vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
The answer is mathematics. Let's say you have $100 capital to invest with.. With a mortgage: With a unit trust (assuming you don't put in borrowed money): 5% growth on the property is $25, but a $25 profit on a unit trust requires 25% growth. Well, that's assuming zero interest and zero fees. Let's say interest is 3% but so are trust fees. A property now requires 8% growth for $25 profit in a year, where a unit trust now requires 29% growth for $25 profit. Which one is more likely? The above calculations don't take in to consideration all associated costs and is obviously exaggerated but it shows the answer is not black and white but is instead just mathematics on a bunch of variables. Debt isn't a bad thing so don't be afraid of using debt. With debt you can borrow more to invest. Having a fully paid off house is not a good investment if some of that equity could be earning you more else where (if the math makes sense).
Unfortunately, what you are finding is that your past decisions to take on debt have limited your choices now. Learn from this fact and choose not to go further into debt. Your condo will become a burden if you don't have the liquid funds to maintain the property, keep the mortgage current, and hedge against any other significant life events. You already have almost no financial margin. These steps will almost guarantee that you will enjoy your house and have a worry/stress free experience. You make plenty of money for you to complete this cycle in a handful of years and be ready to buy. Also, don't give yourself false either/or choices. You have options. Our apartment is way too small for just the two of us, much less a child. We'd have to move before we had a child and we'd like to live in our own house when we do. Not true. Rent a cheaper apartment further outside the city, which will also be larger. It probably won't be as nice as the one you have now. Buy a car for cash under $5000. It is a sacrifice for few years while you work for your dream home.   You already know this is a bad decision. Continuing down this path will leave you with the same frustrations 10 years from now. Good Luck!
"You have 1998-2011 income-contingent student loans, where the interest rate is the lower of (1% + base rate) or RPI (retail price inflation). For the next few years the it's likely to be (1% + base rate) as interest rates stay low and inflation shoots up. These loans only need to be repaid in proportion to your salary, and if they aren't repaid for long enough (e.g. the holder takes a career break for children) they are written off. So all-in-all, they are pretty good debt to have: low interest rate, and you might not have to repay them ever. It's likely that your mortgage will have a significantly higher rate than the student loan, so you'd be better off reducing your mortgage. Also, the higher deposit might mean you can get a lower interest rate on the whole mortgage because the lender will see you as a lower risk, so the return from ""investing"" it in your mortgage would be even greater than the raw interest rate. Having the student loan outstanding might make some difference to the ""affordability"" check for your mortgage payments, but lenders will be very familiar with how they work. Reducing your mortgage payments with the higher deposit should easily counterbalance that. Your own suggestion is to invest the £30K in a ""reasonably safe portfolio"" making 5%. There'll inevitably be some risk in that - 5% is a relatively high return in today's climate - but if you're willing to take that risk, you can investigate the effect on your mortgage to see if it's worth it or not."
I would personally look at consolidating your debt at a lower interest rate by refinancing your mortgage. I would leave any retirement funds alone unless it was absolutely necessary to touch it with no other avenues available. However, once you have consolidated your debt into the mortgage I would pay more than the minimum amount so that you don't take too long to pay it off. I would put about 50% of the freed-up cash flow back into the repayments, that way you will be paying more debt off quicker and you will have additional cash flow to help your monthly budget. Another good point would be to go through your monthly budget to see if there is any expenses you could reduce or eliminate.
One other consideration is that by paying off your mortgage early versus, for example, investing that capital in a mutual fund is that you are reducing your net liquidity to some degree. That is, if you find yourself needing an emergency infusion of cash it is easier to sell a stock/fund than to sell your house or get a equity loan.  I suppose if you were planning to need a lot of cash to start a business or invest in real estate, then maybe it would make sense to keep your cash more liquid. However, in your situation I agree with Joe. Pay it off. It feels REALLY good to write that last check!
No. This logic is dangerous.  The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house.  With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea.  By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median?  Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes.  Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog.  Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty.  If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use.
This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like ""big spending"" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it."
I would pay down the mortgage first.  It leaves you with more money in the end.  If you focused on the student loans first, you'd have one debt gone, which emotionally is nice, but you'd have accumulated much more interest on the mortgage while you were busy paying down your student loans.
The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances. The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you.
I would advise against this. My main reason for saying so is that you are in a time of major transition, and transition equals uncertainty. What if the new job turns out to be a bad one, and at the same time the house is more difficult to rent out than you expect? That seems like a situation that would be worse than the sum of its parts. Some other things to consider: first, if you want to buy a house where your new job is located, you will not be able to borrow as much for that house.  This is especially important if you are moving to a city with a very high Cost of Living. Second, your margin on the rental doesn't sound like it would leave much room for profit. A $100 difference between your mortgage and your rent amount will be eaten up very quickly through property management fees and maintenance.  If the value of the house does not rise like you expect, that could mean you put in a lot of effort for very little or no gain. Finally, this will require a good deal of time management. Between relocating, closing on this house, and beginning a new job, it sounds like you'll have a lot going on. This may not concern you much, but it's still worth considering.
Another thing to consider is how much longer you wish to stay in this home & what you will do with it when you move. I had planned on doing exactly this, but we are more likely to keep our home when we move out and use it as rental property.  If we went down this route, we would have a lot of equity  (perhaps even paid off) in our home, but would have little left to save towards the next home down payment.
"Living in one unit of a multi-family while renting out the others, although not without its risks, can be a viable (if gradual) way to build wealth. It's been rebranded recently as ""house hacking"", but the underlying mechanics have been around for many years (many cities in the Northeast in particular remain chock full of neighborhoods of 3-family homes built and used for exactly that purpose for decades, though now frequently sub-divided into condos). It's true you'd need to borrow money, but there are a number of reasons why it's certainly at least worth exploring (which is what you seem to be asking -- should you bother doing the homework -- tl;dr: yes): And yes, you would be relying on tenants to meet your monthly expenses, including a mortgage bill that will arrive whether the other units are vacant or not. But in most markets, rental prices are far less volatile than home prices (from the San Francisco Federal Reserve): The main result from this decomposition is that the behavior of the price-rent ratio for housing mirrors that of the price-dividend ratio for stocks. The majority of the movement of the price-rent ratio comes from future returns, not rental growth rates. (Emphasis added) It's also important to remember that rental income must do more than just cover your mortgage -- there's lots of other expenses associated with a rental property, including insurance, taxes, maintenance, vacancy (an allowance for the periods when the property will be empty in between tenants), reserves for capital improvements, and more. As with any investment, it's all about whether the numbers work. (You mentioned not being interested in the ""upkeep work"", so that's another 8-10% off the top to pay for a property manager.) If you can find a property at an attractive price, secure financing on attractive terms, and can be reasonably confident that it will rent in the ballpark of 1.5-2% of the purchase price, then it might be a fine choice for you, assuming you are willing and able to handle the work of being a landlord -- something worth at least as much of your research time as the investment itself.
Rent. You have no idea whether you will still be in the same part of the country five years from now; you may not even be in the same country. A house is a boat anchor you really do not need or want at this time. It's also a set of obligations you may not want to take on yet.  And buying is not automatically more financially advantageous than renting, when you remember that money not going into the house can go into your retirement plan or other investments.
First, you are not a loser nor an idiot! You have avoided many debt mistakes and have a stable income. This move will be good for you and your family and an opportunity to continue to build your life together. The fact you are even thinking about this and asking questions shows that you are responsible. To your rent/buy question, Ben Miller has a great summary in his answer. I have nothing more to add except that you already know you cannot buy. That question is not really your main problem. You need some financial goals and then you need a plan to achieve those goals. As you become more educated about finances, it can be like drinking from a fire hose. Trying to analyze too much information can paralyze you and make you 'freak out' that you are messing everything up! Try this.  Think about where you want to be in 5 years or so. Write down with your fiance some of those dreams and goals. Maybe things like finish college degree(s), buy a house, pay off student loans, wedding, have more kids, etc... As you prioritize these things, you will see that some are short-term goals and some are long-term. Then you lay out a step by step plan to get there. By focusing on each step at a time, you see more success and are more motivated.  As you see movement towards your goals, you will be willing to sacrifice more to get there. You will be willing to rent a cheaper place with less room to make more headway on these things. This will be a several year plan, which is why it is so important to define your goals at the beginning. This will give you motivation and the mental toughness to follow through when it is difficult.
I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest.  In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances.  You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property.  Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced.  The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2.  I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future.  I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification.  Don't put all of your money into one basket.  This includes real estate.  Like any other investment, real estate goes down too.  In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year.  While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio.
Peace of mind is the key to your question. Just before the US housing bust of 2007, I had someone try to convince me to take all the equity from my house which was overvalued in an overheated market. The idea was to put that money in the stock market for a bigger return than the interest on the house. Many people did that and found themselves out of jobs as the economy crashed. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. I never lost a night of sleep over the money I didn't make in the stock market. I did manage to trade up to a house twice the size by buying another when the housing market bottomed out, but waiting for a market recovery to sell the smaller house. The outcome of my good fortune is a very nice house with no mortgage worth about 1/3 of my total net worth. That's probably a larger percentage than most money managers would recommend, but it is steadily decreasing because now, all the money that would go to a mortgage payment instead gets deposited in retirement accounts, and it still has 30 years to grow before I start drawing it down. I almost don't remember the burden of a mortgage hanging over my head each month. Almost.
You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home.   By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility.
A somewhat provocative (but not unserious) proposal: Rent, don't buy a house to live in. In 2007/8, the thing that got many people in deep trouble is their mortgage. It's not a productive investment but a speculative bet on what was in fact a bubble and a class of assets that is notoriously slow to recover after a slump. Before thinking about your savings or buying into silly ideas about gold, you should realise that as a middle class worker, the biggest risk after a crisis is losing your job. Renting your accommodation means being able to downgrade or move very quickly and not being forced to sell a house at the worse possible time. If you really do need to liquidate some of your investments at a bad time, having a more diversified portfolio means that you are not losing everything to meet some short-term obligations. Assuming you're in the US, this means forgoing some nice tax advantages that might be too tempting to resist (I'm not so I am basing this on what I read on this site) but, bubbles aside, there is nothing that makes real estate a particularly good investment as such, especially if you also live in the house you're buying. You might very well come out on top but you expose yourself to several risks and are less prepared to face a crisis.
If it was me, I would consider selling both properties.  Unless of course your renters from the first house are very, very good; and you have a good handy man in the area.   Managing real estate from a distance is tricky, and $400 per month is not a lot of wiggle room.  You would be taking on a lot of risk with only 40K in the bank, a 200K salary, three mortgages (one likely a jumbo) and a student loan.   Yea, if it was me I would sell both.
A look at your finances at this point Now, at this point you still have debt, but your credit cards are at 0 and have been, every payday for a few months. Your car loan still exists, but you have money in the bank to cover this debt, and you could pay it off. It would eat your nest egg, but you could. You also have 15k set aside, just for the house. As you take longer looking for that perfect house, that number keeps growing. Your bank account now has over $25,000 in it. That's a good feeling on its own, and if you stick with your plan, buy your house and put down $15k, you still have plenty of wiggle room between credit cards that are not maxed out, and a $7.5k ""padding"" in case the roof falls in. Again it sounds like I'm saying wait. But I'm not, I'm saying plan better. All of these goals are very doable inside one year, a rough year to be sure, but doable. If you want to do it comfortably, then take two years. In that time you're looking, searching and learning."
"Do you now own your new home, or are you renting?  This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote ""shoot up considerably."" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have.  There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out.  (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original ""interest only"" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)"