- Joined
- 9 June 2011
- Posts
- 1,926
- Reactions
- 483
Can someone point me in the right direction or is it really as simple as calculating your cost of debt (a) and comparing it with your investment return (b) and unless b>a you pay down debt.
I can't think of many investments which return 10-13% so therefore paying down your debt always wins?
So the effect of a compounding return (like capital value increasing at say 5% each year or earning rent which steadily increase over time) doesnt, at some point overtake the fixed, consisten repayments of a loan?
I guess what I'm saying is although in year 1 you may be paying off your debt, in year 20 because of the compounding effect you would have been better off to invest?
, 4 years later the house was paid off and the pressure was off. Best decision we ever made.
So the effect of a compounding return (like capital value increasing at say 5% each year or earning rent which steadily increase over time) doesnt, at some point overtake the fixed, consisten repayments of a loan?
If you have a mortgage at 7% you cant beat paying off debt as it is very hard to get 10-13% return annually ... and the compounding effect works for paying off debt as well not just for investment... say you paying off a mortgage and the property increase in value, reward you a tax free status return ...
also paying off mortgage is a guarantee return, there is no other investment that offer this assurance...every dollar you paid off you get 7% after tax Guarantee return.
Triple AAA government bond offers you half of that return
I think the bolded portion is the aspect I'm not taking into account. I guess I hear stories of all these people with high debt levels, a great number of investment properties who never paid off their PPOR mortgage etc etc who have done well but the fact of the matter is it has been on the back of very high nominal capital returns, not the compounding effect of steadily increasing rents and cap value
Drill it into me one more time.
Let's use an example.
I buy a property in year 1 which is exactly neutrally geared instead of paying the mortgage. Obviously in year 1 from a nominal perspective i make a 'loss' when compared to just paying down the mortgage.
Yet in year 2 the property appreciates a little in value and i also up the rent by say 3%. This year the return I receive for that investment is still going to be less than paying down the mortgage, but by a slightly reduced amount?
Continue forward to year 20 where the property value is now much much larger and the rent payments are so large that its actually a very strongly position +ve cashflow property. In this year is it not feasible that the return could be much much larger than simply paying down the mortgage?
Does this make sense at all or am I dribbling?
Let me try another example.
We get a 10k bonus from work. rather than pay 10k extra off the mortgage, I invest in the initial ABC IPO.
In year 1 ABC makes no profits and the capital value does not change. At this point we would have been better off paying off the mortgage.
In year 2 ABC makes some profits and our capital value is now 10.2k and we receive a small dividend of $50. Once again the return we receive in this year is less than us simply paying off the mortgage.
ABC continues to grow and steadily over time the dividend becomes larger and larger.
In year 20 the capital value is now 10k and we now receive a very strong divided, amounting to 1.5k or 20% of our initial outlay. At this point the return we are receiving is far far greater than the 7% we could receive by paying off debt.
A little bit of a farfetched example but I guess I'm trying to draw the comparison at how an interest only loan has the same level of payments each year, therefore 'the time value of money' cost is actually decreasing over time, whereas if we invest in an asset which will continue to grow and provide larger cashflow year after year (rent payments?) at some point in time way down the future the decision to invest 'back in the day' will prove to be a good one.
Thank you for the replies Tyson.
I recognise that higher debt = higher risk.
I also recognise that a deicsion to invest should be weighed up against the opportunity cost. In this case we are comparing the return we get from paying off the 7% mortgage (anywhere between 10-13%, depending on your tax level) vs the return we can get from investing.
Let me try another example.
We get a 10k bonus from work. rather than pay 10k extra off the mortgage, I invest in the initial ABC IPO.
In year 1 ABC makes no profits and the capital value does not change. At this point we would have been better off paying off the mortgage.
In year 2 ABC makes some profits and our capital value is now 10.2k and we receive a small dividend of $50. Once again the return we receive in this year is less than us simply paying off the mortgage.
ABC continues to grow and steadily over time the dividend becomes larger and larger.
In year 20 the capital value is now 10k and we now receive a very strong divided, amounting to 1.5k or 20% of our initial outlay. At this point the return we are receiving is far far greater than the 7% we could receive by paying off debt.
A little bit of a farfetched example but I guess I'm trying to draw the comparison at how an interest only loan has the same level of payments each year, therefore 'the time value of money' cost is actually decreasing over time, whereas if we invest in an asset which will continue to grow and provide larger cashflow year after year (rent payments?) at some point in time way down the future the decision to invest 'back in the day' will prove to be a good one.
I'm sure this discussion has come up before however I performed a search and couldn't get any meaningful discussion.
Does anyone have a way of caluclating whether one should pay down their debt or invest?
At a glance I feel like anyone with a mortgage who is paying 7% interest should simply pay down their debt as its equivalent to an after tax return of 10-13% (depending on tax bracket, and im sure other factors etc).
I can't think of many investments which return 10-13% so therefore paying down your debt always wins?
This being said its obviously far more complicated than that due to things like capital growth and income which one can earn.
I guess an example would be an investment property which slowly appreicates in capital value as well as gradually gaining more and more income each year (increase rent)
Can someone point me in the right direction or is it really as simple as calculating your cost of debt (a) and comparing it with your investment return (b) and unless b>a you pay down debt.
Yes, but it is all relative. The house that will be bought next will have also increased in value by the same percentage over the journey, give or take, as the one just paid for. That is why it is silly to count on your own home as an investment - there is no need to get all warm and fuzzy if it has gone up in value by $300k by the time you sell it if the house you want to buy next has also increased by at least as much and is still as much out of reach!!! By all means pay it off as early as possible because it will always put you in a better position down the track, but don't forget to have a life in the meantime, and if you can afford it, invest a dribble in shares or whatever every now and then too.... say you paying off a mortgage and the property increase in value, reward you a tax free status return ...
Paying off debt also results in compounding via the interest saved.So the effect of a compounding return (like capital value increasing at say 5% each year or earning rent which steadily increase over time) doesnt, at some point overtake the fixed, consisten repayments of a loan?
I guess what I'm saying is although in year 1 you may be paying off your debt, in year 20 because of the compounding effect you would have been better off to invest?
That is why it is silly to count on your own home as an investment -
Yes, I hear you. But the house itself is not an investment vehicle first and foremost. It is primarily a roof over your head, and at the end of the day, if you were to happily remain in your modest first home once it was paid off, it doesn't matter at all if it never appreciates in value.This comment needs addressing, it is an investment. Your own home is the biggest investment you will ever make for your future. There is nothing like paying no mortgage or no rent, believe me I am there, totally rent/mortgage free. It has enabled me to retire early, of course it is an investment because I don't have to pay for any accommodation at all (apart from running costs). It means all extra monies earned is available for other investments. Further more your own home is totally capital gains tax free, you can keep trading up until you retire and get rid of the kids. Then you can downsize and pocket large sums from the sale of your family home tax free (i have done this), surely that's worth something.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?