vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Pros: Cons: Before the housing bubble the conventional wisdom was to buy as much home as you could afford, thereby borrowing as much you can afford.  Because variable rates lead to lower mortgages, they were preferred by many as you could buy more house.   This of course lead to many people losing their home and many thousands of dollars. A bubble is not necessary to trigger a chain of events that can lead to loss of a home.  If an interest only borrower is late on a payment, this often triggers a rate increase.  Couple that with some other things that can happen negatively, and you are up $hit's creek. IMO it is not wise.
This solution obviously wouldn't work for everyone, and is contingent on the circumstances of your parents' finances with regards to their house, but...  Have you considered buying your parents' house?  This way your parents' desire for you to get a house as an investment would be satisfied, they wouldn't have to worry about losing their home, and you might even be able to work out a financing/rent deal that is beneficial to everyone involved.  There are definitely fewer costs going this route anyway, for instance, your parents won't have any marketing costs associated with selling the house and could pass this savings along to you.  Also, having lived in the house for a large part of your life you will also know what you are getting in to.
Paying interest on a loan costs you money. The tax deduction just reduces that cost, but it's still there. So the only possible reason to borrow more than you have to, e.g. with the interest-only loan, is that you can invest the excess elsewhere and make more money. Can you invest money and make more than 4.5% expected return before tax with a risk level you're comfortable with? If you can invest tax free then the hurdle is (4.5%-the tax deduction instead), e.g. 3.6% if your marginal tax rate is 20%.  One possible such investment would be paying down any mortgage on your own home - as you don't get a tax deduction for such a mortgage, overpayments are effectively tax free so 3.6% or whatever is the appropriate hurdle. If you can't do that, then even switching to a principal and interest mortgage at 4.5% would be worthwhile; the principal payments would effectively be an investment in reducing your future interest bill, and that investment is better than anything else you have available. Given that what you actually have on offer is a mortgage with a lower rate of interest, the hurdle for an alternative investment is quite a bit higher than 4.5%; with the interest-only mortgage, you can invest some of the money that would otherwise go to principal elsewhere, but in exchange you are paying a higher interest rate on the rest of your loan balance. You'd need to look at the exact numbers to work out the right hurdle, which would vary depending on your marginal tax rate, the term of the mortgage, and your guess as to where interest rates would go after the 2 year fixed term.
"The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will ""grow"" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the ""lucky"" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands.  The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about."
Yes you can get them from your broker.  Two main advantages I can see are:
I second the suggestions for your local credit union and asking co-workers who might also be in the process of a home purchase. Additionally, you want to educate yourself as much as possible so that you can ask questions about the calculations responsible for the differences. I got different values starting from the various online automatic quotes all the way through to the GFE and it was not obvious to me. You can also sign-up for free workshops for first time home buyers, though most of the material will be a breeze it helps you get worksheets going and lists going for documentation that you need to gather. You might want to start at the HUD site and explore. Especially the Borrower's Rights. The cost booklet was very helpful for me to interpret the GFE, but honestly I didn't appreciate it the first time it was handed to me. Finally, you might meet qualifications to take advantage of FHA programs; the waitlists discourage everyone including the loan brokers, but you want to at least be aware of programs that can help.
Paying off the student loans slower and investing the rest has some advantages - the interest is tax deductible (essentially lowering that 7% number), and it helps allow you to build up a liquid emergency fund which is more important to financial security than returns.
The loan you will just have to get by applying to a bunch of banks or hiring someone (a broker) to line up bank financing on your behalf for a point on the loan. FHA is for your first house that you live in and allows you to get 97.5% loan to cost financing. That isn't for investment properties. However, FHA loans do exist for multifamily properties under section 207/223F.   Your corporations should be SPEs so they don't affect each other. In the end, its up to you if you think it makes sense for all the single family homes to be in one portfolio. May make it easier to refi if you put all the properties in a cross collateralized pool for the bank to lend against. There is also no requirement for how long a corporation has been in existence for a loan. The loan has a claim on the property so it's pretty safe. So long as you haven't committed fraud before, they won't care about credit history.
One thing I would look into is getting a fixed rate home equity loan for a short term.  Not a line of credit, but a home equity loan.   The main benefit is they typically offer no closing costs.  You can get a very low rate provided you move the loan into first position (replace your current mortgage).   I know someone who got a 7 year fixed Home Equity Loan, from Regions Bank, for 2.62%  no closing costs.
You have to pay off the balance on the loan first. Also, FHA loans are not supposed to be used for rental properties. I don't know how you living there for a number of years changes things or how often is that rule enforced but you might need to refinance even if you rent it out.
While you can borrow money from a 401(k) for your home down payment, there are disadvantages, including but not limited to: The 401(k) is designed as a way to save for retirement. Smaller contributions and balances (due to the loan) in your account will add up and significantly reduce your balance over time. If you lose your job you will have to pay back the loan quickly, within 60 days. Interest on the 401(k) loan is also not tax-deductible, even if you're using it to pay for a home. My advice: max out any employer contributions to your 401(k) because it's free money. After that, extra savings for a house should be in a separate account.
Cynical answer: Real Estate agents make money on commission from sale of houses, so their compensation is tied to the home price. Banks make money off loans, so it is in their interest to make larger loans (as long as the loan gets paid).  So their is a tension at the bank between selling a larger mortgage, and ensuring that their customer can pay the mortgage. Gross income is easier to check, and the taxes at a given income are fairly predictable.  And banks realized that people can change their medical and retirement deductions.
Except for unusual tax situations your effective interest rate after taking into account the tax deduction will still be positive. It is simply reduced by your marginal rate. Therefore you will end up paying more if the house is financed than if it is bought straight out. Note this does not take into account other factors such as maintaining liquidity or the potential for earning a greater rate of return by investing the money that would otherwise be used to pay for the house
@victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done.  The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth.  By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked.  Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression.  People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment.
a) He can loan you the money tax free he can even give you and your wife 29k a year tax free.  Many people do a loan for lets say 100k and then they forgive the load 14.5k a year to avoid the taxes.   b) Yes when they see that deposit they will give you a hard time potentially.  I got a hard time for my Real Estate tax refund. c) Just putting stress on the family potentially.
What you are suggesting will not work. Banks have strict guidelines about what they can and cannot do with an FHA loan property. Remember the FHA is only an insurance policy to the bank saying that if you default they will cover a high percentage of the loan.  The bank won't take the risk of violating their insurance policy and the government refusing to pay them off if you default. Instead, consider doing a creative sale on your property, maybe a rent to own deal or owner financing. As long as you pay the mortgage the bank won't even know you don't live there and you can rent the house out to someone who eventually will buy it after the timeframe expires. Meanwhile you can go and get a new home or condo either thru regular financing or owner financing(search the internet to see how to do this) and you can use owner financing until you complete the sale of the first house. Otherwise just tough it out in the house you are in until the time expires and then sell. You made no mention of the property value but I am assuming if you bought it 3 years ago that you may have a little equity. Pleas note that if you sell at that time though you will likely have to come out of cash because your equity won't cover the realtor fee and closing cost. But if you do the rent to own I suggested earlier you can sell at a slightly higher price making sure you can cover those cost. I realize this answer is a little out the box but I deal with people who don't want properties all day and I have completed transactions like this many times. Good Luck and God Bless!
Some loans have a variable interest rate which can protect the lender from inflation and the borrower from deflation. How much protection it offers depends on how closely the interest rate follows the inflation/deflation rate. Most variable rate loans have limits on how much and how frequently they can adjust. In your deflation scenario, the lender comes out ahead with a fixed rate loan already, since those future dollars are worth more than current dollars.  The borrower doesn't owe more dollars, but the value of the dollars they owe is higher.
You pay $225 more in taxes (actually, because of amortization, the amount of additional taxes has been steadily increasing as the interest portion of the loan payments has reduced) but have the remaining $1575 in your pocket to do something else. While there is good debt and bad debt, debt is debt; whether deductible or not, the IRS will never credit your tax bill in the amount of interest owed (AFAIK; if someone knows of a loan whose interest is a credit instead of a deduction I'm all ears). So, the deduction on this loan reduces your cost of capital to an effective APR of 4.5%, and because it's a student loan and not a mortgage, you don't have to itemize so this is in effect a ""free"" deduction (even with an FHA mortgage allowing me to deduct interest, property taxes and PMI, and the residual medical costs after insurance of having our new baby, the $11,900 standard deduction for my wife and I was still the better deal this year). But, you're still losing 4.5% per year to interest. That's your break-even; if the money you could use to pay your debt could earn a better return than 4.5%, then invest it, but if not, pay off the loan. Right now, investments that could make you 4.5% are at the bottom edge of a steep increase in risk and variance, so if your expected ROI is close, I'd lean toward paying off the debt."
The benefit, as other answers have mentioned, is higher interest rates than are available compared to other comparable options.  My bank keeps spamming me with offers for a sub 1% APR savings account that only requires a $10,000 balance, for example.  While CDs and similar safe investments don't seem like they offer much value now (or in the recent past), that's because they strongly correlate to the federal funds rate, which is near historic lows.  See the graph of CD rates and the federal funds rate, here. You may have felt differently in July of 1984, when you could get a 5 year CD with an APR above 12%.  As you can see in this graph of historical CD yields, it hasn't always been the case that CDs offered such small returns.  That being said, CDs are safe investments, being FDIC insured (up to the FDIC insurance limits), so you're not going to get great rates from one, because there's basically no risk in this particular type of investment.  If you want better rates, you get those by investing in riskier instruments that have the possibility of losing value.
Again, it would be nice for the borrower if they could just pay it off sooner with no penalty, but the lender has no reason to let them do so. I think there are in fact other explanations for these more complicated loan terms that do benefit the borrower. For instance, an amortization schedule with clearly defined monthly payments and proportions going to interest and principal also reduces the borrower's uncertainty, and makes them less likely to do risky things like skip lots of payments intending to make it up later. It gives them a clear number to budget from. But even aside from all that, I think the clearest answer to your question is what I said above: in general, it benefits the lender to attach conditions and parameters to loans in order to have many opportunities to penalize the borrower for making it hard for the lender to predict their cash flow."
It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea.  Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan.  I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years.  At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed.  There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more.  While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income.   Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.
It increases mobility for homeowners. I don't know what tax jurisdiction you are in but you'll tend to get a break on taxes if you are selling your primary residence.  For example, if you were to relocate to another location and it was taxed normally, then it will trigger a tax bill on a home, even though you were going to repurpose those funds for a similar home.
Once you paid it off, you don't pay rent anymore. That is the major advantage. Also, you can do any change you want to it. Many people consider it an investment - if you ever sell it, it could be worth more than what you paid (although this is not for sure)
"The number one reason to borrow is quite simple; when you have no other choice. The primary reason to do this is when renovations or additions must be made in a timeframe that precludes you being able to save enough money to pay cash. Harmanjd's example of a kid on the way with no space to put him is a very good hypothetical. Disaster recovery is another; insurance doesn't cover everything and can sometimes be slow to pay out, and even if the payoff will rebuild the house exactly the way it was, these situations are deceptively good opportunities to improve on what you had. Since you already have to call in the contractors to demo and rebuild, the cost to do that is sunk, and the incremental cost of improvements or even additional square footage is relatively minor. Other acceptable reasons to borrow are: When cost of capital is very cheap. A typical amortized HELOC is pretty expensive when paid on-schedule, but if you can pay it off very early (i.e. when you sell the home next month) or you get a good deal on the interest rate (a subsidized disaster recovery loan, perhaps; you have to be careful with these as they're not intended to turn a burnt-down hovel into a McMansion) the cost of borrowing can be acceptable even if you had cash savings for the project. You have other uses for the cash that can offset cost of borrowing. This generally requires the first point to be true as well, as it's a general rule that borrowing $10,000 costs you more than you would gain by investing $10,000, but there are situations in which the reverse can be true (if you have $10k in oil or major tech stocks right now, it would probably be a bad move to liquidate them for home improvements if you can get a HELOC at less than 6%). You can realize a net gain in home value from the reno. These situations are rare in cases of an already livable home; ""flippers"", which make their living on renovating homes for a profit, generally choose homes with obvious but easy-to-fix problems that depress home value because they look worse than they are.
It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized.  On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load.
If the mortgage is against your primary residence, then the only part that's (probably) deductible is the mortgage interest.  If you pay down your loan principal faster, then all other things being equal you'll get less of a tax deduction, because you'll accrue less interest in the months after you throw a big chunk at the principal (the principal is less, so the interest is less). But don't worry; that's all right!  It's a tax deduction, so your actual tax savings will be only a fraction of the interest you paid, so at the end of the day you'll be saving yourself money.
"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation). As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really ""ordinarily decreased"" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued.
The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV.  Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%).
If you keep the monthly payment the same, and the interest is lower; then you will be by definition overpaying the new loan therefore it will be paid off sooner. Based on some quick calculations it will be paid off approximately 5 years sooner. One advantage to the new loan is that you will have flexibility, you can drop the payment to the lower level for a few months because of a big financial problem and not be in default.
I don't know much about how student loans work, so there might be some caveats (e.g. does the interest rate stay constant, do you get a discount if you pay off early etc.). Ignoring those caveats: The interest on you student loan looks quite small. Depends a bit where you are in the world, but it seems very likely that you can get more interest than that on a 100% guaranteed investment form, e.g. term bank deposits. So, it seems a no-brainer to not pay back you student loan and invest the money securely for a higher interest rate instead. Similar situation when you think about taking the money as a down-payment for a house. More factors come into play here: