Wealth and Investing Center

Analysis: Time to borrow? Debt is not a dirty word

Related Topics

Four thousand U.S. dollars are counted out by a banker counting currency at a bank in Westminster, Colorado November 3, 2009. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

Four thousand U.S. dollars are counted out by a banker counting currency at a bank in Westminster, Colorado November 3, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Rick Wilking

NEW YORK | Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:11pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Here's a crazy idea: Maybe, just maybe, you should be borrowing more money.

You don't have to tell Matt Kouri of Austin, Texas. Just last month, the chief executive officer of local nonprofit Greenlights traded up to a bigger home for his growing family. Not only did they secure an additional 700 square feet of living space, the Kouris moved into a superior school district that enabled them to switch their son from private to public school. And what made it all happen? A new 4.375 percent mortgage.

Kouri admits to being a frugal guy, but at such rock-bottom rates, he's perfectly comfortable with the manageable debt load.

"To get such a low rate, it was a fantastic deal," says the 38-year-old. "Our previous mortgage was 6 percent, so when combined with depressed real-estate prices, it made for a great buying opportunity." Since Kouri took out his loan, rates have fallen even further, with 30-year mortgages now averaging 4.09 percent, according to Bankrate.com (www.bankrate.com).

Taking on new debt doesn't mean overextending yourself, like buying a second home in the hills of Aspen or a shiny new Maserati that you can't possibly afford. Consumers learned that lesson the hard way before: The housing bust exposed the American consumer, and the financial meltdown exposed the big banks. The bills came due, and we're still paying the price today.

But all debt isn't de facto a terrible thing. If it's within your means to get your dream home for a 30-year fixed mortgage at record-low interest rates like 4 percent, you should go ahead and do it. If you're a company like Microsoft, and you can issue a three-year bond for a ridiculous 0.875 percent coupon, then you should be borrowing as much cash as you cart away in a wheelbarrow.

After the Great Recession, consumers have been conditioned to think of debt as a cancer to be eliminated at all costs. But when money is the cheapest it's ever been, it is also a rare historical moment to be taken advantage of. Used wisely and judiciously, a measure of good debt can cement your family's financial security.

"It's a concept that the wealthy learned a long time ago: Using other people's money," says Greg McBride, senior analyst at Bankrate . "If you're taking out a mortgage at today's rates, after inflation and tax deductions, you're basically borrowing for free -- and that's a very attractive proposition."

That's not to say you should be loading yourself up with debt beyond a reasonable level. The American public has already gotten that belt-tightening message, and learned it well during the financial crisis. Total consumer debt is now down 8.6 percent from late 2008 and fell another $50 billion in this year's second quarter, according to data from the New York Federal Reserve. And in terms of the debt-to-disposable income ratio, the United States is now at the lowest levels seen since 2004.

The same goes for corporations. Since the financial crisis, many companies have cleaned up their balance sheets and stockpiled cash reserves. But yields are so impossibly low, that even traditionally zero-debt companies like Google are only too happy to issue bonds. In fact, the search-engine giant has around $39 billion in cash on hand, but if it can issue a billion dollars in three-year notes with a 1.25 percent coupon, then it's almost silly not to do so.

The argument can even be extended to governmental borrowing. Yes, the federal debt load is a $14.5 trillion beast, a level that can't be sustained over the long term. But if the government can issue 10-year Treasuries for a minuscule 1.86 percent, and earmark that cash for critical projects that could stave off a worsening economy, then is it the worst thing in the world to do so?

Indeed, Robert Reich -- who was Labor secretary under President Bill Clinton -- has been banging the drum for exactly that. As he writes in a recent blog post, "Anyone with half a brain will see this is the ideal time to borrow money from the rest of the world to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure."

Federal issues aside, what really matters to you is your personal balance sheet. And as always, it comes down to the numbers. The point is to get past a knee-jerk negative reaction to debt, and be willing to borrow when it makes perfect sense.

"We're big spreadsheet people," says Kouri, the new homeowner. "You don't go into a big decision like this without being very analytical. And at these rates, we're definitely coming out on top."

(Editing by Lauren Young)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (8)
tmc wrote:
Can you say “Ball and Chain”?

Sep 30, 2011 8:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ARJTurgot2 wrote:
Associated with the extra 700 sq ft are higher real estate tax, insurance, and maintenance costs. Buying a lesser house in the same neighborhood (they’re there, but you’d have to be willing to look), would have resulted in a lower mortgage, no private school costs, and the ability to pay off the mortgage earlier, or put money aside for the future.

I’ve been wondering when the debt industry would start to argue against the great de-leverage. Scary thought that the people of this country might get out from under that tyranny. I have no debt, haven’t for over a decade, and the result is I’m free from a lot of nonsense. I don’t need ‘approval’ to buy things, and negotiating with the cash in your pocket drives down prices like you wouldn’t believe.

As to Reich, the Dems have run the infrastructure thing into the ground; the only shovel that is ready is the one that’s burying their last great hope. The theory is fine, but they won’t spend the money on that purpose, or if they do, they will simply take the existing budget for infrastructure and divert it to giving things to their core constituency. It’s why they have zero credibility.

Sep 30, 2011 9:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JonnyBrou wrote:
Yes, it would be good to get a loan now as opposed to later IF YOU WERE ALREADY GOING TO GET ONE because loans are so cheap. But if you’re just going to get a new house for aesthetic reasons, then I would say that its a terrible idea to get a loan that will cost you money for 30 years or so. Might as well keep renting until housing prices hit bottom and start to come up a bit and rent prices start to rise as well. Then you can get good house that will appreciate in value (hopefully) and then you can use the loan like rent and eventually sell the house for a profit after the price rises. But that’s a lot of risk, and unless you know what you’re doing you’re risking bankruptcy. This use of “other people’s money” is supposed to make you and the lender money, so if you aren’t using that loan to make more money, then you’ve just had to pay three or four times the amount you would have paid in cash. This article is just idiotic.

Sep 30, 2011 10:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.