What are the differences between an investment mortgage and a personal mortgage?
Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon). According to my wife who used to work in the industry, since an investment mortgage is more likely to fail (they are just riskier) there are higher loan to value requirements and higher interest rates. They are just different products for different situations. I used to own a few investment properties, so I'm pretty familiar with this.  As MrChrister mentions, lenders see investment mortgages as higher risk. People who fall into financial trouble are much more likely to let their investment properties go than their personal residence.  Consequently, the interest rates and downpayment requirements are generally higher. Typically a mortgage for an investment property will require 20% down, vs. as low as 3-5% down for a personal residence.  With excellent credit and some shopping around, you could probably do 10% down.  Interest rates are typically about a half-percent higher as well. You'll also find that the more investment properties you have, the harder it becomes to finance new ones.  Banks look at debt-to-income ratios to determine if you are over extended.  Typically banks like to see that your housing payments are less than 20% or so of your income.  However, with rental properties, housing payments generally account for far more than 20% of your rental income.  Other income you have can offset that, but after buying 2-3 houses or so, your DTI generally creeps into the range where lenders are uncomfortable lending to you anymore.  This is why you'll find that many rental properties are bought on land contracts with owner financing rather than with mortgages. "It's just a guess, as I'm from the UK and am unfamiliar with the term ""investment"" mortgage but is it one where you are buying the property in order to rent it out, and make money from it, rather than to live in? In the UK we call those ""buy to let"" mortgages and one of the main differences is that you have to have a higher deposit to get that type." If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs.  Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.
Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid. The advantage of interest only mortgages is that they can increase your cashflow as you are only paying the interest and not any part of the principle. We have most of our investment loans on interest only for 10 years. When we got the loans about 6 to 7 years ago our LVR was only 60% and the property prices have increased by about 40% in that time. We also place our excess cashflow into offset accounts linked to the investment loans, so there is extra cash available in case things go bad. The disadvantage of interest only mortgages is that you are not paying off any principal for the length of the interest only period. If you are over extended this could cause problems as you need to rely totally on the price of the property going up for your equity to increase. As you are currently paying mortgage insurance leads me to believe your LVR is above 80%, so you would not have much equity available in your home. With an interest only loan this could pose you some problems. You should never try to over extend yourself, the slightest thing that goes wrong could get you into financial troubles. Always try to have some buffer to help you stay on your feet if circumstances do change for the worst. Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving.  Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes.  Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation. The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty. Investing in property hoping that it will gain value is usually foolish; real estate increases about 3% a year in the long run.  Investing in property to rent is labor-intensive; you have to deal with tenants, and also have to take care of repairs.  It's essentially getting a second job. I don't know what the word pension implies in Europe; in America, it's an employer-funded retirement plan separate from personally funded retirement.  I'd invest in personally funded retirement well before buying real estate to rent, and diversify my money in that retirement plan widely if I was within 10-20 years of retirement. Some good answers already, but let me add a TL:DR version. Brokers work like a special type of bank account where you can deposit or withdraw money. The major difference is that they also give you the ability to buy/sell investments with the money in your account which you can do by either calling them or using their website. Important: Many investments you will make through a broker(e.g. stocks) are not insured against losing value like the money in your bank account. "In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty.  Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors.  As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you ""can"" pay off the loan in a short time.  If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above." "Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage.  There are probably many questions and answers on this subject.  It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages).  You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee.  This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage.   It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances.  Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks?  Do you have the need for a college fund?  Do you have an emergency fund?  Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a ""one time adjustment"" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude.  Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner.  Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with." Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement. Public sector and private industry retirement plans, taxation and estate planning would be the most substantial differences between the two countries. The concepts for accumulating wealth are the same, and if you are doing anything particularly lucrative with an above average amount of risk, the aforementioned differences are not very relevant, for a twenty something. So your accountant certainly knows much more than I do about Israeli tax law and its interactions with US tax law, which is zero.  I'm going to look at this problem from the investment perspective which I hope to convince you is the most important place to start. Then you can adjust for interactions between the Isreali and US tax codes. Even if the tax breaks are exceptional, it would be hard to recommend buying real estate as an investment in the 7-10 year time frame.  Especially if this real estate is in the US.  Open/Closing fees, mortgage fees, risk of property devaluation, bad-renters, acts of god, insurance costs and tax complications make short to medium term investments in real estate a particularly risky way to invest.  Buying a local apartment and renting is somewhat more reasonable as you don't have to worry about the currency conversion and you can do a lot more research in your local environment and keep a closer eye on the property, it is  still this a pretty concentrated risk. Saving and investing using tax-advantaged accounts is generally considered a great way to build toward a down payment in the medium term.  A mixture of mostly local bonds with some local and foreign stocks and more and more cash as it gets close to purchase time is generally what is recommended when saving for a home.  This mixture is relatively safe and will tend to grow steadily without the concentrated risk of a real estate investment.  PFIC rules are complicated and certainly worth taking some time to understand, but owning real estate especially in a foreign country seems much more complicated and certainly riskier. There may be some rule that makes investing in REITs much better than normal stocks in these particular accounts though I would be surprised if that were the case.  It is generally not true for people under just he US tax code. So while option (1) may not be the absolute best from a tax perspective it would certainly be my guess as the most likely to succeed. Let me first start by defining an emergency fund. This is money which is: Because emergency's usually need to be deal with ASAP, boiler breaks, gears box in a car. Generally you need these to be solved as soon as possible, because ou depend on these things working and you can't budget for this type of expenditure using just your monthly salary. This is a personal opinion but I prefer investment types that don't have another fee on access. I really don't like having another fee on top on money that I need right now. Investment Options: Market based investments should be seen as long term investments, therefore they do not really satisfy requirement one, they can also have broker fees, therefore you might pay a small extra charge for taking money out, and so do not satisfy requirement two. Investment Options for Emergency Funds You want to get the best return on your money even if it's your emergency fund. So use regular saving accounts, but from you emergency fund or use tax effective savings accounts, like a cash ISA if based in the UK. Don't think of an emergency money as just sitting there, you have options just makes sure the options fit the requirements. UPDATE Given feedback I appreciate there are levels of emergency fund, the above details things which might be about 1-2 month salary in cost, car repairs, leaks, boiler repairs. Now I have another fund which is in P2P funds which is higher risk than a deposit account but then gives me a better return and is less subject to market fluctuations and it would be the place I go to for loss of job level emergencies say 6 months of salary, this takes a bit longer to access but given I have the above emergency fund I have given myself time to get the money from the P2P account. "The number one difference is that bank savings accounts, or money market accounts (MMAs allow limited checking--six non-ATM withdrawals per month, max, else possible fees) have FDIC insurance up to $250,000.  However don't put that much in--allow some room for interest, so you never go over the $250,000.  Money Market Mutual Funds do not enjoy FDIC insurance.  There may be some SPIC insurance--generally against brokerage failure though, but its coverage is questionable--search out those details, and if they apply to anything besides actual cash held at the brokerage.  If the money market mutual fund is strictly invested in US Treasury securities (like T-Bills, or other short-term US Treasury instruments), it enjoys the full faith and credit of the US government, FWIW--but many MMMFs invest in corporate instruments.  If the fund has any pricing issues, there might be a delay in getting paid off.  (Extremely unlikely.)      Number two, and more importantly, bank savings accounts (or MMAs) pay way more!  You can get a bit over 1% APY now--many paying 0.90% APY, or higher.  No money market mutual funds are close to that, generally yielding a small fraction of that, almost zero for US Treasury MMM funds.  Sure 1.05% ain't too exciting, but you may as well get the most you can if holding ""cash,"" and fully insured to boot." "Your decision about which of these investments to make is going to depend on how long you expect to leave the money in the account. For example, based on the figures you give us, if you think you are going to want to withdraw the money in three months or less then you should chose the savings account.  For ten months or more you should choose the Fixed Deposit. (As Michael Kjorling says, ""flexible to withdraw at any time"" does not mean you won't pay penalties for withdrawing early that's why you shouldn't choose the longer term deposits if you want to withdraw earlier). That's the simplest approach. The trouble of course is that you don't necessarily know how long you are going to leave the money in. If you are saving for a house, and you know you won't want to buy in the next year, the 12 month deposit looks good. But what if your car suddenly needs repairs? You would have to withdraw that money early and pay the penalties, and it turns out you would have been better of putting it in the savings account. A good approach is:" You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with.  Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare.  Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.