General Real Estate Investing
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
Updated about 12 years ago,
To pay or not to pay off your primary residence
This discussion was cropping up in another thread about a different topic, and I wanted to hear more feedback from other members about what they prefer. As a primer, I am going quote @Rich Weese contributed as I find it was very interesting - hope you don't mind Rich.
" Brian and Jon H- Here is my contrarian view to owning your OWN residence free and clear and why I don't do it. I like my contrarian view for the following reasons . I DO agree you should have A house free and clear.
1. I have at least a home free and clear.
2. I am able to obtain a better loan on OWNER OCCUPIED home.
2. I do have a sense of security with F&C home- and it doesn't have to be the residence.
3. I live in a nicer home, higher LTV, lower rate, etc and still have a F&C home if everything goes to pot.
4. If everything only goes PARTIALLY to pot, the lender probably won't want my highly leveraged home I live in. We all know people who are under water for over 3 years and lender hasn't taken the home.
5. I get interest deductions on my residence, which I wouldn't if it was F&C.
6. I still have the sense of security with other F&C home.
7. I have more $ to invest elsewhere because F&C home is not as expensive and only there for severe emergency.
8. The extra $$ to invest makes me more $$, more writeoff etc-which I wouldn't otherwise have.
Just a contrarian view for BP members to digest. Rich"