Debt-consolidation refi has advantages

DEAR BENNY: With mortgage loan rates at record lows, I'm thinking of refinancing my 30-year fixed-rate loan. The lender is recommending that I roll into the refi amount the balances I owe on my car and two credit cards. The advantages would be that they'd be "paid off," the interest rate on the amounts would be lower than I'm currently paying on any of them, and the interest paid would be tax-deductible.

But I see a big disadvantage, too. The total of the amounts on those five-year (on which I still have three years to pay) and revolving loans would now be amortized over 30 years! Does it make sense to do that? How can I figure out if it's a smart move or not? --Janet

DEAR JANET: I think it's a good idea, but only you -- and your pocketbook -- can make the final decision. The interest you pay on your car loan and on your credit cards is not deductible for income tax purposes. So your lender is offering you a deal whereby you pay less and at the same time have the opportunity to deduct the mortgage interest.

Keep in mind that most people do not keep their homes for 30 years. Also understand that real estate does -- and will eventually -- appreciate in value. Your car depreciates rapidly, so why keep making a higher monthly payment on that asset? I would rather pay on an asset that is going up in value.

You have to do the numbers. How much will you save now compared to three years from now when your car is paid off?

All in all, however, I can't see any downside to your mortgage lender's suggestion. But act now because interest rates are rising.

DEAR BENNY: My lady friend recently sold her house. The buyer looked over the house and made an offer to the real estate agent. A few negotiations later, the offer was accepted. The buyer and a friend inspected the house and land from dirt to chimney, reviewed the radon and insect reports, and proceeded to tell the agent and my lady friend what needed to be repaired and replaced before "consummating the deal."

The real estate agent told me that was the way things were done in Iowa, but something smells here. This old farmer from Nebraska would never have made an offer and negotiated price before "me and my boys" had inspected and re-inspected everything. So, what is common in states other than Nebraska and Iowa? --Ron

DEAR RON: I don't know what the practices are throughout this country. In fact, I am not sure there are standard practices -- everything is subject to negotiation.

I strongly believe -- indeed urge -- that potential homebuyers should have the house inspected. But this can be done in one of two ways. First, as you suggest, the potential buyer could carefully and thoroughly inspect the house before they enter into a contract. If they are not satisfied, they can either walk away or include repair and correction provisions in their real estate contract.

However, when market conditions favor the seller, there is a risk. The potential homebuyer could spend the money on the inspector only to learn that the seller has entered into a contract with a third party. And the same problem is now occurring with short sales, where potential buyers have to wait a very long time to determine whether the lender will approve the contract.

Thus, my preference is to sign a contract, but have it completely contingent upon receiving a satisfactory home inspection within a certain number of days. If the buyer is not satisfied -- for any reason -- he or she can void the contract. That's the meaning and function of a contingency in a sales contract. And if a short sale is involved, try to have the lender approve before you have to conduct the inspection. ...CONTINUED

All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.