If you’re in your 40s, how big is your mortgage?

[MultipleMum5]

I’m nearing 40 and mine is the largest it’s ever been. Thinking of remortgaging in a few years to get the rest of the house done.

How big is yours? And is it harder to get the loan once you’re a bit, ahem, older?

[quote TheyWentToSeaInASieve]@fuckyouRW
That's impressive you guys are planning to clear it in 30 months! Without any interest, that is approximately 16K/month. Can you please share some tips, or do you simply earn a very decent salary?[/quote]
DH earns impressive salary and decent bonus, we have no other debt and live well within our means. Get a job in the ME is my tip!

I don’t understand why people buy a bigger house in their forties. Our dc have left home and we don’t need the space now. What’s the point?
My daughter is 2 and we’re trying for a second. Not everyone has the opportunity to have children young. We absolutely need the space now.

We paid off our mortgage 16 years ago. Recently downsized, as our children are now adults.

@backoffice

We’ve paid ours off but have a small house so little capital.

I don’t understand why people buy a bigger house in their forties. Our dc have left home and we don’t need the space now. What’s the point?

Because we wanted more outside space (acres, rather than just a large garden) and a house big enough for one of my parents to come live with us but still enjoy semi independent living.

And, our dc are still young (primary age).

Huge difference isn’t there according to when people had their kids.
If people will still have children at home in their late 50s or 60s, they may well be moving to bigger houses and taking on more debt well into 40s or even beyond that.

I know there are pros and cons of all ages and crucially that lots of people can’t have children younger for all kinds of reasons such as not having met their spouse, career concerns and fertility issues, but it does make me realise again, how those who have their kids in their early 30s have lots of advantages, one of which being that they might not need to be funding a huge house and big mortgage in their older age. Early retirement, although less attainable generally now, is probably more possible for those who had their kids a bit younger…….although I know too, that by waiting longer, people often earn more etc etc.

Some of the mortgages mentioned on here seem huge to me. As we are talking people in their 40s, most are not first time buyers, but buying with reasonable equity in their existing property. I understand if people are moving from small flats to family houses, and also if people are huge earners and can easily afford it. I find it harder to understand why moderate earners who already have a family house, take on a big extra debt in their later 40s, which can be several thousand a month, with a commitment until they are 70. The bigger garden, moe rooms, and I guess it’s often better location, just seem hugely ‘expensive’ to me, in terms of ‘cost’ in terms of consequences of needing to remain in full time, stressful work until pretty old age.

Just musing really. I know people make all kinds of different choices for all kinds of reasons…..perfectly valid and right for them.

Ours is 0 having paid it off a few years ago but considering moving and new mortgage could probably end up being 300-400k with a LTV of 60%. But not keen on thought of it.

@WombatChocolate

Huge difference isn’t there according to when people had their kids. If people will still have children at home in their late 50s or 60s, they may well be moving to bigger houses and taking on more debt well into 40s or even beyond that.

I know there are pros and cons of all ages and crucially that lots of people can’t have children younger for all kinds of reasons such as not having met their spouse, career concerns and fertility issues, but it does make me realise again, how those who have their kids in their early 30s have lots of advantages, one of which being that they might not need to be funding a huge house and big mortgage in their older age. Early retirement, although less attainable generally now, is probably more possible for those who had their kids a bit younger…….although I know too, that by waiting longer, people often earn more etc etc.

Some of the mortgages mentioned on here seem huge to me. As we are talking people in their 40s, most are not first time buyers, but buying with reasonable equity in their existing property. I understand if people are moving from small flats to family houses, and also if people are huge earners and can easily afford it. I find it harder to understand why moderate earners who already have a family house, take on a big extra debt in their later 40s, which can be several thousand a month, with a commitment until they are 70. The bigger garden, moe rooms, and I guess it’s often better location, just seem hugely ‘expensive’ to me, in terms of ‘cost’ in terms of consequences of needing to remain in full time, stressful work until pretty old age.

Just musing really. I know people make all kinds of different choices for all kinds of reasons…..perfectly valid and right for them.

Mortgage rate are 2-3%. Investment ISA returns are 5-6%. Property generally goes up in value. Getting a big mortgage is generally a good financial decision. Paying off your mortgage is generally a bad one.

It was tiny when I turned 40 and paid off at 42.

The house is fine for us and in the area where our friends and family are but few MNetters would think it was in the right area or a "forever home".

It is lovely to have the financial freedom and employment choices that comes with no debt though.

I'm 51 now and could retire if I wanted to.

I’m 49, husband early 50s. We have a loan to value of 43%. The mortgage is equivalent to 3x our combined salaries. Half the mortgage is repayment, half interest only. The mortgage has 12 years left to run. We will start paying down the interest only half when youngest is out of private school in 4 years.

Let’s just hope inflation doesn’t catch us out. We have the mortgage fixed for another 3 years.

It’s a huge mortgage, but really not a problem if things remain stable. If inflation rockets and high prices fall, we will have problems.

High prices?
House prices!

I’m at the beginning of my 40s and DP is at the end. Mortgage is £275k. The plan is to start overpaying it once DD is older, when I’ll work more days and we’ll have no nursery fees.

I haven’t seen anyone mention divorce - and I didn’t in my initial reply.

So at 27 I had a 25 year mortgage - pay off at 52.

At 33 I bought with my husband - the forever home if you like, massive. Went back to 25 years, pay off at 58.

Divorced at 40, back to a 25 year mortgage - so now I’d be looking at 65.

As it happens, I’ve always overpaid and I chose to put a lot of the equity from former marital home into a combination of pension and accessible savings. I have an offset mortgage for the latter.

So I’m someone who is still paying a mortgage with a long way to go in late forties, because of divorce.

Yes, I get that people leverage themselves and that over time, inflation erodes the debt and rising house prices add to equity in the property. I know that if you take on a bigger debt, you’ll end up with a bigger asset in the end.
I guess, my thought is about what is required to service the debt and end up with the bigger asset….the difference perhaps between stopping work at 58 and at 68. Some people are very happy to be going full-belt at work by the time they are 70, but for many, those last years can be totally exhausting and actually reduce or diminish their experience of retirement later. I guess I’m wondering if it’s worth it. Yes, you can have a much bigger house and a bigger asset to leave your kids…but is it worth it? Just musing really.

I know people take different attitudes to work, retirement age, property, assets etc. There is no wrong or right answer and people value different things and what life throws at us often limits our choices anyway.

But surely only a few people have the option to retire at 58? Early retirement on an occupational pension is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and only a tiny minority of people will have built up a pension pot at 58 that's big enough to last for possibly 40 years. Or am I missing something?

@FrazzledY9Parent - yes and no. If you have a smaller house with no mortgage, you might have an extra x 100k in pensions that you can draw down from 55.

I’ve got a small house worth 200k ish - but a lot of additional savings just in pension rather than in capital. Living costs v cheap in my area especially with no mortgage.

I’m in the same position @TrainforSpeed - paid off small cheap house in small cheap area. Not our ideal life but what is? And yes we can retire early or manage long term sickness if that’s needed. Sometimes I feel like a bit of a pleb compared with friends in nice areas or with big houses but we are happy with a really simple/bit lame life.

@backoffice - don’t be hard on yourself. Nothing wrong with living within your means! We all want different things in life. For me, paying off a mortgage isn’t really a goal as we live in London and will only ever move somewhere less expensive. For us our house is an asset which increases in value every year.

Frazzled - yes, you’re right that fewer can retire in late 50s now. I mentioned that upthread when talking about this earlier. You’re right that it’s available to fewer people now than in the past.

But actually, it can still be achievable for some and that is more likely if they haven’t taken on large mortgages in their 40s and 50s and have paid off the smaller mortgages they had early on. I know a number of people, who have decent but not amazing jobs, who are currently in their late 40s, who will retire in their mid to late 50s. They are mortgage free because they have remained in their modest family houses and paid off the mortgages they had and have since squirrelled away large sums for retirement, plus often been in good public sector defined benefit pensions too, which will give a decent guaranteed income, which can be taken at reduced rate anytime from 55.

I’m not saying what they have chosen is right or everyone should be so if it, or that everyone can go down that route. Everyone has to make choices about what to do with their money and to decide if they want to be making spending choices which involve spending commitments far into the future or not, in conjunction with what they would hope for regarding retirement.

Early retirement will become less of an option as time goes on. Actually, a minority, but a decent minority will be doing it who are in their late 40s and early 50s now. Less will be able to manage it who are currently early 40s and less as time goes on. But I suppose my key point was that choices about mortgages (and I know not everyone has many choices in this area anyway) directly impact retirement. People don’t always think about the 2 in conjunction with each other. Smaller mortgages can be paid off earlier and have shorter terms, meaning that huge monthly outlay is ended, which is necessary for most people to retire.

Lots of people don’t have many choices about retirement vs house. For those who do, some will choose the bigger house and consequently need to work into their late 60s. Others will choose to stick with their smaller house, knowing it will mean they can retire 5 years or 8 years or whatever sooner. There’s no right answer, but there are often choices to be made.

That makes a lot of sense @WombatChocolate. It is also true that a modest house = modest outgoings which makes retirement more achievable. It also occurs to me that there are e.g. parts of France where you can buy a perfectly liveable house for £30k or less - not for everybody, but also a choice that is there to be made.

@WombatChocolate

Frazzled - yes, you’re right that fewer can retire in late 50s now. I mentioned that upthread when talking about this earlier. You’re right that it’s available to fewer people now than in the past.

But actually, it can still be achievable for some and that is more likely if they haven’t taken on large mortgages in their 40s and 50s and have paid off the smaller mortgages they had early on. I know a number of people, who have decent but not amazing jobs, who are currently in their late 40s, who will retire in their mid to late 50s. They are mortgage free because they have remained in their modest family houses and paid off the mortgages they had and have since squirrelled away large sums for retirement, plus often been in good public sector defined benefit pensions too, which will give a decent guaranteed income, which can be taken at reduced rate anytime from 55.

I’m not saying what they have chosen is right or everyone should be so if it, or that everyone can go down that route. Everyone has to make choices about what to do with their money and to decide if they want to be making spending choices which involve spending commitments far into the future or not, in conjunction with what they would hope for regarding retirement.

Early retirement will become less of an option as time goes on. Actually, a minority, but a decent minority will be doing it who are in their late 40s and early 50s now. Less will be able to manage it who are currently early 40s and less as time goes on. But I suppose my key point was that choices about mortgages (and I know not everyone has many choices in this area anyway) directly impact retirement. People don’t always think about the 2 in conjunction with each other. Smaller mortgages can be paid off earlier and have shorter terms, meaning that huge monthly outlay is ended, which is necessary for most people to retire.

Lots of people don’t have many choices about retirement vs house. For those who do, some will choose the bigger house and consequently need to work into their late 60s. Others will choose to stick with their smaller house, knowing it will mean they can retire 5 years or 8 years or whatever sooner. There’s no right answer, but there are often choices to be made.

Also if you've stayed in your modest home you have lower living costs, so you can save more and don't need as much to retire on. If you've paid off your mortgage in your 40s, you've had 10 years or more to save what others are paying into a mortgage.

People will obviously make their own choices, but I've always seen my home as somewhere to live, not a status symbol and not an investment.

The defined benefit pension is a huge factor in making the decision to go really early - like 55 instead of 65, I mean. For me it’s about the certainty. The earlier you retire, the longer period there is in which things can change.
If I retired at 65, I’d be certain my expected state pension wouldn’t change 2 years later. Over the course of my pensionable life, yes. But less likely to apply to those already in receipt of it, and those nearing state retirement age.

But at 55, I’d be nervous that using up my savings because I’ve got £9K a year coming at 67 would be too risky to rely on. So even though the maths would say I’m covered, I’d be reluctant to go because of the risk.

Those lucky enough to have a DB pension (now we have the PPF) can make decisions with more confidence. I’ll definitely retire earlier because of that, than I would have done with a DC pension. Notwithstanding that’s driven by my own risk profile!

42 and our residential mortgage is 540k. With 3
Under 4 we can't overpay until kids are in school
BTLs have a 350k mortgage.

I'm 42. 22k left on my mortgage. Intend to overpay and clear it within the next 2 years then buy somewhere bigger with another mortgage where hopefully DH, DD, and I will settle for a very long time.

36, £13k left to pay on a house worth £218k.

Have MASSIVELY overpaid (FTB bought in 2020).

Looking forward to finishing the mortgage, doing some minor renovations and then saving for early retirement.

I am lucky that although single, I have a good well paid job.