In that article, I made a case for contributing to tax-free savings accounts and registered retirement savings plans before making extra mortgage payments. Mr. Hambly, a Hanover, Ont.-based reader of this newsletter and a former certified financial planner , outlined his own thinking in an e-mail that I’m going to share with you as an alternative view on the mortgage versus investing debate. Here’s an edited version of Mr.
Eliminating the mortgage by, say, age 55 frees up a tremendous cash flow for the last 10-plus years of work;All through my banking career, my employers wanted me to push investments even when the clients had non-tax-deductible debt. This is good for the financial institution as they make money on both sides of the balance sheet. Not good for the customers.
I’d much rather have $100,000 in savings and no debt than have a $250,000 investment as well as a $150,000 mortgage. With the same net worth I would have no investment risk and better cash flow.Are you reading this newsletter on the web or did someone forward the e-mail version to you? If so, you can sign up for Carrick on Money
globeinvestor rcarrick was correct Hambly is wrong. Been 40 years since the Bronfman decision and still fear is driving a recommendation not data.
Loans Loans Latest News, Loans Loans Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: VancouverSun - 🏆 49. / 61 Read more »
Source: nationalpost - 🏆 10. / 80 Read more »
Source: nationalpost - 🏆 10. / 80 Read more »
Source: nationalpost - 🏆 10. / 80 Read more »
Source: nationalpost - 🏆 10. / 80 Read more »