Does a HELOC for debt consolidation make sense now? Here's what to know.
The persistent
inflation issues
that have been looming and the rising costs of goods and services that have come with it have driven many Americans toward credit cards recently. In fact, the
total credit card debt nationwide
is now sitting at over $1.2 trillion — a $45 billion jump from just one year earlier.
If you're a homeowner and have
racked up credit card debt
of your own, you might be able to tackle it by tapping
your home equity
. In many cases, options like
home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
offer significantly lower rates than credit cards, allowing you to use your equity to pay off credit card balances with lower monthly payments and fewer long-term interest costs.
Still, the strategy isn't right for everyone — or every situation. Are you thinking of
using a HELOC to pay off debts
right now? Here's when it might make sense (and when it wouldn't).
Compare your home equity borrowing options and lock in a top HELOC rate now
.
From an interest rate standpoint, using a home equity line of credit to
consolidate debt
can be a smart choice right now, as
HELOC rates
tend to be quite a bit lower than most other financial products.
Credit cards, for instance, are carrying
average rates above 22%
and personal loan interest rates are
averaging over 12%
. The typical HELOC, on the other hand, carried about an 8% interest rate in March 2025.
"Most people are going to save a substantial amount of money," says Dre Torres, a loan officer at Cornerstone First Mortgage.
There are other
benefits to consolidating debts with a HELOC
, too. For one, you get a longer repayment term compared to other options. For example, most personal loans have very short terms (a few years, at most), and if you don't pay off your credit cards quickly, the debt can easily snowball.
"Most people at some time in their adult life end up with a pile of debt that just seems to have appeared and at some point, you have to stop the snowball effect of fighting higher interest loans or credit cards," says Steve Wilbourn, a financial advisor at True North Advisors. "If you are at the point where you are not going to be able to pay the credit card bill, a HELOC can give you more time to spread out the payments and often a much lower interest rate which equals a lower payment."
Consolidating your debts will also streamline your payments. Instead of paying several debts down each month, you'll have just a single HELOC payment to make — and often,
it will be interest-only payments
for the first 10 years of the loan, making them even more manageable.
"Any time you are going to pay off debt and roll it into a loan that has one payment, that will put you in a better financial position," Torres says. "It can help with being cash flow positive every month, being able to apply that savings to other debt to pay down, or being able to take that monthly savings and float it into the market so that it becomes an asset to you."
Find out how affordable home equity borrowing could be today
.
Using a HELOC to consolidate debt likely wouldn't be a good idea if
your credit score
is particularly low, as it would likely mean you'd get a higher interest rate on your HELOC — eating into
the potential savings
the move would have to offer.
It would also not be wise if you
don't have much equity
in your home.
"It may be ill-advised to use a HELOC if it takes all of your home's equity off the table, especially if you haven't owned your home for very long," Wilbourn says. "There is always the chance of your home losing value and you are now upside down on your mortgage."
When you're upside down on your mortgage, you owe more than the home is worth. And if you find yourself needing to sell? The proceeds won't be enough to pay off your loan, leaving you to make up the difference out of pocket.
Taking out a HELOC to pay off debt is also a bad idea if you don't have the funds to actively pay down the balance, as it could result in more long-term debt. It could also mean higher rates the longer you keep the line open.
"Right now, with rates still relatively high and potentially volatile, a variable-rate HELOC can be risky since your payments can rise if rates go up," says Stephan Shipe, a flat-fee financial advisor and owner of Scholar Financial Advising. "It's better suited if you plan to pay it off quickly or if you expect rates to drop. "
If your spending habits aren't in check, a HELOC isn't going to be much help either. It could even mean
losing your home to foreclosure
if you can't make your payments.
"It's a major red flag if you are consolidating debt into a HELOC without addressing the root problem that caused the initial build-up in debt," Shipe says. "Without addressing the initial issue, you risk losing your home and also freeing up credit card limits to build up the problem again, creating an endless debt cycle."
Debt consolidation
isn't your only option if you're dealing with debt.
Debt settlement
, debt negotiation and
other debt relief services
can help, too. And if you're not sure what the right move is, talk to a financial professional. They can walk you through all your options, as well as their benefits and costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
31 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Much Savings Middle-Class Retirees Have, According To Most of America
Saving for retirement looks different for everyone, even those with similar incomes and net worths. Be Aware: Try This: To give you a better idea of how much to save and how fellow Americans are positioned for retirement, GOBankingRates surveyed 1,000 working Americans aged 21 and older. Conducted at the end of 2024, the survey covered various topics, including current 401(k) balances and beliefs about what middle-class Americans need to retire comfortably. To understand public beliefs about retirement savings, we asked how much the typical middle-class American has saved by age 65. The responses revealed a wide range of views shaped by age and financial perspectives. Our survey found that younger respondents (ages 21-34) were more likely to believe retirees have less than $50,000 saved, with 25.95% holding this view. This perception remained consistent across other age groups, with 29.47% of those aged 35-44 and 25% of those aged 55-64 also selecting this range. In contrast, fewer respondents expected higher savings: only 13.92% of younger respondents believed retirees had saved between $300,00 and $500,000, and just 3.16% thought retirees surpassed $1 million. These findings express significant uncertainty about retirement readiness. While some respondents may base their views on personal experience, others might lack awareness of expert recommendations, which often suggest saving 10-12 times one's annual income, a benchmark far beyond what most perceive as typical. This disparity reveals to us the need for clearer guidance on what's truly necessary for a financially secure retirement. See More: The current state of Americans' 401(k) balances highlights significant disparities across age groups: Ages 21 to 34: 19.6% have less than $25,000 saved, while 32.91% report balances between $50,001 and $100,000. Only 10.76% have saved $100,01 to $500,000, and none have surpassed $500,000. Ages 35 to 44: Savings improve slightly, with 17.24% having between $100,001 and $500,000. However, 20.69% still have $25,001 to $50,000 saved. Ages 45 to 54: 20.87% have $100,001 to $500,000 saved, but 16.54% still have less than $25,000. Ages 55 to 64: 17.19% have between $100,001 and $500,000, and only 5.79% have over $500,000 saved. Ages 65 and over: 24.68% have balances between $25,001 and $50,000, but 19.48% do not have a 401(k) at all. Nearly 8% claim to have over $500,000 in their 401(k). Younger respondents are, of course, still building their retirement savings, while older groups often fall short of financial benchmarks. Middle-class Americans vary widely in living expenses and goals, making it hard to pinpoint a universal savings target. While experts suggest benchmarks like saving 10-12 times your annual income, these guidelines depend heavily on personal circumstances such as lifestyle and retirement plans. Aligning savings strategies with individual needs is key to closing the gap between goals and reality. The data highlights a pressing need for Americans to increase their savings rates. Here's how individuals can close the gap: Increase contributions gradually: Fidelity recommends saving at least 15% of your before-tax income yearly towards retirement. If this feels daunting, start small and increase contributions annually by 1% until the target rate is reached. Maximize employer matches: For those with employer-sponsored plans, failing to contribute enough to receive the full match is leaving free money on the table. Monitor progress: Regularly reviewing 401(k) balances and adjusting contributions based on goals can help keep savings on track. Seek expert guidance: Consulting a financial advisor can provide personalized strategies to optimize retirement savings. Modest contributions and low balances risk leaving retirees financially vulnerable. These findings highlight the importance of proactive planning and disciplined savings. While this data focuses on 401(k) balances, it's important to note that not all retirement savings are tied to these accounts. Many retirees rely on alternative methods such as IRAs, pensions, annuities or even real estate investments to fund their retirement years. Additionally, those who are already retired may lean on Social Security benefits or personal savings outside of formal retirement plans. The data presented here offers a rough snapshot of where Americans stand with retirement savings, but it's crucial to consider these additional financial options and your situation when assessing financial readiness. By focusing on consistent contributions and setting realistic goals, middle-class workers can work toward a more secure and well-rounded retirement. More From GOBankingRates Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 Mark Cuban Says Trump's Executive Order To Lower Medication Costs Has a 'Real Shot' -- Here's Why This article originally appeared on How Much Savings Middle-Class Retirees Have, According To Most of America
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Palantir Shares Tumble 5% Despite CEO Pushes Back on Surveillance Allegations
June 5 - Shares of Palantir Technologies (NASDAQ:PLTR) fell more than 5% Thursday despite Chief Executive Alex Karp denied claims suggesting the company aided U.S. government surveillance of citizens under a prior administration. Speaking to CNBC, Karp said Palantir is "not surveilling Americans," pushing back against a New York Times report that said the firm may have been involved in compiling a broad database of U.S. citizens during Donald Trumps presidency. The Denver-based company issued a separate denial earlier this week on social platform X, calling the article blatantly untrue. Palantir said it does not gather data to unlawfully track Americans and emphasized its Foundry platform includes granular security measures. The New York Times story suggested Palantir may have been selected to help implement a Trump-era executive order aimed at merging data across federal agencies. The timing comes as Palantir continues to win U.S. government contracts. Karp, in the same interview, stressed the strategic importance of the U.S. leading in artificial intelligence development, adding that the West must adapt to stay competitive. Palantirs drop marks one of its sharpest single-day declines in recent weeks, with the stock hovering near one-month lows. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
