Alternative to Jumbo Mortgage
Yes, banks still offer combo loans, but it is going to depend on the appraised value of your home. Typically lenders will allow you to finance up to 80% loan to value on the first mortgage (conforming loan amount) and 95% combined loan to value on a HELOC.   I would start by checking with your local credit union or bank branch. They have more competitive rates and can be more flexible with loan amount and appraised value guidelines. You should also be aware that there are banks that do business in the US that do not deal with Fannie Mae, and thus are not subject to the rules about conforming loans.  Here is an example of a well-known bank that lists two sets of rates, with the second being for loans of $750,000 or more (meaning the first covers everything up to that) https://home.ingdirect.com/orange-mortgage/rates
"littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold -  Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line ""extra principal."" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up.  Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage." Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans.   One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan.  There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest.  This would help the buyer avoid PMI.  Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment.  They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better.  However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments.  Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too.  So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI.   However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk. I've investigated this, and banks are willing to offer a deal similar to what you ask. You would take out a securities-backed loan, which provides you with the down payment on the property. For the remainder, you take out a regular mortgage.  JAGAnalyst wonders why banks would accept this. Simple: because there's money to be made, both on the securities-backed loan and the mortgage. Both parts of the deal are financially sound from the banks perspective. Now, the 20% number is perhaps a bit low. Having 20% of the value in shares means you'd be able to get a loan for 50% of that, so only a 10% downpayment. Without commenting on whether or not it's needed I don't think we are going to see a QE3 and all the political pressure is for some reason to start raising rates.  Regardless of how it plays out it's safe to say that the Fed Rate isn't going any lower.   You should also watch closely what happens to Fannie and Freddie.  If they are dismantled and government backed mortgages become a thing of the past then I think it'll become impossible for a consumer to find a 30 year fixed rate mortgage.  Even if they are kept alive, they will be put on a short leash and that will serve to further depress the mortgage market. Long story short, I'd lock your rate in. Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly.  Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc. "In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with ""less than 20%"" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan.  If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total).  Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?).  Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo ""in cash"" later.  Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it.  So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose.  In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard.   It's not immediately clear if ""rent backs"" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional ""non owner occupied"" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing).  Or buy one as a ""secondary residency"" mortgage?  Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like ""geographic distance"" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you ""will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control"" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case.  Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them.  Might not hurt to ask." Never ever use a giant monster mega bank for home loans.  I am sure you probably didn't and they bought your loan from someone else.  You have no legal options.  What you should do Is look at getting a new loan maybe a 15 year loan.  Your payment might be the same with no PMI. I would check with a relator to see what they think your home is worth.  Also if you have any money you can always pay extra to the principle and get yourself to 20% based on the next appraisal.   You might have a legal option regarding what they say you need in value 350k is what it should appraise to for you to get rid of pmi when you owe 280k Remember Citibank is a publicly traded company and their goal is to make more money. The CEO has a fiduciary relationship with stock holders not customers.  They seriously have board meetings to figure out what charges they can invent to screw their customers and make shitloads of money.  There is no incentive for them to let you get out of your PMI. A better idea if applicable is to borrow 50K (max allowed) to buy a house and pay interest to yourself instead of a bank. And none of that origination and closing fees lost to the lender "It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single ""balloon payment"" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold).  Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious.  With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case.  Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's ""75% of the gross proceeds of the sale"".  If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that ""gross proceeds"" means ""before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale""), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you.  If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you.  But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment.  So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses.  That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell.  That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale.  I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled.  But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest.  But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631.  So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself.  So we might as well eliminate those from consideration.   It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history.  Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating?  Do they in general tend to respect your wishes?  Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that?   Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to ""refinance"" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable.  For instance, do they have a lien on the property?" "I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of ""investing"" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way." "I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic.  Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor.  If it was me, I'd stick to a ""high interest"" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later.  That would be my top priority.  Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run.  I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like.  Get something that you want.  Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!" Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options. I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow. 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. "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value.  So each year, another .02N is removed.  Assume the property value rises with inflation.  Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N.   After inflation return.   Let's assume a 20% rate.  And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation.  Inflation is still taxable.   Result  Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase.   Return after inflation.   After-inflation return minus property taxes.   Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry).   Amount left.   If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes.  But with the property, that drops to .008N.  Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k.   So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year?  If so, then no problem.  If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house.   On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N.  You still need housing out of the .036N without the house.   These formulas should be considered examples.  I don't know how much your property taxes might be.  Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes.  Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation.  You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return.  But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is.   If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly.  The ""no house"" number becomes .024N.  The ""with house"" number becomes  So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed).  There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the ""with house"" option.  Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year.   This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually.  Lower property taxes would of course make this better.  Higher property taxes would be even less feasible.   When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home.  If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested.  You'll also have less tied up with property taxes.  It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k.   Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes.  You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually.   There are options with a house that you don't have without one."