vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs.
I agree with you but I will say that $25,000 would be an adequate down payment on a new home in many parts of the country so while it's not the equivalent of a mortgage it still delays home buying for graduates which is evident in the housing market weakness.
Do you need to put down 25% on a conventional loan? Conventional loans can be done with 5%, 10%, or 20% down (if you're willing to pay PMI for the <20% down scenario). If you don't like FHA's terms, don't do an FHA loan..
You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable.
It's not an easy calculation so I made this demonstration that compares a fixed investment with a 100% mortgage, for a simple case.  (Obviously if you lessen the mortgage with a deposit it's somewhere between the extremes.)  The demonstrations shows some definite differences at higher interest rates.  You can probably decipher the calculations in the code if you're interested.  It's intended to be legible. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/
There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan.  If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years.  You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15.  If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider.  My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55).
If you get a loan for 80% of the value of your house, that's equivalent to buying a house with a 20% down payment (assuming the appraised value is what you'd buy it for).  That's the minimum down payment for Fannie Mae backed loans without PMI (mortgage insurance).  See this table for more details. Freddie Mac (the other major mortgage backer) has a good fact sheet on cash out loans (which is what this is called) here.  It also specifies: Maximum LTV ratio of 80 percent for 1-unit primary residences  As noted in other answers, the 80% rule is to protect the bank (and ultimately, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will eventually buy most of these loans) so it is more likely to recoup the total value of the mortgage if they must foreclose on the house.
Second mortgages were also a popular way for home buyers without a down payment to borrow 100% of the money, but avoid certain extra fees if they borrowed all the money from a single lender. For example, to borrow $100,000 on a house would incur something called PMI (private mortgage insurance).  So to borrow $100,000 to buy my house, my payment might be $800/month, but I would have an additional $100/month of PMI to pay.  (These numbers are totally made up and not based in math in any way) So instead of that, borrows might get a first mortgage for $80,000 so they don't have to pay the PMI and get a second mortgage for the difference.  This can be beneficial if the second mortgage payment is less than the PMI for borrowing 100%. As far as I know they aren't as easy to get these days, like any loan you need to be qualified and I think 100% financing is probably harder to come by.  The negative connotation is no worse than any other loan.  I am personally against borrowing money, but if you had big medical expenses, major home repairs or some other emergency I could see it justified.  Probably not for a big vacation or for new car though.
The PMI rate is calculated at the time your mortgage is underwritten to be terminated at the point where you have 20% equity in your home.  It is calculated based off of default risks based on your current equity value at the time of the loan.  So if you got your mortgage before the banking crisis those risk charts have changed dramatically and not in your favor. So lets say you have a 100k home which you put 10k down so you have a mortgage of 90k.  Since you have accumulated an additional 5k equity so payoff value is now 85k.  If you refinance your mortgage and the home values in your area have dropped 15% you now are borrowing 100% of the value of your home.  So you have higher risk from being at 100% as opposed to 90%.  And the PMI is for the 20% of equity you do not have that the bank can not expect to recover.  So when you originally bought the house your PMI pay out was 10k.  At 85K value and 100% borrowed the PMI payout will be closer to 18k.  While you may still be able to sell your home for the original value when they do the refinance calculations they use what your area has trended.  If that is the case you maybe be able get an actual appraisal to use but that will come out of your pocket. *Disclaimer: These are simplifications of how the whole complex process works if you call the banker they can explain exactly why, show you the numbers, and help you understand your specific circumstances.  *
Save up a bigger downpayment.  The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house.
You probably won't save much, if anything at all, by getting another fixed-term mortgage. The last part of a mortgage is mostly principal payments.  If you borrowed $200k (guessing) at 4.75% then during the last five years you'll pay about $10.5k in interest, as opposed to $41.7k in the first five years and $27.9k in the second five.  Another fixed rate loan won't get you a whole lot lower than 4.75%. If you can score a teaser rate (say 2.5% for the first five years) on the balance at the beginning of year 11, and pay the same amount that you were before ($1,555) then you'd knock out the mortgage in 57 months and save yourself a little under $5k.  If the refinance costs only a few hundred, then you might make out. Anyway, you may find other similar options that have a low teaser rate but (goody for you) you won't be around long enough to see it jump up.  Just watch for prepayment penalties. I'd probably just bump up my payments, though.  I went through a refinance and I felt like my hand was forced a lot in that process, but your mileage may vary. :)
"The typical down-payment was expected to be 20%.  The idea being that if one could not save 1/5 of the cost of a house, they were not responsible enough to ensure repayment of the loan. It is hard to say whether this is truly a relevant measure.  However, in the absence of other data points, it is pretty decent.  It typically requires a fair amount of time to amass that much money and it does demonstrate some restraint.  (e.g. it is easily the cost of a decent new car or some other shiny ""toy."") Income is not necessarily a good measure, on its own.  I am certainly more responsible with my spending when I have less money to spend.  (Lately, I have been feeling like my father, scrutinizing every single purchase down to the penny.)"
Omg, the answer is easy. Tell the TRUTH, and nothing is fraud. Down payment gifts are SOP's, and every lender works with that. EACH lender has their own rules. Fannie May and Freddie Mac could care less, and FHA and VA backed loans allow for full gifting unless the buyer's credit is below the standard 620, then 3.5% must come from the buyer. Standard bank loans want to know the source of the down payment for ONE REASON ONLY: to know if the buyer is taking ON A NEW DEBT! The only thing you will need do is sign a legal document stating the entire down payment is a gift.  That way the bank knows their lendee isn't owing a new substantial debt, and that there aren't two lenders on the house, because should she default, the bank will have to pay you back first off the resale. Get it? They just want to know how many hands are in the fire.
I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth.  EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.
"I am going to add just one more item to what are some very well thought out answers. The element of ""Cash Out"" If you are taking out 80% of the value of the home that you already own free and clear the bank considers this a ""Cash Out"" transaction - meaning you would effectively walk away from closing with a check for 80% of your home's value. So in a hypothetical situation you have a $200,000 home value - you would be handed a check for $160,000 with which you could do anything that you wanted. Granted, you are likely going to do something responsible with it and purchase another home - BUT (big BUT) the bank can't control what you do with it and that is the part they don't like - and therefore they treat these types of transactions with a higher degree of scrutiny. It is all about control - if the property you are downsizing to fits their rules for lending they may actually loan you a higher loan to value on that purchase than they would on your ""cash out"" refinance transaction on your current home.  With the purchase loan the money you get goes immediately to the purchase of a new home.  In the ""cash out"" transaction it goes to a check with which you could do anything you want . . .  and then not pay the loan back . . .  I know no one here would do that - but there are some folks that would . . . and this is one of the reasons ""Cash Out"" loans are not nearly as easy as they once were to get. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/mortgagefraud.html"
In the United States a Jumbo Loan is one in which the loan amounts exceeds a set value. For much of the US it is currently $417,000 but it is higher in some areas. It is set by the US government and is adjusted each year.  If you are trying to avoid the Jumbo designation then putting more down makes that possible. Generally the Jumbo loans have a higher rate. My credit union does allow jumbo loans with less than 20% down, but I am not sure if they are in the majority or the minority regarding down payment requirements. Keep in Mind that once the house price goes above Jumbo/0.8 or $521,250 you will be putting down more than 20% to avoid the Jumbo designation.
You don't say what the time remaining on the current mortgage is, nor the expense of the refi.  There are a number of traps when doing the math. Say you have 10 years left on a 6% mortgage, $200K balance. I offer you a 4% 30 year. No cost at all. A good-intentioned person would do some math as follows: Please look at this carefully. 6% vs 4%. But you're out of pocket far more on the 4% loan. ?? Which is better? The problem is that the comparison isn't apples to apples. What did I do? I took the remaining term and new rate. You see, so long as there are no prepayment penalties, this is the math to calculate the savings. Here, about $195/mo. That $195/mo is how you judge if the cost is worth it or the break-even time. $2000? Well, 10 months, then you are ahead.  If you disclose the time remaining, I am happy to edit the answer to reflect your numbers, I'm just sharing the correct process for analysis.  Disclosure - I recently did my last (?) refi to a 15yr fixed 3.5%. The bank let the HELOC stay. It's 2.5%, and rarely used.
"Why would anyone ever get a 15 year instead of just paying off a 30 year in 15 years? Because the rate is not the same. Never that I've seen in my 30 years of following rates. I've seen the rate difference range from .25% to .75%. (In March '15, the average rate in my area is 30yr 3.75% / 15yr 3.00%) For a $150K loan, this puts the 15yr payment at $1036, with the 30 (at higher rate) paid in 15 years at $1091. This $55 difference can be considered a flexibility premium,"" as it offers the option to pay the actual $695 in any period the money is needed elsewhere.  If the rate were the same, I'd grab the 30, and since I can't say ""invest the difference,"" I'd say to pay at a pace to go 15, unless you had a cash flow situation. A spouse out of work. An emergency that you funded with a high interest rate loan, etc. The advice to have an emergency fund is great until for whatever reason, there's just not enough.  On a personal note, I did go with the 15 year mortgage for our last refinance. I was nearing 50 at the time, and it seemed prudent to aim for a mortgage free retirement."
If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations."
"Why do banks charge a significantly lesser rate for a 15 yr. fixed mortgage than a 30yr. (though they know it will not earn them the same amount of money)?  A simplistic model of where banks get the money to lend to borrowers is that they ""borrow"" money from investors that want to earn a return on the money that they provide.  The actual mechanics of that process are much more complicated, but the gist is that if those investors want to tie their money up for a longer period, they expect to get a higher return, thus 30-year mortgages require a higher interest rate than 15-year mortgages.  In addition, the ""usual"" consensus in the market is that interest rates will rise in the future, so interest rates for longer-term loans are higher  While it's true that the bank gets ""more money"" overall from a higher-rate mortgage, the fact that that additional money doesn't come until several years into the loan (and that money loses value over time due to inflation) makes a lower-rate 15 year mortgage roughly equivalent to a higher-rate 30-year mortgage."
"9% would be an absurdly high rate in the US by today's standards, so you should at the very least consider refinancing to fix that. Paying off completely is of course another way to fix that.  Which approach makes more sense depends on what you plan to do with the money instead if you do refinance -- if you can put it in an investment which yieds a higher percentage than the loan costs you, than refinancing the mortgage could actually be a profitable decision. You also need to consider what the bank will want to see in order to give you a mortgage on the new property. I have no idea whether they'd be happier that you had no prior mortgage, that you had the mortgage but also had the cash to pay it off, or if they wouldn't care. Remember that you want to be able to make at least a 20% down payment on the new property to avoid the insurance fees. That requires that you have a reasonable amount of cash-equivalent on hand. And generally, ""house rich but cash poor"" is an awkward state to be in."
Lenders pay attention to where your down payment money comes from. If they see a large transfer of money into your bank account within about a year before your purchase, this WILL cause an issue for you. Down payments are not just there to make the principal smaller; they are primarily used as an underwriting data-point to assess your quality as a borrower. If you take the money as loan, it will count against your credit worthiness. If you take the money as a gift, it will raise some other red flags. All of this is done for a reason: if you can't get a down payment, you are a higher credit risk (poor discipline, lack of consistent income), even if you can (currently) pay the monthly cost of a mortgage.  (PS - The cost of home ownership is much higher than the monthly mortgage payment.) Will all this mean you WON'T get a loan? Of course not. You can almost always get SOME loan. But it will likely be at a higher rate than you otherwise would qualify for if you just waited a little bit and saved money for a down payment.  (Another option: cheaper house.) EDIT: The below comments provide examples where gifts were/are NOT a problem. My experience from buying a house just a few years ago (and my several friends who bought house in the same period, some with family gifts and some without) is that it IS an issue. Your best bet is to TALK, IN PERSON with an actual mortgage broker in your area who can go through the options with you, and the downsides to various approaches.
You did borrow money for the downpayment.  When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans.  If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second   mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the   new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!)
Your calculations are correct if you use the same mortgage rate for both the 15 and 30 year mortgages.  However, generally when you apply for a 15 year mortgage the interest rate is significantly less than the 30 year rate.  The rate is lower for a number of reasons but mainly there is less risk for the bank on a 15 year payoff plan.
Since I have 10k in my account after down-payment, will I get a   good interest rate on the loan? When the bank considers your loan, they will see $70K. Regardless, they will want to see certain amount of savings that would allow you to continue paying your loan in case of an emergency, and $10K might not be enough. I was planning to put down 15%, but I have been told that I should buy   something called PMI to satisfy the rest 5% and if I take that my   interest will be more and sometimes, bank will not go for anybody who   pays less than 20%. Is that true? Yes. After downpayment + closing costs, how much money in the savings   accounts, is the bank looking for to say that I am a good buyer? Depends on the bank, my wild guess would be they're looking for several months' worth of loan payments (you should have ~6 months worth of savings for emergencies, regardless of loans).
As I've crunched numbers towards what my family could afford for a down payment (in an area with similar housing costs - don't you hate that high cost of living?), I've come up with the following numbers: We may be missing some area of expenses, but in general I think we are being fairly conservative.  You should consider making a similar list to determine your comfort level. Spend some time with an interest calculator to know the serious pain of each dollar you are paying interest on to a lender. Also know that the bigger your down payment, the more likely the seller is to accept your offer.  It shows you are serious.