 15% and 28%, respectively. Assuming that today’s tax rates will continue on for the next 20, 30, 40 years may not be the best idea.

Will they get even lower? Or even flatten out? I don’t think so. Considering the historical rates we say above, and combining that with our continuing government deficits and the prospect of a nationalized health care system, I personally find it unlikely that in 2047 my marginal tax rate will be lower than 28%, even at median income levels. What do you think?

To be sure, this is a very simplified analysis. I am not even looking at total tax rates, just marginal ones for the express purpose of directing my IRA and 401k contributions. If you know of a better study done elsewhere that I missed, please do share.

Choosing Between the Roth or Traditional 403b / 401k : Our Decision Process

My wife now has the new option of contributing to Roth 403b plan with her new position, and we had to make a decision on whether or not to go with it. Here is our thinking process, which should also apply to Roth 401ks.

I found a few good articles online, including Is the Roth 401(k) Right for You? by Emily Brandon at US News, and Choosing Between Traditional and Roth 401(k)s from Yahoo Finance. Here is a nice table outlining the major differences:

altext

As my last video post outlined, the main difference between a Roth 401k and a Traditional 401k is when you pay the taxes. With the Traditional, you get to defer your income taxes now, but you must pay taxes up on withdrawal. With the Roth, you pay tax now, but you don’t own any taxes upon withdrawal.

So the first question is – when do you want to pay the taxes? Obviously this takes a bit of guessing as who know what tax rates will be in the future. You can also try and look at the 2007 tax brackets for a little guidance. Historically, I believe our tax rates are actually on the low side. If your income is relatively low now compared to what you think you’ll make when withdrawing, you should lean towards the Roth. If you expect an especially high income this year, it may be better to go Traditional. Be sure to take into any big tax deductions that you might have now but not in retirement (think mortgages and child credits). If you think it will be the same, I think you’ll see below that the Roth tends to win any tie-breakers.

(There are also those that think Roth accounts will be double-taxed in the future, so you might as well get the tax break now.)

Before, when our incomes were lower, it was an easy choice to go with the Roth. Now, we may get bumped into the 33% bracket. I doubt we’ll be making this much in retirement, I just don’t plan on saving up long enough to generate that much income. But I have a suspicion that tax rates will also be higher later. And I haven’t even considered possible AMT consequences.

The Roth has “bigger” contribution limits. Sure, the official employee contribution limit for both of them is $15,500 for 2007, but you can see that $100 in post-tax contributions requires a bigger out-of-pocket sacrifice than $100 of pre-tax money. This means that maxing out a Roth effectively allows you to defer taxes on more money. Since we aren’t eligible for a Roth IRA anymore, perhaps we should take advantage of this additional opportunity.

Matching works the same either way. Employer matches can only go in your Traditional 401(k) pool of funds, so we don’t have to worry about this here.

Roth 401(k)s get rolled over into Roth IRAs, which don’t have Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) and other attractive estate features. I like the idea being able to delay withdrawing any money until I want to, which I can’t do with a Traditional 401(k). I’m not really concerned with inheritance stuff right now.

Final Decision? I still need to look into AMT effects, but for now I think we will be going with the Roth. Here is our plan: I want to max out my Traditional 401k this year in order to lower our taxable income and keep us in the 28% marginal bracket. Then, I think we can take full advantage of the Roth 403(b) on my wife’s side. This also gives us some diversification between accounts – If we have a high-tax year in retirement, we can withdraw Roth funds. If we have a low-tax year, we can withdraw and pay tax on Traditional funds. Did I miss anything?

Video Post: Basics of Comparing Investing in a Roth 401k vs. a Traditional 401k

I just made my first video blog post which covers part of choosing between a Traditional and a Roth-type of retirement account, be it IRA, 401(k), or 403(b). I’ve covered this topic before, but I wanted to start out with something that I get asked often and also can benefit from the additional information available from a video format.

There are a couple of reasons why I decided to do this:

  1. No Credit Needed made his own first video about the Envelope System of budgeting. I thought it was a good way to explain the concept.
  2. At the same time, my father said that my blog should be more interactive (read: it was dull). When your own father says your blog isn’t cool enough, you know you have to do something!

I don’t think my servers can handle the bandwidth, so I had to throw it up on YouTube. Hopefully it’s not too blurry. It’s certainly a lot more work making a video than typing, so please let me know what you think.

Stock Markets Got You Stressed? Here’s A Calming Chart For You

I don’t do market predictions, but I wanted to keep some things in perspective. In the most recent edition of A Random Walk Down Wall Street, there is an updated version of a chart which I have used before to show how important time horizon is to reducing your projected risk. I have replicated it below:

altext

The fact that the variability in returns decreases the longer one stays in the market is very encouraging news for the long-term investor. But it is critical to remember that this data assumes you buy and hold a diversified portfolio. If you buy or sell stocks based on fear or hype, all bets are off.

Model Portfolio #8: Ben Stein and Your Money

Next up is a model portfolio by actor and personal finance columnist Ben Stein. I have read and reviewed two books he wrote with Phil DeMuth – Yes, You Can Still Retire Comfortably! and Yes, You Can Time The Market!. I actually ran across this information last week while waiting at a Barnes and Noble for my companions to finish shopping. I wrote down that it was in Forbes magazine, but I found the article online under Fortune. Either way, here it is:

Ben Stein Model Portfolio

Ben

Asset Allocation For 80% Stocks/20% Bonds (with ETF examples)
25% Total US Stock Market (VTI, IYY)
25% S&P 500 Index (IVV, SPY)
15% Foreign Developed Equity (EFA, VEA)
5% Emerging Markets (VWO, EEM)
5% Real Estate (VNQ, ICF)
20% Cash

Commentary
On the equity side, I guess he’s leaning towards only having about 15% of the domestic equity portion being Small/Mid Cap stocks, since about 70% of the Total US Stock Market index is made up of the S&P 500 anyways. His exposure to Real Estate is very small, especially compared to the Swensen portfolio we just looked at. He does add a specific allocation to Energy sector stocks to the mix, which you don’t always see.

On the fixed-income side, Stein doesn’t recommend any type of bond, corporate or not. He thinks long-term bonds are too risky, while short-term bonds don’t offer enough yield to warrant not just holding cash instead. I’m not sure if this is solely due to the current flat interest rate curve. This may also be because he seems to take the view that your emergency fund cash should be included in your asset allocation. (I like to keep it separate.)

See here for other model portfolios from respected sources, part of my incomplete Rough Guide to Investing.

Model Portfolio #7: Unconventional Success by David Swensen

This model portfolio is taken from Unconventional Success by David Swensen. As mentioned before, Swensen is not a personal financial advisor, but is a respected institutional money manager who currently runs the Yale Endowment. In his book for individual investors, he writes that there are only a limited number of core asset classes in which one should invest in. Although he avoids giving specific asset allocation guidance, he does provide an “outline of a well-diversified, equity-oriented portfolio”, which is shown below.

Unconventional Success Model Portfolio Breakdown (Hurrah, I found my software disks so I can make pretty pie charts again!)

Asset Allocation For 70% Stocks/30% Bonds (with ETF examples)
30% Domestic Equity (VTI, IYY)
15% Foreign Developed Equity (EFA, VEA)
5% Emerging Markets (VWO, EEM)
20% Real Estate (VNQ, ICF)
15% U.S. Treasury Bonds (SHY, IEF)
15% Inflation-Protected Securities (TIP)

Commentary
There is a healthy portion devoted to real estate in the portfolio. The common way to track this asset class with REITs, which are considered a domestic stock. Instead of taking up less than 5% of the US stock market by capitalization, it is now taking up more than 40% of the domestic equity portion. I’m not really sure why there is so much, although he does write that if you own your home or other real estate, you may want to reduce your REIT exposure.

In addition, corporate and mortgage-backed bonds are left out, following his opinion that they aren’t the most desirable asset classes for individual portfolios due to added call risk and credit risk. (If you’ve been keeping up with the markets recently, it seems he may have been on to something here.)

As with all the model portfolios, the idea here isn’t just to follow any of them blindly. I do think it helps to see where different experts have similar components to their model portfolios, and where they differ. I also like breaking it down this way into pie charts of stocks-only and bonds-only in order to visualize them better.

See here for other model portfolios from respected sources, part of my incomplete Rough Guide to Investing.

A Maxed Out Roth IRA = $11 a Day

$10 here, $25 there. What’s the point of doing all these little things? For the most part, I look at grabbing freebies and bonuses as a hobby. Sure, there are a million different ways to make more money, and on a pure hourly-return basis it may look like crap, but I can do it in my free time, sitting on the couch, while watching HGTV at 1 am in the morning. But here’s another way to look at it:

You may have heard this before, but here it is again… If you’re young and aren’t in a high tax bracket yet, one of the best things you can do is max out your Roth IRA. You put in some of your take-home pay, and you’ll never be taxed again on it. It’s like supercharging your stock returns by removing the drag of taxes. If you’re 25 and invest $4,000/year and it returns 8% a year, at age 65 you will have over a million dollars. (No, not inflation-adjusted, but still a million dollars.)

$4,000 a year is just $11 a day. It doesn’t take that much to really make a difference. (Or put differently, a free $10-$25 can be seen as a significant amount of money.)

4 Ways To Tell If You’re On Track For Retirement

August’s issue of Money Magazine asks: Are You Doing The Right Things (For Retirement)? Although a bit mundane, it’s offers a quick gut check. Here are the questions and my answers:

1) Are you maxing out your 401(k)?

I think I put in $10,000 last year, which wasn’t the max. This year I haven’t been on pace for the $15,500 maximum either, but I do plan on reaching it by year’s end. I’ll need to run the numbers to see how much I’ll need to increase my contributions in order to catch up in time.

Maxing out a 401(k) does seem like a tall order for the average U.S. household though, considering the median income is about $46,000 a year.

2) Are you keeping tabs on your progress?

Yup, every month. Next update is coming up soon.

3) Are you grabbing every tax break you can?

This is mostly directed at IRAs. I’m probably not going to be eligible for a Roth IRA this year due to the income restrictions. However, I will likely fund a non-tax-deductible IRA, which has the potential to be converted to a Roth in 2010. Otherwise, I’ll settle for the watered-down tax advantages and stick some bonds in there. 🙂

4) Have you created a safety net?

In an addition to an emergency fund (they say 3 months), the article states you should have adequate life and disability insurance. Life insurance is something I definitely want to get within the next year, and definitely before we buy a house.

TheStreet.com Gives Horrible Financial Advice To Young People

I know there is plenty of bad advice out there, but this one just caused me physical pain. Mr. Cliff Mason impressively gained the status of Staff Reporter at TheStreet.com fresh out of college (did I mention his uncle is Jim “Mad Money” Cramer?). He hits the ground running with his recent article Young Ones, Go Forth and Speculate, where he bashes veteran Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Clements and proceeds to share some of his vast financial knowledge with us.

Pearl of Wisdom #1:

I believe that saving money is at best nonessential for the under-30 cohort, and that people my age will generally get more from spending their money than from buying stocks or bonds.

Pearl of Wisdom #2:

Buy small-cap stocks that trade under $10, have little analyst coverage and a reason to go higher. In a word: Speculate. […] With maybe $2,000 to invest a year, you won’t make serious money in the market unless you take enormous risks. It’s much more likely that you’ll get wiped out, but since you won’t have a lot of money on the line, it’s a worthwhile risk.

Wait, there’s more! You must see Mr. Mason in person in this TheStreet.com video showing off his brand new iPhone. Why did he buy this phone? “Well, I wasn’t doing anything… and I had money to burn… it is a babe magnet…” What about his current plan? “I have an old Verizon line that my dad still pays for [the iPhone is AT&T-only] … I should tell him about that…”

Hmm… sure sounds like someone I should listen to for financial advice!

I found this article via the Diehards Forum, where author Taylor Larimore submits his succinct reply:

If a young investor age 25 invests $4,000/year @ 10%, at age 65 he/she will have $1,947,407.

If a gambler waits until age 35 (and loses), he/she will have $733,774–less than half.

Investing for retirement should not be a gamble.

My response? As a 20-something who tries hard every day to balance enjoying life now, buying a house, and funding my own retirement someday, I’m a bit offended by his flippant views on saving.

I don’t really care what Mr. Mason does with his money. But to tell others to just gamble it away because it’s “not that much”? Being 25 and actually having $2,000 saved up is not something to be dismissed. Not only can you take advantage of the wonder of compound interest, but look at how risk decreases as your time horizon increases when properly diversified. Why increase your risk needlessly when you could be decreasing it?

Okay, maybe I’m being too harsh. When you’re young, you should take risks. Go into debt to pay for college or graduate school, work at a start-up company or at a non-profit that you love, or even start your own business. Take chances with money that can really reap huge rewards!

Parental 401(k) Check-up: Do You Know All The Fees You’re Getting Hit With, Mom?

It’s time to examine my mom’s 401(k) plan. The first thing that I wanted to do was to get an idea of what kind of fees she was paying. There are three basic types of fees, according to the Dept. of Labor:

  1. Plan Administration Fees – Like the description states, this is for things like record-keeping, mailing statements, and other accounting duties.
  2. Investment Fees – Often the largest and most hidden, these are fees that are wrapped into the investment options that you are given.
  3. Individual Service Fees – These are for specific things like processing loans or for self-directed investments.

Smaller companies often can’t afford a top administrator like Fidelity or Vanguard, which can absorb most administrative costs. Instead, they must find a cheaper firm (at least for them). Guess where the costs get shifted to? The workers. Thankfully, my mom isn’t subject to any administrative fee, at least that I could find. But investment fees…

Types of Mutual Fund Investment Fees
Investment fees for a mutual fund are usually broken down into

  • Front-end loads – Also known as sales charges or just front loads, this fee is charged when you buy a share of the fund. For example, if you have a 5% load and put in $1,000, only $950 worth of shares is actually purchased. Essentially a sales commission, the $50 goes to the salesman (in this case, the plan administrator). Avoid whenever possible!
  • Back-end loads – Also known as deferred loads, this is essentially the same setup, except that it is charged when you sell.
  • Expense Ratio – Also known as annual management fees, these are ongoing fees charged by the mutual fund company for running the fund. It is usually expressed as an annual percentage of fund’s net asset value (NAV), although the fee is subtracted a little bit each day. The expense ratio may also include a sales portion, called 12b-1 fees.
  • Early Redemption Fees – Supposedly to deter market timing, such fees are usually the same as back-end loads, unless the money is direct back into the fund itself and split amongst the shareholders (instead of going to the fund managers).

What is sneaky about all these fees is that they are usually not marked on your account statements as a fee, and in the case of 401k’s I bet many investors are never told about them and how they can seriously hurt your potential returns.

Do You Know What Share Classes You’re Buying?
Now, of course by law they must give you the prospectuses for each fund. You know, those thick booklets that most people file away, never to see it again. But if you don’t know, dig them up and read them! For one, one mutual fund may have several different shares classes, with different combinations of front loads, back loads, and annual expense ratios. Don’t just assume you are buying the cheapest class, either.

For example, the only Real Estate option my mom’s plan is the AIM Real Estate Fund, Class A Shares (IARAX). I was sad to see that this has a fat 5.50% front load and a 1.29% expense ratio. The Investor Class shares of this fund (REINX) had no loads and 1.27% expense ratio. I don’t know how happy she’ll be to find out that 5% of every dollar she put in was being taken away instantly.

I still have to sort through the other details of the funds like investment objectives and asset classes, but by better understanding the fees, she can already start to choose between her available options more wisely. For instance, your 401k might offer a great International Fund with reasonable expenses, and an S&P 500 fund with horrible expenses. If so, you can buy the better fund in your 401(k) and find a good alternative for the bad one in your other brokerage accounts.

401k/403b Rollovers: Should You Move Your Old Retirement Plan To Your New Employer?

Let’s continue with the 401k/403b Rollover discussion. Previously, I explored some possible reasons to keep your old employer’s plan. The next option to consider (if only briefly) is to transfer your 401k/403b assets into your new employer’s retirement plan. You can only transfer after-tax contributions between the same type of account (401k » 401k, or 403b » 403b), but more common pre-tax contributions should be able to be transferred between different types as long as the new plan allows rollovers.

The reasons you might want to do an employer-to-employer transfer are very similar to before:

Special investment options
Maybe your new employer plan has some desirable options that aren’t available to a retail IRA investor. The average 401k has something like 7 mutual fund choices though, so this is probably unlikely. Ask your new HR department for details.

Lower minimum balances or fees
If you have a small balance and figure you might as well cash it out as you don’t meet other account minimums, don’t! Your new employer will probably have no minimum requirements and you can continue to build on what you have already contributed.

Ability to take out loans
Your new 401(k) may allow you to take out loans against your savings, which you can’t do with an IRA. In addition, if you already have a loan from your old 401(k), your new one may allow you transfer over that loan. Otherwise, most plans make you pay back the balance immediately or risk having it penalized as an unqualified withdrawal.

Still not sure? Another alternative is to roll your plan into a Rollover IRA, keeping it separate and not merging it with any other IRAs, and then see how you like your new employer’s plan. If somehow you do, then you can transfer the Rollover IRA assets into your new plan.

References: SmartMoney, American Funds