[wodenokoto]

Why would you choose the snowball strategy?

If you have a bunch of small loans with small interest and a large loan with high interest, I can’t see any reason to get rid of the small loans fast, at the cost of paying of the big one.

If you have many small, high interest loans and a large low interest loan, then there is no difference between the avalanche strategy and the snowball.

Unless there are clauses around fines for early termination of a loan, you generally pay off the minimum for all loans, and whatever is left in the budget for loan payments goes towards the highest interest loan.

[djbebs]

Because mathematics isn't the primary factor in getting out of debt, motivation is.

Achieving small goals keeps you focused and working on getting out of debt.

It's a lot easier to keep working if every couple of months you "hit a checkpoint" than if you're years with seemingly no progress

[phroobster]

Amusing to see people on hackernews advocating for mathematically inferior debt repayment strategies because of “feelings”.

[pmiller2]

People like to see payments going away. It gives them a sense of progress.

Unless you specify some fairly extreme numbers, the difference between the two strategies is pretty small. And, either strategy is better than staying in debt.

[ivanche]

Others gave some very good reasons in replies. I'd just add one more - when you pay off smallest loan, you should take the money for its monthly payment and direct it towards the next smallest loan. That way you'll pay off that one much faster! Then you take that amount and direct it towards the next one etc. Trust me, debts are falling down very quickly this way!

[frobozz]

Yes, but you'd pay the highest interest one off even faster if you direct all your spare cash to it, then you can pay off the smaller/lower loans really, really quickly by directing the money for that monthly payment to them.

Snowballing has no money or speed benefit. The only reason to do it is the psychological "Yay! I've paid it off" boost.

[ivanche]

Not necessarily. Counter example - if highest interest loan has outstanding balance of $100,000, car loan $5,000, credit card $1,000 and you owe to your friend $500.

[frobozz]

Can you explain your counterexample? Perhaps with with some rates? I don't understand it.

I can't see how it is would be financially beneficial to accelerate the payment of the smaller/cheaper loans over the biggest/costliest one.

I'll concede that paying back your friend sooner than they expect might have a goodwill benefit, but not a monetary one. Even then, I'm not sure how much, over just giving it to them when they asked.

[phroobster]

It’s not financially beneficial. The poster you replied to has no idea what he’s talking about. Repaying the highest interest loan first will still be the best choice.

[musicale]

> Why would you choose the snowball strategy?

I don't use the snowball strategy because it's not cash-optimal.

However I do appreciate one major advantage it has over highest-rate first: reducing the number of bills you have to pay, bill quantity being a very annoying administrative and mental load that can eat up time and attention.

Certainly nobody says "wow, I wish I had a larger number of debt-collecting agencies I had to deal with each month."

With that in mind, it can make some sense to pay off small debts even if they are lower rate simply to avoid having to deal with their owners repeatedly over time.

[cwhiz]

I agree with you overall. However, I think I what you’re missing is the value of eliminating the minimum payments so that you can consolidate on the higher interest loans.