The spreadsheet allows you to measure your
future net worth on the assumption that you pay all cash, then measure it again
on the assumption that you take a mortgage, and see where you end up in each
case. The spreadsheet calculates your net worth year by year in both cases. I
will illustrate the process, using my own assumptions, which will be simplified
to make the explanation easier to follow.
I assume you are purchasing a house for
$180,000 and your nest egg also amounts to $180,000. You can use the nest egg to
pay for the house, or you can leave it untouched and borrow the $180,000. [Of
course, the spreadsheet also allows any combination in-between, such as making a
20% down payment from the nest egg and borrowing the balance.] The loan would be
a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6% with a monthly payment of $1079.20. I assume
that you have $1500 of income on top of that available for investment.
Hence, if you take the mortgage, you have
$180,000 plus $1500 a month to invest. If you pay all cash, you have no lump sum
to invest, but you do have $2579.20 a month to invest. (This is the $1500 plus
the mortgage payment of $1079.20 you won’t be making). I assume you are in the
28% tax bracket, which provides a tax saving on the mortgage interest, and a tax
payment on the investment income.
The most important determinant of the outcome
is the assumed rate of return on investment compared to the mortgage rate. For
example, if you earn 6% on your investments, matching the rate you pay on the
mortgage, your net wealth after 15 years is $831,602 if you borrow the $180,000,
and $831,599 if you pay all cash. If the rates are the same, future wealth will
be the same -- the trivial difference I found is a rounding error.
These numbers understate the actual wealth
you would have because I have assumed zero property appreciation. Since the
future value of the house will be the same regardless of how you finance the
purchase, appreciation has no bearing on which mode of financing is better.
Now lets assume that you can earn 9% on your
investments. This is a reasonable assumption if you invest in a diversified
portfolio of common stock. It is an appropriate assumption if you are young
enough to have a long time horizon, and can maintain an equable disposition in
the face of short-run fluctuations in your wealth. On this assumption, your
wealth after 15 years would be $ 1,049,897 if you borrow compared to $961,556 if
you pay all cash.
Rule number one is simple:
if the rate of return on your investments exceeds the mortgage rate, borrowing
leaves you better off than paying all cash.
Now lets assume that you earn only 4% on your
investment. This is a reasonable assumption if you have an extremely
conservative investment policy, a relatively short time horizon, or both. You
have guessed correctly that you will do better paying all cash in this
situation. After 15 years, your wealth would be $759,824, compared to $716,727
if you borrow.
But, there is an important proviso. My
calculation assumes that if you pay all cash for the house, you invest (at 4%)
the $1079.20 per month you would have paid on the mortgage. If you spend it
instead, your wealth after 15 years will be only $517,211, or much less than if
you had borrowed, despite the fact that the borrowing rate exceeds the
investment rate. The mortgage forces you to save whereas the all-cash strategy
doesn’t.
Rule number two includes the proviso:
if the rate of return on your investments is less than the mortgage rate, paying
all cash leaves you better off than borrowing, provided you save an
amount every month equal to the mortgage payment that you would have had
following a mortgage strategy.