Do you regret paying off your mortgage early?

[Telecaster]

I have seen many of these threads.

Overall, my sense of the general situation is this:

1) Most people (Group A) who pay their mortgage off early don't regret it because they feel better having a paid-off house / no debt.

2) Most people (Group B) who invest instead of aggressively paying down their mortgage tend to make decisions based on math.

My unscientific speculative assessment is that Group A people are more likely to make emotional decisions and Group B people are more likely to make logical decisions.  In the event of a market crash, Group A people may be more likely to pull money from the market while Group B people may be more likely to stick to their investment plan and ride through a downturn. Conveniently, Group A won't have as much to lose by pulling out of the market because a significant portion of their net worth is in their home.  Group B will lose a lot more during a major crash, but will likely hold course and recover.

I could be entirely off base, but that is the general sense that I perceive.

You are correct.  There's nothing wrong with paying down a mortgage early.  But it clearly isn't optimal at today's rates.  Now, many give reasons for paying down the mortgage like peace of mind, don't want the hassle, etc. Those are all perfectly fine reasons, and you can't argue against them.  I can't place a price on your peace of mind.   If someone doesn't want the hassle, then they don't want the hassle.  No different really than the choice of vehicle.   

But mistakes like  ignoring the effects of inflation or comparing dissimilar time periods are dangerous.    Some people come to these threads to get an opinion about what to do.  Gross mistakes like the ones I mentioned can mislead people into making bad financial decisions.  It is important to make an informed decision, and the misinformation we are seeing in this thread is unhelpful in that regard.  If you really want an Escalade on credit then buy one, just don't kid yourself about the costs. 

[slythr]

  And yes, you're looking at the difference over a 30 year period, even if the loan is paid off in 5 or 15 or however many years because the effects of the decision propagate well beyond the life of the loan itself, and it's important to look at the cumulative effect rather than the marginal difference to get an idea of the true trade-off. 

Interested in this quote
Where does the 30 year period come from?
Why does the difference have to be over 30 years?

Most home loans are 30 years.  So the comparison is paying off a 30-year mortgage, or not paying off a 30-year mortgage.   Saying otherwise is innumeracy.

So if there are only 25 years left on the mortgage does the above change.
Is that 30 years from 2017?
Is it then 29 years in 2018?
Or is it 30 years in perpetuity that resets every year?

Just trying to understand your rationale

[boarder42]

Scortius you really nailed it.  Your post was spot on.  And is why im relentless. It is not to attack those that paid it down except their math when it's incorrect. It must be corrected or others could read it and think it's correct outside of that. It's about making sure people understand what they are sacrificing for emotional reasons.

[boarder42]

  And yes, you're looking at the difference over a 30 year period, even if the loan is paid off in 5 or 15 or however many years because the effects of the decision propagate well beyond the life of the loan itself, and it's important to look at the cumulative effect rather than the marginal difference to get an idea of the true trade-off. 

Interested in this quote
Where does the 30 year period come from?
Why does the difference have to be over 30 years?

Most home loans are 30 years.  So the comparison is paying off a 30-year mortgage, or not paying off a 30-year mortgage.   Saying otherwise is innumeracy.

So if there are only 25 years left on the mortgage does the above change.
Is that 30 years from 2017?
Is it then 29 years in 2018?
Or is it 30 years in perpetuity that resets every year?

Just trying to understand your rationale

Nope it doesn't change annually. You make the decision and stick to it.  But if I had 25 years left on my mortgage today I'd refi because the rates are likely lower and I'd go to 30 years.

[Telecaster]

  And yes, you're looking at the difference over a 30 year period, even if the loan is paid off in 5 or 15 or however many years because the effects of the decision propagate well beyond the life of the loan itself, and it's important to look at the cumulative effect rather than the marginal difference to get an idea of the true trade-off. 

Interested in this quote
Where does the 30 year period come from?
Why does the difference have to be over 30 years?

Most home loans are 30 years.  So the comparison is paying off a 30-year mortgage, or not paying off a 30-year mortgage.   Saying otherwise is innumeracy.

So if there are only 25 years left on the mortgage does the above change.
Is that 30 years from 2017?
Is it then 29 years in 2018?
Or is it 30 years in perpetuity that resets every year?

Just trying to understand your rationale

There are two outcomes.  You are trying to evaluate which outcome is better.   Because one of the options has a 30 year horizon, the only possible way to compare the two outcomes is use the same 30 year period. 

It is literally impossible to make a sensical comparison if don't use the same time periods. 

[slythr]

So taking Nero's numbers which I assume are correct....I get the exact same response I did earlier up in the post

"Over half of the timeframes the leverage strategy loses.

Common man, you can’t even spell my name right?  Are you trying to be annoying and disrespectful?

NO, over half of the timeframes do not lose. If you want to have a civil conversation you can’t keep doing this.
...while you’re at it you probably should include this latest time frame - technically 6.92 years, but +13.05%. The most recent 6 year period is +14.79% btw...

...and no matter how many times you swear you aren’t cherry picking data, you are still choosing 7 year periods and only looking at the most recent time period. Brooklynguy did a really nice post (and linking back to earlier discussion) on backtesting and why we don’t just look at the most recent time period, regardless of when the most recent crop of mortgages were taken out.  S/he reminded me of something i had overlooked, and clarified the point nicely.

Im doing this on my phone so hard to type and see with the response setup
Sorry about your name.  No disrespect. I really don't even pay attention to the names, moreso the arguments.
And I have been very civil.  You should see my uncivil side.  If I was trying to be annoying there would be no question.

I am looking directly at your numbers from your post.  Here they are:

1) 1.58%
2) 2.15%
3) (2.2%)
4) 5.4%
5) 3.7%
6) 3.5%
7) 4.3%
8) 5.8%
9) 8.0%
10) 14.4%

#'s 1,2,3,5 & 6 are all less than 4%, the current mortgage rate.  That's half?

We can debate 7 yrs vs 30 yrs and that is a debate we won't agree on and that is fine.
I like 7 years.  I can be convinced of 10.  I went back 50 years from 1966 to 2016 and still wan't convinced.

But this is just an aside.  Lots of reasons besides market performance to pay off so I try to not get too hung up on scenarios and what if's

[boarder42]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts. 

[slythr]

The market never has to crash again slythr it could normalize by returning 5% including inflation for 2 years while earnings rise. Or it could continue at it's pace and earnings could rise faster than the current pace.  That's why you can't market time which is exactly what you're advocating. Regardless of if you want to call it that or not you're evaluating the market and suggesting that people do something based on it's current state. There is nothing else to fall that heaides market timing and the most intelligent investors of all time will tell you that's a poor man's game. Particularly for the normal diy investor.

That isn't to say I think either of those events are likely a correction based on history is more likely. But you're not presenting information correctly or in totality to come to the correct conclusion. Youre presenting information incorrectly with a bias towards your end goal.

The good news is we will all find out one way or another.

[seattlecyclone]

You don't need to limit your analysis to the amount of time you'll own that particular house. Chances are once you sell that house you'll buy another. You'll have the opportunity to borrow money against that house just the same as against your current one.

[slythr]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts.

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

[boarder42]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts.

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

I'll let the others here go ahead and feast on this.

[JLee]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts.

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

[boarder42]

I thought that would solve this issue. We're clearly dealing with someone with a very large lack of understanding here.  Or a troll with a lot of time is the top also in?

If you're the former. You could stand to open your mind a lot.

[slythr]

I thought that would solve this issue. We're clearly dealing with someone with a very large lack of understanding here.  Or a troll with a lot of time is the top also in?

If you're the former. You could stand to open your mind a lot.

You thought wrong
My mind is very open, Hence my response

[nereo]

I'm glad there is was no disrespect intended.  Its sometimes hard to tell on a forum.  FWIW I do my best to write my posts to be respectful and informative.

The reason for my posting my numbers were to demonstrate how far your numbers were from the true value. Numbers are important.  So is terminology, which is why i got a bit touchy when 5/10 was referred to as "more than half".  If we're being objective we could say 2 were "about equal (within 1/4%), 5 were better and 3 were worse, though the better periods were much better than the subpar periods (mean 7.58% vs 0.51%, though including this latest period would bump it up 8.5%, or closer to the historical average which you've used udner the argument 'returning to the mean')

As for 'cherry-picking' the timeframe, I think you're still not understanding our points, and I urge you to go back and reread many of the posts here nad linked here, including Brooklynguy's recent one.  But consider this - had you chosen 1 yr periods it would be 11/18 (67%).  2 year periods = 13/17 (76%), 3 years = 10/16 (63%)...etc.  on the longer end if you expand the both the time period and go back til WWII so you can backtest, at 10 years = 87%, 13 year= 91% and 22-30 years = 100%.  (all data includes 2017, because there's just ~18 trading days left and we're +20.25%). In the longer time periods the few instances where the target was 'missed' it was on average <1%, whereas the periods with superior returns it was on average by >5%.

If you had gone back to 1995 or 1990 or 1980 the numbers are even better. 
Not only have you chosen to compare a 7yr time-horizon to a 30yr fixed mortage (incorrect for reasons stated by others) but intentionally or not you have literally chosen about the worst time frame possible for the given decade. Then to compound it, you've selected (again incorrectly) the calendar years most favorable to your argument. Ergo, calls of 'cherry-picking' data, even if it were unintentional. 

Even still, what your data has shown is that when its worse, it's barely worse, and when it's better it's substantially better.

[boarder42]

I thought that would solve this issue. We're clearly dealing with someone with a very large lack of understanding here.  Or a troll with a lot of time is the top also in?

If you're the former. You could stand to open your mind a lot.

You thought wrong
My mind is very open, Hence my response

It did solve this issue. That was what my statement meant. Sorry you misunderstood the meaning. The simple statement you made speaks volumes more than you currently realize.

[JLee]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts.

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

I'll let the others here go ahead and feast on this.

I started at my current employer at the end of September 2 years ago. My 401k balance is currently $61,707.73.

If I went with the maximum employer match amount, 11% of my salary could have gone to the mortgage instead. After state and federal income tax, that is approximately $628/month.

My mortgage balance is $118,638.95.  Let's rewind 26 months of normal payments - I'd be at what, about $124,700, give or take.  The calculator I found can't do a 27 year mortgage, so I'll run this as a 30 year (adding a few years in favor of payoff, as a shorter term would have less interest overall).

A 30 year mortgage after 26 months of regular payments is on the left and a 30 year mortgage after 26 months of accelerated payments is on the right. Total interest paid is at the bottom on each side.  The mortgage balance under the accelerated payment schedule is $16,982.03 lower.

Code: [Select]

1 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18 $1,205.51 $389.69 $123,884.18 1 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18
2 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77 $1,205.51 $387.14 $123,065.81 2 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77
3 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77 $1,205.51 $384.58 $122,244.88 3 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77
4 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18 $1,205.51 $382.02 $121,421.39 4 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18
5 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00 $1,205.51 $379.44 $120,595.32 5 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00
6 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22 $1,205.51 $376.86 $119,766.67 6 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22
7 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85 $1,205.51 $374.27 $118,935.43 7 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85
8 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88 $1,205.51 $371.67 $118,101.59 8 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88
9 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31 $1,205.51 $369.07 $117,265.15 9 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31
10 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14 $1,205.51 $366.45 $116,426.09 10 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14
11 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36 $1,205.51 $363.83 $115,584.41 11 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36
12 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98 $1,205.51 $361.20 $114,740.10 12 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98
13 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99 $1,205.51 $358.56 $113,893.15 13 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99
14 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39 $1,205.51 $355.92 $113,043.56 14 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39
15 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18 $1,205.51 $353.26 $112,191.31 15 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18
16 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36 $1,205.51 $350.60 $111,336.40 16 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36
17 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92 $1,205.51 $347.93 $110,478.82 17 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92
18 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87 $1,205.51 $345.25 $109,618.56 18 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87
19 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20 $1,205.51 $342.56 $108,755.61 19 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20
20 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91 $1,205.51 $339.86 $107,889.96 20 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91
21 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99 $1,205.51 $337.16 $107,021.61 21 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99
22 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45 $1,205.51 $334.44 $106,150.54 22 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45
23 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28 $1,205.51 $331.72 $105,276.75 23 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28
24 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48 $1,205.51 $328.99 $104,400.23 24 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48
25 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05 $1,205.51 $326.25 $103,520.97 25 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05
26 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99 $1,205.51 $323.50 $102,638.96 26 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99

$9,282.22 $9,936.25
Yes, the time window is far too short to be of any real value and I am too lazy to project it out any farther than this, but by not paying ahead on my mortgage, I have $61k in my 401k. Cutting that by 61% (7% vs 18% contribution) would give me $23,790 -- a $37,240 loss in exchange for $654 in interest savings and an extra $16,982.03 in equity.

Granted this is all napkin math, but in 26 months I figure I'm ahead by approximately $19,600.  $16,660 in post-tax dollars, assuming retirement in the 15% bracket.

After 26 months. And I am rounding down.

[slythr]

I'm glad there is was no disrespect intended.  Its sometimes hard to tell on a forum.  FWIW I do my best to write my posts to be respectful and informative.

The reason for my posting my numbers were to demonstrate how far your numbers were from the true value. Numbers are important.  So is terminology, which is why i got a bit touchy when 5/10 was referred to as "more than half".  If we're being objective we could say 2 were "about equal (within 1/4%), 5 were better and 3 were worse, though the better periods were much better than the subpar periods (mean 7.58% vs 0.51%, though including this latest period would bump it up 8.5%, or closer to the historical average which you've used udner the argument 'returning to the mean')

As for 'cherry-picking' the timeframe, I think you're still not understanding our points, and I urge you to go back and reread many of the posts here nad linked here, including Brooklynguy's recent one.  But consider this - had you chosen 1 yr periods it would be 11/18 (67%).  2 year periods = 13/17 (76%), 3 years = 10/16 (63%)...etc.  on the longer end if you expand the both the time period and go back til WWII so you can backtest, at 10 years = 87%, 13 year= 91% and 22-30 years = 100%.  (all data includes 2017, because there's just ~18 trading days left and we're +20.25%). In the longer time periods the few instances where the target was 'missed' it was on average <1%, whereas the periods with superior returns it was on average by >5%.

If you had gone back to 1995 or 1990 or 1980 the numbers are even better. 
Not only have you chosen to compare a 7yr time-horizon to a 30yr fixed mortage (incorrect for reasons stated by others) but intentionally or not you have literally chosen about the worst time frame possible for the given decade. Then to compound it, you've selected (again incorrectly) the calendar years most favorable to your argument. Ergo, calls of 'cherry-picking' data, even if it were unintentional. 

Even still, what your data has shown is that when its worse, it's barely worse, and when it's better it's substantially better.

I appreciate that
I chose the 7 year timeframe because that is how long the poster I was responding to owned his home.
And that is also the historical average for ownership. Somehow that response, to that guy about his 7 year ownership experience somehow turned into my defacto position on this issue, which isn't the case
It is what it is.
To be frank, I don't really give a **** about market performance either way.  Other points matter much more to me regarding the debate.
It's about 4th on the list of things that would be important- to me.
The return on equities pales in comparison to the return on my businesses, but I am a different breed and I don't dance to the same tune as many here
But I do appreciate you clarifying my mistake with the calculator.
Again, sorry about the name thing.

[JLee]

I'm glad there is was no disrespect intended.  Its sometimes hard to tell on a forum.  FWIW I do my best to write my posts to be respectful and informative.

The reason for my posting my numbers were to demonstrate how far your numbers were from the true value. Numbers are important.  So is terminology, which is why i got a bit touchy when 5/10 was referred to as "more than half".  If we're being objective we could say 2 were "about equal (within 1/4%), 5 were better and 3 were worse, though the better periods were much better than the subpar periods (mean 7.58% vs 0.51%, though including this latest period would bump it up 8.5%, or closer to the historical average which you've used udner the argument 'returning to the mean')

As for 'cherry-picking' the timeframe, I think you're still not understanding our points, and I urge you to go back and reread many of the posts here nad linked here, including Brooklynguy's recent one.  But consider this - had you chosen 1 yr periods it would be 11/18 (67%).  2 year periods = 13/17 (76%), 3 years = 10/16 (63%)...etc.  on the longer end if you expand the both the time period and go back til WWII so you can backtest, at 10 years = 87%, 13 year= 91% and 22-30 years = 100%.  (all data includes 2017, because there's just ~18 trading days left and we're +20.25%). In the longer time periods the few instances where the target was 'missed' it was on average <1%, whereas the periods with superior returns it was on average by >5%.

If you had gone back to 1995 or 1990 or 1980 the numbers are even better. 
Not only have you chosen to compare a 7yr time-horizon to a 30yr fixed mortage (incorrect for reasons stated by others) but intentionally or not you have literally chosen about the worst time frame possible for the given decade. Then to compound it, you've selected (again incorrectly) the calendar years most favorable to your argument. Ergo, calls of 'cherry-picking' data, even if it were unintentional. 

Even still, what your data has shown is that when its worse, it's barely worse, and when it's better it's substantially better.

I appreciate that
I chose the 7 year timeframe because that is how long the poster I was responding to owned his home.
And that is also the historical average for ownership. Somehow that response, to that guy about his 7 year ownership experience somehow turned into my defacto position on this issue, which isn't the case
It is what it is.
To be frank, I don't really give a **** about market performance either way.  Other points matter much more to me regarding the debate.
It's about 4th on the list of things that would be important- to me.
The return on equities pales in comparison to the return on my businesses, but I am a different breed and I don't dance to the same tune as many here
But I do appreciate you clarifying my mistake with the calculator.
Again, sorry about the name thing.

There it is! 

For the 90%+ on this forum who plan on retiring early, returns matter.

[slythr]

Slythr out of curiosity. If a person had room available in tax advantaged accounts would you recommend they pay down their mortgage or put the money into one of these accounts.

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

I'll let the others here go ahead and feast on this.

I started at my current employer at the end of September 2 years ago. My 401k balance is currently $61,707.73.

If I went with the maximum employer match amount, 11% of my salary could have gone to the mortgage instead. After state and federal income tax, that is approximately $628/month.

My mortgage balance is $118,638.95.  Let's rewind 26 months of normal payments - I'd be at what, about $124,700, give or take.  The calculator I found can't do a 27 year mortgage, so I'll run this as a 30 year (adding a few years in favor of payoff, as a shorter term would have less interest overall).

A 30 year mortgage after 26 months of regular payments is on the left and a 30 year mortgage after 26 months of accelerated payments is on the right. Total interest paid is at the bottom on each side.  The mortgage balance under the accelerated payment schedule is $16,982.03 lower.

Code: [Select]

1 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18 $1,205.51 $389.69 $123,884.18 1 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18 $577.51 $389.69 $124,512.18
2 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77 $1,205.51 $387.14 $123,065.81 2 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77 $577.51 $389.10 $124,323.77
3 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77 $1,205.51 $384.58 $122,244.88 3 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77 $577.51 $388.51 $124,134.77
4 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18 $1,205.51 $382.02 $121,421.39 4 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18 $577.51 $387.92 $123,945.18
5 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00 $1,205.51 $379.44 $120,595.32 5 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00 $577.51 $387.33 $123,755.00
6 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22 $1,205.51 $376.86 $119,766.67 6 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22 $577.51 $386.73 $123,564.22
7 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85 $1,205.51 $374.27 $118,935.43 7 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85 $577.51 $386.14 $123,372.85
8 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88 $1,205.51 $371.67 $118,101.59 8 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88 $577.51 $385.54 $123,180.88
9 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31 $1,205.51 $369.07 $117,265.15 9 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31 $577.51 $384.94 $122,988.31
10 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14 $1,205.51 $366.45 $116,426.09 10 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14 $577.51 $384.34 $122,795.14
11 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36 $1,205.51 $363.83 $115,584.41 11 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36 $577.51 $383.73 $122,601.36
12 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98 $1,205.51 $361.20 $114,740.10 12 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98 $577.51 $383.13 $122,406.98
13 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99 $1,205.51 $358.56 $113,893.15 13 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99 $577.51 $382.52 $122,211.99
14 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39 $1,205.51 $355.92 $113,043.56 14 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39 $577.51 $381.91 $122,016.39
15 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18 $1,205.51 $353.26 $112,191.31 15 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18 $577.51 $381.30 $121,820.18
16 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36 $1,205.51 $350.60 $111,336.40 16 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36 $577.51 $380.69 $121,623.36
17 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92 $1,205.51 $347.93 $110,478.82 17 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92 $577.51 $380.07 $121,425.92
18 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87 $1,205.51 $345.25 $109,618.56 18 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87 $577.51 $379.46 $121,227.87
19 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20 $1,205.51 $342.56 $108,755.61 19 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20 $577.51 $378.84 $121,029.20
20 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91 $1,205.51 $339.86 $107,889.96 20 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91 $577.51 $378.22 $120,829.91
21 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99 $1,205.51 $337.16 $107,021.61 21 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99 $577.51 $377.59 $120,629.99
22 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45 $1,205.51 $334.44 $106,150.54 22 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45 $577.51 $376.97 $120,429.45
23 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28 $1,205.51 $331.72 $105,276.75 23 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28 $577.51 $376.34 $120,228.28
24 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48 $1,205.51 $328.99 $104,400.23 24 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48 $577.51 $375.71 $120,026.48
25 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05 $1,205.51 $326.25 $103,520.97 25 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05 $577.51 $375.08 $119,824.05
26 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99 $1,205.51 $323.50 $102,638.96 26 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99 $577.51 $374.45 $119,620.99

$9,282.22 $9,936.25
Yes, the time window is far too short to be of any real value and I am too lazy to project it out any farther than this, but by not paying ahead on my mortgage, I have $61k in my 401k. Cutting that by 61% (7% vs 18% contribution) would give me $23,790 -- a $37,240 loss in exchange for $654 in interest savings and an extra $16,982.03 in equity.

Granted this is all napkin math, but in 26 months I figure I'm ahead by approximately $19,600.  $16,660 in post-tax dollars, assuming retirement in the 15% bracket.

After 26 months. And I am rounding down.

Congratulations.  Really.  That is great for you
You are comparing a past 2 year equity performance of over 16% annually to a home loan
Of course the 401K is going to win.

[boarder42]

For carrying so much about those other points you never responded to my counter to the other points which left you with a single point emotion. Which the math team must forfeit to since everyone who has chosen due to a feeling puts infinity value on.

[slythr]

I'm glad there is was no disrespect intended.  Its sometimes hard to tell on a forum.  FWIW I do my best to write my posts to be respectful and informative.

The reason for my posting my numbers were to demonstrate how far your numbers were from the true value. Numbers are important.  So is terminology, which is why i got a bit touchy when 5/10 was referred to as "more than half".  If we're being objective we could say 2 were "about equal (within 1/4%), 5 were better and 3 were worse, though the better periods were much better than the subpar periods (mean 7.58% vs 0.51%, though including this latest period would bump it up 8.5%, or closer to the historical average which you've used udner the argument 'returning to the mean')

As for 'cherry-picking' the timeframe, I think you're still not understanding our points, and I urge you to go back and reread many of the posts here nad linked here, including Brooklynguy's recent one.  But consider this - had you chosen 1 yr periods it would be 11/18 (67%).  2 year periods = 13/17 (76%), 3 years = 10/16 (63%)...etc.  on the longer end if you expand the both the time period and go back til WWII so you can backtest, at 10 years = 87%, 13 year= 91% and 22-30 years = 100%.  (all data includes 2017, because there's just ~18 trading days left and we're +20.25%). In the longer time periods the few instances where the target was 'missed' it was on average <1%, whereas the periods with superior returns it was on average by >5%.

If you had gone back to 1995 or 1990 or 1980 the numbers are even better. 
Not only have you chosen to compare a 7yr time-horizon to a 30yr fixed mortage (incorrect for reasons stated by others) but intentionally or not you have literally chosen about the worst time frame possible for the given decade. Then to compound it, you've selected (again incorrectly) the calendar years most favorable to your argument. Ergo, calls of 'cherry-picking' data, even if it were unintentional. 

Even still, what your data has shown is that when its worse, it's barely worse, and when it's better it's substantially better.

I appreciate that
I chose the 7 year timeframe because that is how long the poster I was responding to owned his home.
And that is also the historical average for ownership. Somehow that response, to that guy about his 7 year ownership experience somehow turned into my defacto position on this issue, which isn't the case
It is what it is.
To be frank, I don't really give a **** about market performance either way.  Other points matter much more to me regarding the debate.
It's about 4th on the list of things that would be important- to me.
The return on equities pales in comparison to the return on my businesses, but I am a different breed and I don't dance to the same tune as many here
But I do appreciate you clarifying my mistake with the calculator.
Again, sorry about the name thing.

There it is! 

For the 90%+ on this forum who plan on retiring early, returns matter.

Hey JLee
Welcome to 2 pages ago on the thread where I already clearly explained to Boarder that I am not part of the 90% who need a 4% SWR.

But my quote above was about market performance regarding leverage, not retirement.

[slythr]

For carrying so much about those other points you never responded to my counter to the other points which left you with a single point emotion. Which the math team must forfeit to since everyone who has chosen due to a feeling puts infinity value on.

I didn't respond because your argument on the other points made no sense.
It wasn't a counter, it was a dismissal.
I don't mind debating, but there were no points to debate.
And they are points many other people made, not just me.

[boarder42]

But really this is all null bc you chose paying down a mortgage over maxing tax advantaged accounts which even those in favor of paying down mortgages would not do in the forum. It's so mathematically bad it really doesn't matter if we do happen to be in the worst 7 10 15 year window in history the practice of paying down a mortgage over maxing these accounts loses hand over fist.

[boarder42]

For carrying so much about those other points you never responded to my counter to the other points which left you with a single point emotion. Which the math team must forfeit to since everyone who has chosen due to a feeling puts infinity value on.

I didn't respond because your argument on the other points made no sense.
It wasn't a counter, it was a dismissal.
I don't mind debating, but there were no points to debate.
And they are points many other people made, not just me.

I asked you to show math for the advantages of the presumably better ones. You didn't bc you can't and Brooklynguy already linked to this debate where those were overstated.

I asked you to give examples of this control one needs that paying down a mortgage gets you. You gave no example of when this would be advantageous or what percentage of people this would actually effect.

[JLee]

Congratulations.  Really.  That is great for you
You are comparing a past 2 year equity performance of over 16% annually to a home loan
Of course the 401K is going to win.

Yep. And from what I can gather, others want to compare the worst time period in recent history.

If you're going to one extreme with speculation, I might as well go to the other with what actually happened to me.

I do care about market returns, though - and since you don't, I'm not sure what else we have to discuss.

[jleo]

One thing I never hear is isn't one disadvantage of paying off a mortgage loan early an increase in risk of a lawsuit as a paid off home anyone can basically look that up and see you have a large asset paid off and make you a target?

It's an issue. Much depends on your state's homestead exemption. It's good to have an umbrella policy just in case.

Certainly it's easy to find out in public records that that large, paid-off asset is sitting there for the taking. An investment account shouldn't be "visible" in that way.

I do have an umbrella but seems to only cover you in certain cases and not all cases.

If you paid off your house and then took out a HELOC would it appear as you possibly just refi the house to the public records and not paid it off as I believe there would be another lien added?

Curious as I like the idea of having the spending power with the line of credit incase of an opportunity you can quickly act on.

[channtheman]

That's a very unscientific analysis.

LOL "scientific analysis." It's a freakin poll about how people FEEL. But flog away at that grease spot.

I thought your post was helpful.  All you did was compile the results of this thread as if it were a poll.  Relevant to the original post.

[Telecaster]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that. 

[JLee]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that.

Hadn't looked at it that way, but yeah..

[slythr]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that.

Boarder asked me if I would rather max out a tax advantaged account (equities) or apply to the mortgage
Those were the only two options I was given.  I could have clarified, but that would be boring
I would take free money from the match.
After that I wouldn't invest in the equity market right now.  I said that to him 2 pages ago.
I have said that 15 times on this thread
I invest in what I understand and control.
I would invest in fixed income, or in other things, but not equities.
Especially now at record all time highs.
I would invest in real estate, collector automobiles, my businesses, or a myriad of other things.

My risk tolerance is low.  I wouldn't touch this market with any money of value.
You guys hold up the equity market like it is some king. Not really.
There are many other investments that offer far more return, much less risk, and are enjoyable.
I have investments that return double, triple or more of the equity market.
Equities don't appeal to me.  They have little involvement in my opinion.  I like involvement

I see the wow comments?, and the I need to open my mind comments. I smile!
My mind is the one here wide open.  It's not just the equity market or nothing for me. It is actually just about every other market except that.  Investment you can live in, drive, hold, look at or work on.
The equity market will never be a bird in the hand, because you have no control over it.  I have investments that are a bird in the hand.  I know exactly what they will pay me months or years from now.  THAT is a bird in the hand.

My investments are my employees.  Real employees.  Buildings, Businesses, Brands. and lots of other things.
Some of you criticizing me and others work for someone else all day, sometimes in a job you hate, making them rich, then go home to your mortgaged home with little net worth, hop on the net, and then call people like me crazy.

Now that is good.

[JLee]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that.

Boarder asked me if I would rather max out a tax advantaged account (equities) or apply to the mortgage
Those were the only two options I was given.  I could have clarified, but that would be boring
I would take free money from the match.
After that I wouldn't invest in the equity market right now.  I said that to him 2 pages ago.
I have said that 15 times on this thread
I invest in what I understand and control.
I would invest in fixed income, or in other things, but not equities.
Especially now at record all time highs.
I would invest in real estate, collector automobiles, my other businesses, or a myriad of other things.

My risk tolerance is low.  I wouldn't touch this market with any money of value.
You guys hold up the equity market like it is some king. Not really.
There are many other investments that offer far more return, much less risk, and are enjoyable.
I have investments that return double, triple or more of the equity market.
Equities don't appeal to me.  They have little involvement in my opinion.  I like involvement

I see the wow comments?, and the I need to open my mind comments. I smile!
My mind is the one here wide open.  It's not just the equity market or nothing for me. It is actually just about every other market except that.  Investment you can live in, drive, hold, look at or work on.
The equity market will never be a bird in the hand, because you have no control over it.  I have investments that are a bird in the hand.  I know exactly what they will pay me months or years from now.  THAT is a bird in the hand.

My investments are my employees.  Real employees.  Buildings, Businesses, Brands. and lots of other things.
Some of you criticizing me and others work for someone else all day, sometimes in a job you hate, making them rich, then go home to your mortgaged home with little net worth, hop on the net, and then call people like me crazy.

That to me is silly.

That statement amuses me.

If the market wasn't routinely at all time highs, what exactly would be the point of investing?

[slythr]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that.

Boarder asked me if I would rather max out a tax advantaged account (equities) or apply to the mortgage
Those were the only two options I was given.  I could have clarified, but that would be boring
I would take free money from the match.
After that I wouldn't invest in the equity market right now.  I said that to him 2 pages ago.
I have said that 15 times on this thread
I invest in what I understand and control.
I would invest in fixed income, or in other things, but not equities.
Especially now at record all time highs.
I would invest in real estate, collector automobiles, my other businesses, or a myriad of other things.

My risk tolerance is low.  I wouldn't touch this market with any money of value.
You guys hold up the equity market like it is some king. Not really.
There are many other investments that offer far more return, much less risk, and are enjoyable.
I have investments that return double, triple or more of the equity market.
Equities don't appeal to me.  They have little involvement in my opinion.  I like involvement

I see the wow comments?, and the I need to open my mind comments. I smile!
My mind is the one here wide open.  It's not just the equity market or nothing for me. It is actually just about every other market except that.  Investment you can live in, drive, hold, look at or work on.
The equity market will never be a bird in the hand, because you have no control over it.  I have investments that are a bird in the hand.  I know exactly what they will pay me months or years from now.  THAT is a bird in the hand.

My investments are my employees.  Real employees.  Buildings, Businesses, Brands. and lots of other things.
Some of you criticizing me and others work for someone else all day, sometimes in a job you hate, making them rich, then go home to your mortgaged home with little net worth, hop on the net, and then call people like me crazy.

That to me is silly.

That statement amuses me.

If the market wasn't routinely at all time highs, what exactly would be the point of investing?

The next few years will really amuse you
So you are not a buy low sell high person?. 

Wait...I thought the goal was to buy low when everything is on sale, right?

[boarder42]

Market timing.

You buy constantly regardless of the market valuation

This just gets better and better

[JLee]

If there is any match, the qualified account up to the max match limit
Once any match is maxed, mortgage

Wow.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely higher than yours, then.

My risk tolerance is nearly infinitely lower.   Maxing out tax advantaged accounts is a bird in hand.  You get the advantage today, and it is roughly equal to your top marginal bracket (quibbles wit that characterization noted, and accepted into evidence).  Paying off the mortgage is roughly equal to your mortgage rate minus the rate of inflation, which might very well be add up to zero. 

Giving up a bird in the hand for very possibly zero reward sounds literally insane to me.  That is crazy, crazy, crazy, risk taking.  I am far too risk adverse to do something like that.

Boarder asked me if I would rather max out a tax advantaged account (equities) or apply to the mortgage
Those were the only two options I was given.  I could have clarified, but that would be boring
I would take free money from the match.
After that I wouldn't invest in the equity market right now.  I said that to him 2 pages ago.
I have said that 15 times on this thread
I invest in what I understand and control.
I would invest in fixed income, or in other things, but not equities.
Especially now at record all time highs.
I would invest in real estate, collector automobiles, my other businesses, or a myriad of other things.

My risk tolerance is low.  I wouldn't touch this market with any money of value.
You guys hold up the equity market like it is some king. Not really.
There are many other investments that offer far more return, much less risk, and are enjoyable.
I have investments that return double, triple or more of the equity market.
Equities don't appeal to me.  They have little involvement in my opinion.  I like involvement

I see the wow comments?, and the I need to open my mind comments. I smile!
My mind is the one here wide open.  It's not just the equity market or nothing for me. It is actually just about every other market except that.  Investment you can live in, drive, hold, look at or work on.
The equity market will never be a bird in the hand, because you have no control over it.  I have investments that are a bird in the hand.  I know exactly what they will pay me months or years from now.  THAT is a bird in the hand.

My investments are my employees.  Real employees.  Buildings, Businesses, Brands. and lots of other things.
Some of you criticizing me and others work for someone else all day, sometimes in a job you hate, making them rich, then go home to your mortgaged home with little net worth, hop on the net, and then call people like me crazy.

That to me is silly.

That statement amuses me.

If the market wasn't routinely at all time highs, what exactly would be the point of investing?

The next few years will really amuse you
So you are not a buy low sell high person?. 

Wait...I thought the goal was to buy low when everything is on sale, right?

I don't have a crystal ball, so no.

What you're describing is market timing - if that's your investment strategy, you are wise to stay out of the market.

Are you perhaps calling that "the top is in?"

I can guarantee you that my investment portfolio consists of more "real employees, buildings, businesses, brands. and lots of other things" than whatever you own.  That's perfectly fine if it's your strategy but don't pretend that you're better diversified in real assets than a selection of index funds are.

I hope for your sake that your businesses don't crumble during the inevitable economic meltdown that you're predicting.

[slythr]

Not market timing
Market observation and a little common sense.
Enjoy the ride

[JLee]

Not market timing
Market observation and a little common sense.
Enjoy the ride

...with investment decisions made with "common sense" after "market observation.

That's market timing. It doesn't end well.

[slythr]

Not market timing
Market observation and a little common sense.
Enjoy the ride

...with investment decisions made with "common sense" after "market observation.

That's market timing. It doesn't end well.

Only if you play the game
It will end just fine for me, cause I don't play.

[Telecaster]

Wait...I thought the goal was to buy low when everything is on sale, right?

^ That's all you need to know right there folks. 

[Dicey]

Gosh, I chose an interesting time to excuse myself from this debate...

Does anyone else find it interesting that every single one of "slythr's" posts to date are on this thread?. "slythr" has literally not a posted a single word anywhere else on this whole forum. At this writing, "slythr" has 39 posts.

Y'all can debate and discuss whatever that means while I go back to calmly contemplating my navel, or brand-new car shopping, or....something.

[nereo]

The next few years will really amuse you
So you are not a buy low sell high person?. 

Wait...I thought the goal was to buy low when everything is on sale, right?

I think part of the disconnect here is that we aren't even talking about the same thing. For the overwhelmingly large percentage of people the mortgage payoff scenario involves monthly payoffs over many dozens of months, not lump sum. Call it DOA if you like. 
You are constantly throwing out terms like "reversion to the mean" without defining the time period and suggest market timing but say you "don't play [that] game". You stick with a suspicious and erroneous 7 year time-frame with little reason - the justification about the poster up-thread doesn't even hold water. Explanations from multiple posters about why a 7-year time-frame is not valid and why you should look at more than just the most recent 16 years have gone unanswered.

The mantra here is not 'buy low' but rather 'buy and hold'.  Those aren't remotely the same thing.

FWIW I'm not even in the hard-core "never pay off your mortgage camp" though I am convinced its better for many people. I know that there are reasons for some that make sense, such as cash-flow, stress and when you've "won the game". But you try to bring in historical simulations but do it in ways that are highly biased towards your position.  You talk endlessly about 'the market' but then talk about how you have 'far better options" that earn "double or triple" which you "understand and can control". Yet you still seem to be advocating paying down your mortgage, despite these amazing and "less volatile' investment opportunities available to you.  How you've made that calculation I can't even begin to comprehend.
In sum you aren't representative of the people for whom this discussion is for (i.e. most people).

Not taking advantage of tax-advantaged accounts because one wants to pay down their mortgage makes no financial sense (to me) for anyone who is above the 15% tax bracket.  For every dollar I put into my tax-advantaged accounts I save 25% in taxes. As Telecaster noted, that's too risky not to take advantage of.

[slythr]

Gosh, I chose an interesting time to excuse myself from this debate...

Does anyone else find it interesting that every single one of "slythr's" posts to date are on this thread?. "slythr" has literally not a posted a single word anywhere else on this whole forum. At this writing, "slythr" has 39 posts.

Y'all can debate and discuss whatever that means while I go back to calmly contemplating my navel, or brand-new car shopping, or....something.

Ahem...soon to be 40+ posts. Maybe even 50.
What is the opportunity cost of 5000+ posts?
I find post count correlation to be interesting, but everyone has their contemplating thing.

[boarder42]

Gosh, I chose an interesting time to excuse myself from this debate...

Does anyone else find it interesting that every single one of "slythr's" posts to date are on this thread?. "slythr" has literally not a posted a single word anywhere else on this whole forum. At this writing, "slythr" has 39 posts.

Y'all can debate and discuss whatever that means while I go back to calmly contemplating my navel, or brand-new car shopping, or....something.

Ahem...soon to be 40+ posts. Maybe even 50.
What is the opportunity cost of 5000+ posts?
I find post count correlation to be interesting, but everyone has their contemplating thing.

Dicey is FIREd so really nothing other than trying to help people.  I'd say if people are acting on any of your comments thus far you have possibly done some damage to the path people are / were on to FIRE. 

Outside of the incorrect statements about mortgages and incorrect path you have been a strong proponent of trying to time the market.  And have actively dismissed the market in the same post because you dont rely on it.  You havent actually listened to or understood anyone's counter points to your statements or acknowledge the forum in which you are posting.  Regardless of your personal view and very fuzzy math if we can even call it math anymore, you are in a FIRE forum that is built upon quitting work based on average market returns over time and the general populous here buys into this.  Not a point made thus far has changed the underlying fundamentals of how the markets have functioned in the past and should function in the future.  As was pointed out by JLee you're much less diversified than any person here who owns VTSAX with your personal companies.  Which leads to a higher risk of failure for you personally that would make paying down a mortgage vs re investing in your companies to make more profit make sense.  B/c you have a much much higher risk of total financial failure in owning your own individual companies than owning the total US stock market.

[slythr]

I think part of the disconnect here is that we aren't even talking about the same thing. For the overwhelmingly large percentage of people the mortgage payoff scenario involves monthly payoffs over many dozens of months, not lump sum. Call it DOA if you like. 
You are constantly throwing out terms like "reversion to the mean" without defining the time period and suggest market timing but say you "don't play [that] game". You stick with a suspicious and erroneous 7 year time-frame with little reason - the justification about the poster up-thread doesn't even hold water. Explanations from multiple posters about why a 7-year time-frame is not valid and why you should look at more than just the most recent 16 years have gone unanswered.

The mantra here is not 'buy low' but rather 'buy and hold'.  Those aren't remotely the same thing.

FWIW I'm not even in the hard-core "never pay off your mortgage camp" though I am convinced its better for many people. I know that there are reasons for some that make sense, such as cash-flow, stress and when you've "won the game". But you try to bring in historical simulations but do it in ways that are highly biased towards your position.  You talk endlessly about 'the market' but then talk about how you have 'far better options" that earn "double or triple" which you "understand and can control". Yet you still seem to be advocating paying down your mortgage, despite these amazing and "less volatile' investment opportunities available to you.  How you've made that calculation I can't even begin to comprehend.
In sum you aren't representative of the people for whom this discussion is for (i.e. most people).

Not taking advantage of tax-advantaged accounts because one wants to pay down their mortgage makes no financial sense (to me) for anyone who is above the 15% tax bracket.  For every dollar I put into my tax-advantaged accounts I save 25% in taxes. As Telecaster noted, that's too risky not to take advantage of.

First off, congratulations to all of those who have paid off their mortgage and don't regret it.
AGAIN.  CONGRATULATIONS to those who have no regrets. You know, the title of the thread and all. 
We seem to veer off that point from time to time.  Not sure why so many non pay off non-regretter supporters linger here.  Like sitting in the visitors section, but I digress.  We do need a spirited debate afterall.

To your points:
I have defined the reversion to the mean time period you reference multiple times in this thread. I noted the market has been on a tear for 8.5 years, and over the next decade reversion is likely.  So 10 years.

As far as the equity market vs alternative controlled investments, I don't doubt it is hard to comprehend.  That is why few people do it, and why it is successful. And you are exactly correct, I am not representative of the people whom this discussion is generally for.  I have stated that point as well, numerous times. I am not representative of most people on this board by design.  That is part of the beauty of this debate.  People not invested in advancing their position and being "right" or having the last word can read and see that even people who arrived at the destination a completely different way can still share the same goal.  I don't like certain debt or certain risk for a variety of reasons.  They may be different reasons than yours, but they are valid.  But no one asks why.  Instead they assume, then attack.

And this 7 year issue you keep bringing up. Dude....I have answered it multiple times, yet you bring it up again.  Are you trying to be annoying now? (just messing with you - maybe).  Here is what I said....TO YOU...yesterday at 6:34 on page 12 of this thread:

I went with the 7 year timeframe because that is how long the poster I was responding to owned his home.
And that is also the historical average for ownership. Somehow that response, to that guy about his 7 year ownership experience somehow turned into my defacto position on this issue, which isn't the case

Here is the original post.

I looked back at my own $200k/4.25% mortgage that my wife and I took out in 2010, put every extra cent (after retirement accounts) into, and paid off a few years later. I looked over our past extra payments and put them into a spreadsheet simulating what would have happened if we had instead put the extra payments into VTSAX. Before even considering the tax benefit of extending the mortgage interest deduction, we would have come out ahead by $130k by the time we sold that house earlier in 2017.

$130k divided by seven years is a lot more than your "max benefit" that you state.

I'm not arguing that my situation is typical of all time periods. If we had instead bought the house in 2005 the numbers would surely be different. I'd like to run those numbers when I have a bit more time, just to see.

He brought up 7 years.  And he brought up a separate timeframe of 2005.  So I went back 5 years further and got the numbers just to look. For myself.  I didn't know what they would say.  I was curious.  It just so happens it supports my position some.  It may even be convenient, but it is still true and it still happened. That post is due to SeattleCyclone's timeframe, not mine. 

And prioritizing paying down a mortgage over other investments, even tax advantaged ones can make sense in certain circumstances.  But that is not what I was choosing.  I would choose the mortgage over equity accounts at this point in time, regardless of the tax saving on personal income.  The tax advantaged part doesn't affect me as much as you or most others, because I have various ways of deferring or avoiding taxes through business long before it passes through to my 1040.  Most people on here look at an IRA of $5500, or an extra few thousand into their 401K as their option. I think that is what Boarder was alluding to.  I look at section 179 for $100K-$200K or 1031 exchanges or buying commercial property and the depreciation schedule when I look at tax advantaged moves. I think we play in different ends of the pool.

Have you thought to consider that not everyone shows income every year?  You know, some people have carry forward losses.  Some people buy businesses just for the carry forward loss.

I take a significant amount of various market risks in my income generation.  Unlike most people here who are W-2 salaried, their income is fairly risk free and likely not exposed to markets so they get their risk on from their investments outside of income. And the most common way is through equity investing, or their primary home.  So that is why this discussion revolves around those two items.

But that isn't the extent of my circle.  I get all the risk one wants on the income side, so I have no room left on the investment side in order to maintain balance.  Becuase of that I prefer fixed guaranteed investment or payoffs, which include a mortgage.  It's not because I can't do the calculations.  I do them everyday.

What is really interesting is I have lots of various risk exposure on the income side.  And I do business with people just like you and all the other keep the mortgage people every day.  And Confirmation bias?  I have every reason to be on the keep side.  I make money with that position.  I make money when others have that position. I used to be on that side. It was a good position 8 years ago.

And yet it's still not my personal position now. You don't have to understand it or comprehend.  Only I have to.

I am not in the hardcore payoff the mortgage camp either.  I am not hardcore in either camp.  I just don't care for people coming on here, a congrats on payoff thread, and dumping their shit when there are several other threads where that is appropriate. Including a thread that is just about keeping the mortgage.  Go bump that one up to the top.  The fact that I don't subscribe to most of the reasons for leverage, such as the 4% SWR, or expectations of future average equity market performance only help to fend off the attacks.  But don't be fooled.  Many of you guys are abnormally viscous with your position, even overreacting because a name was accidentally misspelled?. That I don't understand. It is likely why others don't post here.  They don't want to get attacked and I understand that.

To each their own.  I have repeatedly said the main thing is understanding your choice, regardless of which one it is.  I completely understand mine. It has worked out very well for me and many others.  For some, they have regrets.  Hopefully they have taken action on those regrets and done something about it.

[NorthernBlitz]

Wait...I thought the goal was to buy low when everything is on sale, right?

^ That's all you need to know right there folks.

I thought the goal was to buy all the time because we never know when it's on sale or when it's over valued. We only know that in 20 - 30 years from now it will almost certainly be higher than it is now.

[ACyclist]

This is an interesting topic.  The board has me convinced that I should invest instead of continuing to pay down the mortgage.  The market makes me nervous as well, because I believe there will be a correction.  I'm currently saving up to buy some VTSAX, which I should have enough by April.  Those shares are expensive to get into ($75 fee). If I am investing in large chunks, it could end up being horrible market timing.  Not that I am trying to time, but I can probably only afford maybe one investment per year.  10K at one wack makes me nervous.

Also, there is a Fidelity fund that I can get for less induction fee that are the same type of investment.  Example: FSTVX

[slythr]

Gosh, I chose an interesting time to excuse myself from this debate...

Does anyone else find it interesting that every single one of "slythr's" posts to date are on this thread?. "slythr" has literally not a posted a single word anywhere else on this whole forum. At this writing, "slythr" has 39 posts.

Y'all can debate and discuss whatever that means while I go back to calmly contemplating my navel, or brand-new car shopping, or....something.

Ahem...soon to be 40+ posts. Maybe even 50.
What is the opportunity cost of 5000+ posts?
I find post count correlation to be interesting, but everyone has their contemplating thing.

Dicey is FIREd so really nothing other than trying to help people.  I'd say if people are acting on any of your comments thus far you have possibly done some damage to the path people are / were on to FIRE. 

Outside of the incorrect statements about mortgages and incorrect path you have been a strong proponent of trying to time the market.  And have actively dismissed the market in the same post because you dont rely on it.  You havent actually listened to or understood anyone's counter points to your statements or acknowledge the forum in which you are posting.  Regardless of your personal view and very fuzzy math if we can even call it math anymore, you are in a FIRE forum that is built upon quitting work based on average market returns over time and the general populous here buys into this.  Not a point made thus far has changed the underlying fundamentals of how the markets have functioned in the past and should function in the future.  As was pointed out by JLee you're much less diversified than any person here who owns VTSAX with your personal companies.  Which leads to a higher risk of failure for you personally that would make paying down a mortgage vs re investing in your companies to make more profit make sense.  B/c you have a much much higher risk of total financial failure in owning your own individual companies than owning the total US stock market.

I wasn't talking about Dicey

And if anyone is changing their path due solely to some anonymous internet guy on a subforum or an early retirement blog then that path wasn't that solid to begin with.

This is a CONGRATULATIONS thread, mostly about a mojority of responders NOT regretting their accomplishments, so lets try and keep it there. If you have regrets, start a new thread about them.

[nereo]

This is a CONGRATULATIONS thread, mostly about a mojority of responders NOT regretting their accomplishments, so lets try and keep it there. If you have regrets, start a new thread about them.

The subject of this thread is: Do you regret paying off your mortgage early.

You either deliberately ignoring that or just flaming. Yes, you've repeated your assumptions, but not addressed the critiques on why they are poor assumptions to begin with.  You are simultaneously arguing that the last 17 years were not particularly great with the market and then suggesting we need a reversion to the mean (correction/recession) - and conclude its 'common sense' and definitely not market timing - conclusions that don't sit well with one another. Ironically your arguments keep pointing toward doing better by not paying off your mortgage, including your preferred strategy of earning 2-3x the market buying businesses you control.  It seems like you are just yelling more than debating or providing a constructive argument.

[slythr]

The subject of this thread is: Do you regret paying off your mortgage early.

You either deliberately ignoring that or just flaming. Yes, you've repeated your assumptions, but not addressed the critiques on why they are poor assumptions to begin with.  You are simultaneously arguing that the last 17 years were not particularly great with the market and then suggesting we need a reversion to the mean (correction/recession) - and conclude its 'common sense' and definitely not market timing - conclusions that don't sit well with one another. Ironically your arguments keep pointing toward doing better by not paying off your mortgage, including your preferred strategy of earning 2-3x the market buying businesses you control.  It seems like you are just yelling more than debating or providing a constructive argument.

That is right.  The subject is do you regret paying off your mortgage early?
And by Noralenderbee's calculations most do not

I counted the answers from posters who have actually paid off a mortgage, counting only since the thread was revived (2017).
Did not regret it: 21
Regretted it: 3
Paid off the first time, decided not to pay off the second time: 3

21 of 27, or 78%, don't regret it.

and that 78% turned this thread into a congratulation we don't regret it thread.
I have provided my assumptions and explanations for them. They are opinions, after all this is an opinion thread.  I am not concerned whether it satisfies your subjective analysis. 

[nereo]

facts are opinions and the subject of the thread isn't what it says because it better fits your narrative?

there's a discussion to be had and things to be learned, but not when you can declare it to be whatever you want it to be.