Typical discount for cash purchase on $1+ million homes?
First, I assume you understand that 'Cash Offer' doesn't mean you really show up with cash (in a duffel bag...), but is an expression that designates that you don't need a mortgage approval, but have the money in your accounts. The advantages for the seller are With both cases depending on the seller's situation, there can't be a generic answer, and the 'discount' will be all over the place between zero and several percent. I don't have a solid data-backed answer, but this is too lengthy for a comment. I've read that on average, about 1-2% is what you can get as a cash discount on a home purchase, all else being equal, but no hard data to back that.  In certain situations it makes sense for a cash discount to be much greater than that, for instance, if the seller is in a hurry to close and your cash offer has no inspection clause. Similarly, if a house has been re-listed after a sale fell through you might get a greater cash-discount, or if an owner just over-values the advantages of a cash-offer. Anecdotally, I had a neighbor take a cash offer 5% below asking and they had multiple offers at asking, they took the cash offer so they could close faster (15 days). Also, I've lost out to a cash offer, also at 5% below asking, and they also had a short-closing period and no-inspection, my offer was over asking on that one, so total cash discount > 5%. There can be more volatility in the luxury home market, but I wouldn't guess that changes the cash vs financed evaluation much.  Would love to see if anyone finds a good source, but even if they do, an average is only so helpful.
"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a ""cash out"" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved." Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate.  That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it.  Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%.  Let's assume a 25% tax rate.  Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%?  If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.).  These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house.  I recently bought my house using 100% cash.  It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs.  I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved.  My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible. They're probably talking about flipping houses. The conventional wisdom when flipping is to purchase the property with a mortgage or other loan on day-0. Do the work to rehabilitate it. Get it listed for re-sale promptly (this step has varying strategies) with a profitable price but one that will make it move. Have the house sold on or before the first payment would be due. This is anywhere from 30 to 60 days. The flipper then never has to make a payment on the mortgage or loan, the costs of rehabilitating the home are recovered promptly (potentially before any loan, credit card payments, or invoices are due), and there is a profit. This also assumes that either a 100% loan or some other mechanism is used to address closing costs and fees. This model fits the premise of the infomercial in that you make money investing in real estate but never have to tie up any of your own money in the process. According to the article this is not actually a fine, they are just buying back the mortgages they sold in the first place. One has to wonder if they are buying them back at the same price that they sold them or if it's a discount. E.g. They sold you a lemon for $1000, offer to buy it back for $10? Other questions: If they are buying them back then are they now going to start foreclosing like criminals like BoA did? I usually get a cashiers check to cover about 90% - 95% of the expected amount (whatever I think is just below my wet-dream-price), and bring the rest in cash. That doesn't require so much cash to be carried. Alternatively you can write a personal check for the exact reminder, or go to the bank for the reminder after the deal is made - with the majority already paid in a cashiers check nobody would disagree. Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of.  These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly.  Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market.  While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers.   There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash.  Namely, how was that cash invested?  If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit.  If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then?  Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in? I think you need to go to a local bank and ask. The key thing is paper trail. For any mortgage I've gotten on a new purchase, the bank needs to see where the down payment came from and how it got to the seller. In this case, it can go either way. If the value is truly 100% to the 80% you are looking to finance, and the paper trail is legit, this may work just fine.  The issue others seem to have is that simply buying at a 20% discount is not a legit way to finance the 80%. Here, it appears to me that the 20% came from you in installments, via the rent. Part 2 = 12%  -5000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^2 ) = -8450.26 Then subtract year 0s 5000 payment if you havent = -13450.26 and then compare to option 2 -2000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^10) = -11300.46 and subtract 20000 -31300.46  As you can see both values are substantially smaller compared to a 4% discount rate. "It's worth pointing out that most ""cash"" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash." You're saying that medallions aren't profitable but that they're selling for $1 Million because they're *liquid*!? OK you might need to go read about discounted cash flows or something because you do not know what drives the value of a business  Because that's what Medallions are - they aren't a cost of doing business, they're the price of buying a business. Which is high because the business is profitable  If you're not seeing the profits then you have the city to blame for that: they're going to the medallion owners You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup. Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly).  In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth. "While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that ""regular"" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes." "This is the meat of your potato question. The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario? ""I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or $360K down on the purchase price, $1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay.  Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit.  In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long. These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt.  See Image below:" While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.