Most people refinance to save money. That usually means jumping to a lower rate. But you also can save big bucks by trimming the term of your loan, possibly at the very same low rate.

Most lenders today offer the same 30-year rate on mortgages with terms of 20 to 29 years, according to Karen Mayfield of Bank of the West. And most offer the same 15-year rate on loans with durations of eight to 15 years.

You may not save any money immediately, at least not in terms of your monthly payment. But you could save a bundle in interest over the shorter life of your new mortgage. Plus, you'll build a nest egg that much faster.

The potential drawback to shorter-term mortgages is that your tax deduction for mortgage interest won't be as large. But that's a questionable disadvantage.

For one thing, interest is cash out of your pocket. Why spend the money if you don't need to?

For another, mortgage interest is not a dollar-for-dollar write-off. Rather, the deduction is based on your income-tax bracket. So if you are in the 15 percent bracket, you'll get back only 15 cents for every dollar in mortgage interest you spend.

Then there's the question of whether mortgage interest will remain deductible. Granted, it's a long shot right now that Congress would eliminate the benefit. But make no mistake, the once-sacrosanct write-off will be on the table if and when lawmakers ever reform the nation's tax code.

So, with the deduction argument out of the way, let's look at some possibilities using, for simplicity's sake, a loan amount of $300,000.

Say you have a 4-year-old, 30-year mortgage at 6.5 percent, with a monthly payment to principal and interest of $1,896. If you refinance at 4 percent into a new 30-year mortgage of $288,000 (your present balance of $285,179, plus $2,821 in closing costs wrapped into the loan amount), your payment will drop to $1,375, a significant monthly savings of $521.

But you'd be starting all over again. As a result, on top of the $76,196 in interest you've already spent on the original mortgage, you'd be paying an additional $206,984 in interest over the term of the new loan.

Sure, most people don't keep the same house, let alone the same mortgage, for 30 years. Indeed, the average life of a home loan is about seven years. But if you do, if this is your final castle, you will be paying for it for 34 years, not 30.

Now, suppose that instead of opting for a lower payment, you decide to shoot for the same monthly payment but reduce the term of the loan. A new $288,000 mortgage at 4 percent over 20 years will run $1,745 a month.

That cuts your monthly outlay by about $150 and saves a whale of a lot of interest -- $130,854 for the 20-year loan at 4 percent vs. $206,984 for the 30-year loan at 4 percent and $382,633 for your original loan.

Better yet, you are not starting over. Again, most people don't keep their loans forever. But as Mayfield rightly points out, people's lifestyles do change. And as they do, it's sometimes necessary to have a nest egg.

Say, for example, that 10 years from now, Junior wants to go off to college, or Priscilla wants to get married. Either way, you're going to need some cash. Good for you if you've been saving regularly for these kinds of events. But if you haven't, you still might be able to borrow what you need at the going interest rate.

Another option is to take it out of the equity you've built up in your house. Just how much equity might be available a decade from now will depend on two factors: appreciation, or how much your place has increased in value, and the term of your mortgage. Only one, the loan's term, is a sure thing.

If you opt for the new 30-year loan in the above example, you will have accumulated $51,102 in equity by making your payment every month over 10 years. Why so little? Because in the early years of any mortgage, the lion's share of the payment goes to interest. In fact, it isn't until the 20th year or so that more of the payment is earmarked for principal than interest.

Mortgages with shorter terms amortize, or pay down, faster than those with longer terms. So if you opt for the 20-year loan above, you will have amassed $115,624 in equity after 10 years. That's more than double the equity buildup.

Shortening the length of your mortgage isn't for everyone. But if you are comfortable making roughly the same payment as you are now, it is worth considering. "Do the math," Mayfield advises.

Another sometimes overlooked refinancing option, especially if you have a good idea how long you might keep the house, is a hybrid adjustable mortgage, one with a rate that is fixed for five or seven years before it begins to adjust annually.

Most people are jumping out of ARMs to fixed-rate loans these days because of the certainty the new loans offer. "Knowing your monthly payments won't rise in the future provides a lot of peace of mind," Mayfield says.

But hybrid ARMs offer a degree of certainty, too. And adjustable loans aren't nearly as dangerous as many people think.

With today's fixed rates at near record-low levels, the rate on ARMs surely will rise when the fixed-rate period expires five to seven years from now. But caps on the annual increase will limit the pain if you misjudge your expected moving date.

PLAYA FLAMINGO, Costa Rica -- When it comes to vacation homes, there's something for everyone.

You can own the whole thing or just a piece of it. Vacation homes are everywhere -- in the mountains, in the city and from sea to shining sea, including here at The Palms on Costa Rica's Pacific coast. And there is evidence that after a six-year lull, sales of vacation homes are finally starting to gather steam.

While the primary home sector remained in the doldrums last year, sales of vacation homes rose 7 percent, according to the National Association of Realtors' latest tally. Other forms of vacation ownership also are showing improvement. Sales of "fractionals," an upscale category of shared ownership that includes multiweek intervals, private residence clubs and destination clubs, increased 4 percent in 2011, according to the annual count by Ragatz Associates.

Time-share sales were up 2.4 percent in 2011 and 14.1 percent, year over year, in the first quarter of 2012, according to the American Resort Development Association.

While the uptick in 2011 was "nominal," says Richard Ragatz, who heads the Eugene, Ore., consulting and research firm that bears his name, "a significant number of developers said that sales were better during the second half of 2011, giving the impression that the bleeding has finally stopped and we may be turning the corner."

If you haven't been in the vacation property market for a while, here's what you'll find:

-- Whole ownership: According to the Census Bureau, there are now about 8 million vacation homes -- recreational property purchased for personal use -- located in practically every burg and hamlet nationwide, and in some major cities, too. (The total does not include the uncounted millions of vacation homes available worldwide.)

The choices are myriad. You can buy a small cabin in the woods, a retreat on the slopes, a beach bungalow or a condo in Gotham. The prices also range considerably, as do the headaches.

No one uses your place but you and your guests, which is usually a positive. But you pay for all the upkeep. And you pay for all the downtime when the house or apartment isn't being used.

-- Time shares: More than 8 million people own a week or two at their favorite resorts. What's more, 42 percent of last year's time-share buyers were repeat buyers who were either adding to their weeks or moving up, perhaps to larger units or to more lavish properties. That's a sign that despite the negative press, at least some people enjoy time sharing.

According to the American Resort Development Association, there are more than 1,500 time-share resorts with a total of nearly 195,000 units. As with location, time-share prices are all over the map. But sharing the same unit with 51 other owners is usually the least expensive way to own a vacation home. The average price per week was just over $15,000 in 2011.

Better yet, most resorts belong to exchange banks, where you can deposit your week at your home resort and take out time in a comparable spot elsewhere. So, as much as you may love your place, you are not stuck in that one spot every year. The amount of time purchased often is now expressed in "points" as opposed to weeks, allowing even greater flexibility.

On the other hand, time shares are a lousy investment. That's why they are sold as a hedge against inflation, or "vacation insurance." And they are difficult to resell, even at less than what you paid.

There is some evidence that developers are starting to embrace resales, which have been a black eye on the business. According to a survey by industry publication Perspective, two-thirds of respondents said developers need to create in-house resale programs, and 72 percent said resale information should be included in the original sales presentation.

-- Fractionals: These are upscale versions of time-share resorts, where you buy larger interests, typically in four-, eight- or 12-week chunks. Prices are also higher -- the average last year was $131,000, according to Ragatz -- and so are the monthly carrying costs, which can be hefty. But you get more usage and better exchange possibilities.

-- Private residence clubs: These are more luxurious yet -– and more exclusive. The clubs offer fully deeded fractional ownership with all the services and benefits of a five-star hotel. As with other forms of shared ownership, you pay for only the time you actually need, typically three to six weeks. The average price: $254,000 per share, with annual fees averaging $6,650. There may be no more than 300 private residence clubs worldwide.

Here at The Palms on what is called Costa Rica's best beach, the 33 two- and three-bedroom oceanfront town houses are being marketed as a mixture of both full ownership and fractional ownership of one-eighth or one-tenth interests. A combination of whole ownership/private residence club is something many of the major properties are offering these days, sales manager Mark Randall says.

Whether you buy the entire unit here for $1.1 million or an eighth of one for $129,000, you get all the services, including the ability to trade places with owners in other properties. Obviously, full owners can visit anytime they like. But part-timers can usually grab five to six weeks or more, depending on availability and how flexible they can be.

"There's no arbitrary limit on use, and owners are not penalized for how long they stay," says Randall.

-- Destination clubs: Fewer in number -- only six responded to the annual Ragatz survey -- destination clubs give members access to a collection of vacation homes worldwide. The average membership fee: $273,000.

Consistent with other types of interval ownership, clubs offer different levels of reservation priority, personalized services and amenities, such as spas and private chefs.

Similar to membership choices available at country clubs, buyers can choose between equity or nonequity clubs. But either way, you get to enjoy all the benefits.

In the 1970s, clothing shoppers were advised in a popular advertising jingle from the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union to "look for the union label." In that same spirit, anyone shopping for an energy-efficient home today would be well-advised to look for the sky-blue Energy Star label.

No disrespect toward LEED, Energy Performance and GreenPoint, all of which are fine rating systems in their own right, but Energy Star seems to have become most popular among homebuilders looking to differentiate themselves from the competition. More important, Energy Star provides a way for consumers to compare one home against another.

"Every home we build from coast to coast is a 100 percent Energy Star-certified home," says C.R. Herro, vice president of environmental affairs at Meritage Homes, one of the country's largest builders. Pulte and K.B. Home are other big Energy Star builders.

Energy Star is "the most recognizable and meaningful" of the energy performance labels, says Gene Myers, chief executive officer of New Town Builders in Denver. "We've looked at them all and gave up on all of them except Energy Star. It proves our homes cost less to operate."

To Rene Oehlerking of Garbett Homes, which builds in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, Energy Star is "a no-brainer."

"Consumers can really see the dollars they are saving," Oehlerking says.

Energy Star is a joint program of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy that helps consumers identify energy-efficient products. To earn a coveted Energy Star certification, a new home built today must include features that make it at least 15 percent more efficient than homes built solely to the 2009 model energy building code, otherwise known as the International Energy Conservation Code.

Pasted to the home's electrical box, the Energy Star label is loaded with important information, including annual usage estimates for electricity, natural gas and CO2 emissions. It also projects the owner's yearly energy savings. But for most buyers, the key is the HERS rating.

HERS stands for Home Energy Rating System. It has been around since 1995, when a group of mortgage lenders, state energy officials and Energy Rated Homes of America created the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET). Along with creating HERS, the independent nonprofit network is dedicated to creating a market for home energy ratings and to training independent contractors to rate homes fairly and consistently.

Myers, the Denver builder, compares the HERS rating to the miles-per-gallon sticker on new automobiles. With cars, though, you want a higher number, while with houses, you are better served with a lower number.

The HERS rating system runs from 150 to zero. A home built 20 years ago might earn a 133 rating, whereas a more efficient house built 10 years ago might receive a 123 rating.

The standard new home, built to the 2009 IECC with no special energy features, would rate a 100, says Steve Baden, executive director of the San Diego-based RESNET. The HERS score drops if builders do anything more than what is required in the way of energy efficiency.

Each one-point decrease in the HERS index corresponds to a 1 percent reduction in energy consumption. Houses with a 72 rating are 28 percent more efficient than a standard house; a house with a 50 rating would be 50 percent more efficient; and one with a zero rating would be 100 percent more efficient.

Myers says his company's homes are consistently in the 40s, which means they are super-efficient. To see how his homes measure up to the competition, buyers can simply compare New Town's HERS scores with those of other builders.

"All you have to do," Myers says, "is say, 'Show me your HERS score.'"

Unfortunately, not all builders' homes are rated by a RESNET-trained energy auditor. That's becoming less of a problem, however. Last year, according to Baden of RESNET, about 40 percent of all new homes sold carried a HERS rating. "We have gone from certifying a few hundred homes (a decade ago) to 120,000 in 2011," he says.

In June, Meritage, the big builder based in Scottsdale, Ariz., built the 1 millionth house rated by a HERS technician. "We use HERS scores because they allow customers to make substantive comparisons in an apple-to-apple way. If you build something better, you need to validate it and then convert it to currency," says Herro of Meritage.

"We've staked our future on HERS," adds Oehlerking, the marketing director at Garbett Homes. So have members of the Lexington, Ky., homebuilders association, which last month signed a memorandum of understanding with RESNET committing to encourage every member to participate in the Energy Star program.

All Energy Star homes are now constructed with a complete thermal enclosure system for comfort and lower utility bills, an HVAC system designed and installed for optimal performance and a comprehensive water management system to protect the building envelope from moisture intrusion.

Incidentally, an energy rating is not the same as an energy audit. An audit, or assessment, pinpoints where and how a home loses energy, which systems are working inefficiently, and the cost-effective measures that can be taken to improve performance. A rating, on the other hand, provides an analysis on how efficiently a home operates compared with other houses.