Skip to main content

Should You Make Extra Mortgage Principal Payments?

I was recently interviewed for an article done by Betty-Lin Fisher, Business Writer with the Akron Beacon Journal, about whether bi-weekly payment plans and mortgage prepayments in general are a good thing. She wrote:

Claytor and Kevin Kroskey, a certified financial planner and owner of True Wealth Design in Fairlawn, both agreed with McBride that paying off other high debt and funding other accounts should come before prepaying a mortgage.


Another option is to do a little more each month. Claytor and Kroskey said they both round up their mortgage payments to add a little extra to their principal.

''By and large, paying down the house is a good idea,'' said Kroskey.

But there is a caveat, he said, where he sees people making mistakes. Often, as people are getting closer to retirement and if they haven't done a really good job of saving, they might think, ''I have to pay off this mortgage before I get into retirement. It's what Americans are supposed to do,'' said Kroskey.

''If they're aggressively paying down that mortgage while they're forsaking the 401k,'' that's not good, he said.

As with virtually all aspects of personal financial planning, whether something is good or bad can usually be answered with 'it depends.' It depends upon the unique circumstances of each client. Virtually nothing is axiomatic.

Some clients should pay down their debt while others have a strategic choice to use today's low interest rates and the tax favorability of mortgage and/or investment interest and incorporate these tools into their overall plan. They key is to have a plan and evaluate the pros and cons of the decision in the context of your plan. Otherwise, it's easy to have tunnel vision and rely upon rules of thumb that may not be properly suited or optimal for your situation.

You can read the full article here.

Kevin Kroskey, CFP, MBA

Bookmark and Share

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day. ...

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a...

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.   But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amoun...