Mortgage Prepayment, College Funding, and a Parent Contingency
Mei and Daniel, both 52, have combined gross income of $185,000. Their balance sheet shows a $420,000 mortgage at 5.2% with 22 years remaining, $610,000 in 401(k)s, $95,000 in a taxable brokerage account, and $18,000 in a savings account. Monthly fixed costs are $9,400, including the mortgage, and their emergency reserve equals about six weeks of expenses. They have two children: one is a college sophomore with $22,000 of private loans already; the other starts college in three years. Mei's mother, 84, has modest savings and may need financial help within two years. The couple wants to retire at 60 and asks whether to prepay the mortgage, open 529 plans, or raise 401(k) deferrals. Daniel's employer matches 50% of deferrals up to 6%; Mei's employer contributes a flat 4% with no match. They are uncomfortable with debt but also worried about liquidity.
1. Assess the adequacy of Mei and Daniel's emergency reserve and recommend the first three cash-flow actions, explaining the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
The reserve is $18,000 against $9,400 of monthly fixed costs-about 1.9 months, well below a 3–6 month target of roughly $28,200–$56,400. Fixed costs also understate total spending, so the true shortfall is larger.
The first actions should be:
- Capture Daniel's full 6% deferral immediately. A 50% match is an immediate 50% return and is pre-tax; suspending it to build cash would be costly.
- Build cash to at least three months of total spending before making extra mortgage principal payments or large 529 contributions. The reserve is the only buffer for a job loss, a roof repair, or support for Mei's mother.
- Earmark a separate parent-support contingency. A $10,000–$20,000 support need would otherwise pierce the emergency fund and force taxable account sales or new debt.
Mortgage prepayment is a guaranteed 5.2% after-tax return, but it is illiquid and does not solve the college or parent risk. A 529 is attractive only after the reserve and match are secure, and contributions should be sized to the three-year college timeline rather than maximized. The planner should show the couple that 'debt-free' and 'retire at 60' are competing goals and that liquidity has real option value.
2. Evaluate whether the couple should increase 401(k) deferrals above the employer match while carrying the mortgage and college obligations. Include tax and behavioral considerations.
Read the worked answer
At 52, both are catch-up eligible, so additional 401(k) deferrals have tax deferral, creditor protection, and a longer compounding horizon. The mortgage costs 5.2% after tax; prepaying is equivalent to a risk-free 5.2% return, but the couple cannot access the equity without refinancing or selling.
A reasonable priority order is: capture the full match, build the reserve to 3–6 months, fund 529s up to any state tax deduction, then increase 401(k) deferrals to a level that keeps the retirement projection on track, and only then prepay the mortgage. The 401(k) has a slight long-term advantage because the mortgage interest may not be fully deductible and the retirement money grows tax-deferred. However, the couple's discomfort with debt is a real behavioral constraint; a split-extra 401(k) plus modest extra principal-may be sustainable.
The planner should not frame this as a universal rule. It should be scenario-tested: what happens to retirement at 60 if they prepay, if they contribute more, and if Mei's mother needs $15,000 per year for three years. The recommendation should preserve liquidity first and document the opportunity cost of each choice.
3. Identify one conflict between the couple's stated preferences and their financial capacity, and explain how a planner should document the recommendation.
Read the worked answer
The conflict is between their preference for being debt-free and their capacity to retire at 60 while funding two college timelines and a possible parent-support obligation. If they direct all surplus to the mortgage, they may need to borrow or sell taxable assets later-possibly during a market decline-to cover tuition or family support. That would convert a low-interest, long-term obligation into a liquidity crisis.
The planner should document:
- the emergency-reserve target and the parent-support contingency;
- the opportunity cost of prepayment versus 401(k) and 529 contributions;
- the assumption that the 5.2% mortgage return is risk-free while investment returns are not;
- a decision rule, such as no extra principal until cash reaches three months of total spending and college funding is on track.
The client should sign off on the trade-off. This is a suitability and communication issue, not just a math issue: the plan must reflect what the couple will actually sustain, not an idealized debt-free balance sheet.