My home mortgage was originally $602,400 when I initiated it in 4/2015, with a fixed 30y rate of 3.75%. No mortgage insurance. The principal balance is now $539,315. I'm being offered a rate of 2.875% IF I bring an extra 29k so that my jumbo mortgage becomes conforming. So I would be starting this new mortgage with a balance of $510,400. I'm told that closing costs would be in the vicinity of $5,500 everything said and done. I'm planning on staying in the house in the near future, at least 2 years and more if possible career-wise.

According to my calculations, this lowers my monthly payment by about $650, so this works out to a yearly $7,800, which I see as a guaranteed yearly return of 27% on that $29k (not taking the closing costs into account). This is more than I would hope to gain from investing this in the S&P 500, which is where I normally invest.

Is my logic flawed at all? I'm sure there are many other variables but did I miss anything huge that would significantly change my conclusion?

Thank you!

  • The big flaw in your calculations is it looks like you are calculating your reduced monthly payment by assuming you extend the mortgage out to a full 30 years (unless my math is wrong). This is the wrong way to look at things because reducing your principal payments isn't the same as 'a return of 27%'; only the interest reduction represents financial return. Aug 7, 2020 at 13:14
  • From my answer - "Another chunk [of the saving] from going back to a new 30 year amortization." Aug 7, 2020 at 14:22
  • I definitely feel like there is a flaw. Obviously not a money person! But my way of thinking is as follows: I have 29k currently invested in the S&P (average annual return 9.8%). If I took that money and applied it to the mortgage in the form of this refinance, I would be saving $7,800 a year (more than the $2,900 the money would be generating on the market). Say I sell the house in 5 years (random number), I will have saved $39k and I get my $29k back. On the other hand, say I sell my S&P stock in 5 years, I have made $17,282 and I also get my $29k back (assuming 9.8% returns every year).
    – sw1337
    Aug 7, 2020 at 15:05
  • I think what you're saying is that by refinancing, now I'm back to making almost 100% interest payments, therefore not reducing my principal balance. So whatever money I save on my monthly payments is negated by what I'm spending in interest payments?
    – sw1337
    Aug 7, 2020 at 15:19
  • I am saying in my answer below that for an apple to apple comparison, you need to dig deeper than how you viewed it. Learn to get comfortable with a spreadsheet and run the numbers. Suggesting that the choice is paying down the mortgage a bit or getting a 9.8% return is not quite correct either. But, a bit of work and you calculate the return precisely with a couple spreadsheet columns. Aug 7, 2020 at 17:31

1 Answer 1


Here's my math. You need to start by taking the current balance and using 24 yrs 8 months as the term. At the new rate, you'd pay $244/month less. If closing costs are $5500, the break even is 22.5 months. After that, consider the return on your $29,000. Just about 10% for having paid it to the mortgage. A chunk of that 'huge savings is from you lowering your own balance. Another chunk from going back to a new 30 year amortization. The deal is good, especially if you stay long term. Just not quite as dramatic as your numbers.

Years ago, I did something similar. I had a $480K mortgage 7.625%, and was able to drop it to $380K at 5.25%. But. At the same time I dropped from the remaining 25 years down to 15. Paying down the principal so much also dropped 10 years off the back end. That was at a time when the going rate was actually lower still, and the 5.25% came with zero closing costs. To sleep better at night after depleting nearly $90K from the emergency acct, I set up a HELOC at the same time. Having a credit line sub-5% seemed wiser than having $90K earning near zero interest. Many warned this was an awful idea. And I suppose a number of things could have gone wrong. I only offer this anecdote to share my own experience.

In the end, I'd then keep the 2.875% as long as possible, i.e. don't actually pay on the 22 year math, keep it to 30. Use the savings to kill any 5%+ debt you might have, and invest the rest for retirement. The actual $8K/yr cash flow will help you replenish savings if needed.


We need to eliminate the effect of refinancing for a longer term. I have looked again at the numbers and 24.75 remaining time seems right.

enter image description here

You save $385.90/mo for a cash outlay of $34415.

Since this is for 24.75 years, it's treated like an annuity, i.e. the flow of money isn't forever, it's a fixed term.

To get that cash flow from $34415 would require a return of 12.89%.

Of course, that assumes you keep the mortgage for the full term. Which is why people also say $5500/$386 = 14.25 months to break even on the closing costs. In the end, I suppose one can calculate the return for shorter end times as well. Obviously, selling the house at about 14 years or sooner gives a zero return as you only gained enough to cover closing costs.

Again, I'd not suggest you actually make those payments. At sub-3%, I'd use the extra (cash flow) of $672 more wisely.

  • I understand emergency funds are typically six months' expenditure... How come yours was $90k!? Aug 7, 2020 at 8:08
  • 1
    Nothing magic about the 6 month rule. We were running higher. Aug 7, 2020 at 11:24
  • 1
    @AdamBarnes Consider how long it can take to find a job when making an emergency fund. In some industries and during downtimes it can easily take 1 year to find a job. I wouldn't buy another house without 2 years worth of emergency cash.
    – HenryM
    Aug 7, 2020 at 14:27
  • So it looks somewhat moot then because 10% is about what a conservative investment in the S&P returns (historical average of course). Actually the stock investment would be better because of the compounding effect.
    – sw1337
    Aug 7, 2020 at 15:23
  • The math is still worth doing. And keep in mind, the presumption I made in my own decision was that the cash was not invested in the market, it was sub 1% emergency fund money. The approach is different between the two, but knowledge is power. Aug 7, 2020 at 17:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.