The house or the rate?
Owen and Leah wanted to help Leah’s mother by bringing her to live with them, in a home with a main-floor suite. What held them back was the rate: their loan is 3.25 percent, and the market is 7.03. They wanted to see what the move would really cost before they fell in love with a house. Their advisor already had the household in Helmsted: the mortgage statement, the brokerage trust, the stablecoin and bank balances, last year’s itemized return, and a cash-flow review that showed them roughly break-even after spending. The ask was one sentence:
“Build something interactive that shows what a move does for them in today’s interest rate environment.”
What came back. A planner with four financing strategies and a custom mix, each priced against staying in the home they have: a recommended mix, sale equity only, buy first with a bridge loan and recast, and a 15-year fixed. At a $1.1M purchase with the recommended mix, the new loan is $749,502 at 7.03 percent and after-tax housing goes from $2,937 to $5,390 a month, up $2,453. The savings rate falls from 9.4 to 3.8 percent. Around that: a 20-year chart of net worth, the liquid portfolio and yearly savings against staying put; the move in dollars, from sale equity to cash left above the reserve; the same loan repriced at every rate from 5.00 to 8.00 percent; and every strategy side by side.
Bigger home vs. higher rate. The chart that changed the conversation splits the monthly increase in two. $1,468 a month is the bigger home, priced at their own 3.25 percent. $985 is the rate itself, 40 percent of the jump, and carried for 20 years it costs about $535K of net worth. Most of the cost is the house they chose. The rate is the part a refinance can revisit: the same loan at 6.00 percent would cost $2,151 more a month than today instead of $2,453.
So the conversation with the client: a 30-year fixed with no points, to keep the required payment low while cash flow is near break-even. The sale equity plus stablecoin and bank cash above a $160K reserve go to the down payment, since about 2.75 percent after tax on cash loses to about 4.8 percent after tax saved on the loan. Then $40K from the brokerage account keeps the loan under $750K, the line above which mortgage interest stops being deductible and costs the full 7.03 percent. Putting only the sale equity down would mean an $894,502 jumbo loan and $3,412 more a month.
Getting creative with materials with Helmsted
Three moves made the planner useful rather than just accurate. Split the increase. One number for “the new payment” hides the decision; separating the house from the rate shows the client which part they chose and which part the market chose for them. Reprice at every rate. Holding the loan and strategy fixed and walking the rate from 5.00 to 8.00 percent gives “what if rates fall” a number at each step, and shows what a later refinance would be worth. Read the file closely. The original balance works out to exactly $510,400, the 2020 conforming limit, which points to a conventional loan with a due-on-sale clause. That is why the 3.25 percent can’t come along, and page 4 of the Closing Disclosure will confirm it.
One thing makes all of it work: context. Helmsted needs the mortgage statement with balance, rate and months left, last year’s return for the deduction math, the account balances that could fund a down payment, and the cash-flow review that says how much a higher payment actually costs this household. Today’s market rates come from the Freddie Mac survey, and every other assumption sits in an editable panel on the page.