Why do people use mortgages, when they could just pay for the house in full?
Good question. If a person has a choice, it is probably better to pay cash. But not always. If your large pile of cash can earn more being invested than cost of the interest to borrow a similar large pile of cash, it is beneficial to get a mortgage. Otherwise pay cash. EXAMPLE: A house costs $100,000. I have $100,000 in extra money. I can invest that at 5% per year, and I can borrow an additional $100,000 at 2% per year. Since I can make more on my pile of cash than it costs to borrow another pile of cash, borrowing is better. Compound interest is the most powerful force on the planet according to Albert Einstein (maybe). That isn't likely for most people though. Here is the results from some online financial calculators. http://www.calcxml.com/do/hom03 Borrowing $100,000 with 2% interest for 30 years will cost a total of $148.662. You get $100,000, but it cost you $48,662 to do it. http://www.calcxml.com/do/sav07 Saving $100,000 in a bank account with an interest rate of %5 will be worth $432,194 in 30 years. By not spending the money you will earn $332,194 over the course of 30 years. So if you can invest at 5% and borrow at 2% you will end up with $283,532 more than if you didn't. It is a pretty extreme example, and financial advisers make a lot of money figuring out the complex nature of money to make situations like that possible. "The advantage of using a mortgage is that you pay for a house at TODAY's price, using TOMORROW's money. Your question suggests that you rightly observed that it was not a good idea around 2006 (the last peak in housing). That was when prices were at their maximum, and had nowhere to go but down. Some experts think that house prices STILL have further to go on the downside. Meanwhile, wages have been going nowhere during that time. This phenomenon seems to happen about every 40 years or so, the 1930s, the 1970s, and around 2010. At MOST other times, say the 1980s, houses are likely to go up for the ""foreseeable"" future. At those times, you want to buy the house at ""today's"" price, then pay for it in future dollars when you are earning more money. The irony is that what most people observe as teenagers is usually the wrong thing to do when they are, say, forty. In 2035, it will probably make sense to have a large mortgage in a bull housing market, which is the opposite of what you observed around 2010. So a better rule is to do at age 40 what made sense about the time you were born (in your case, perhaps the 1990s). Whereas the people born in the early 1970s that got ""caught"" recently, observed the bull market of the 1980s and 1990s in THEIR teens and twenties, rather than the bear market of the 1970s that took place about the time they were born." Besides all of the other answers, I will point out that many people simply don't have enough cash sitting around to buy a home outright.  It would take many years (or even decades) for the average family to accumulate the necessary cash. Also, while you are pinching your pennies for years in an attempt to save up for your dream house, remember that inflation is steadily driving up the cost of goods and services.  A house that costs $200K today could cost $230K in 5 years due to inflation. Some countries, like the United States, allow a mortgage interest tax deduction.  This means the interest you pay on a mortgage, which is typically much more than half of the monthly payment at the beginning of a 25 year mortgage, is tax deductible, so you might get 33% or more of the interest back, and that effectively makes the interest rate significantly lower.  Therefore you are borrowing the money really cheap.  That makes MrChrister's answer even more appropriate. A $100K house and $100K are not equivalent assets. Here's a hypothetical... You and I both work for the same company, and both get a $100K bonus (yes, I said it's hypothetical). You decide to use the $100K to pay off your house. I put the money in the bank. Six months later, our company lays both of us off. I have $100K in the bank. I can last for quite a while with that much money in the bank. You have a house, but you can't get a mortgage or home equity loan, because you don't have a job. The only way you can access the money is by selling the house, which requires you to pay money to a real estate agent and perhaps taxes, and leaves you looking for a place to live. That assumes there isn't something systemic going on - like the credit crash - and there is credit available for somebody else to buy your house. I believe the reason is because society and the economy is set up a certain way, and re-enforced by the government. Your options are: So, people usually go with the most attractive of their limited options, getting a mortgage. If you want to dig deeper, do some research as to why housing is expensive. Some things to consider: you need the government's permission to build houses, thus limiting the competition in the home building market, the housing bubble, artificially setting house prices, etc.) To summarize: people need mortgages because houses are expensive, and houses are expensive for many reasons, big ones having to do with the government. "Condensed to the essence: if you can reliably get more income from investing the cost of the house than the mortgage is costing you, this is the safest leveraged investment you'll ever make. There's some risk, of course, but there is risk in any financial decision. Taking the mortgage also leaves you with far greater flexibility than if you become ""house- rich but cash-poor"". (Note that you probably shouldn't be buying at all if you may need geographic flexibility in the next five years or so; that's another part of the liquidity issue.) Also, it doesn't have to be either/or. I borrowed half and paid the rest in cash, though I could have taken either extreme, because that was the balance of certainty vs.risk that I was comfortable with. I also took a shorter mortgage than I might have, again trading off risk and return; I decided I would rather have the house paid off at about the same time that I retire."
"In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house.   Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay ""eigendoms belasting"" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house,  keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house." Second mortgages were also a popular way for home buyers without a down payment to borrow 100% of the money, but avoid certain extra fees if they borrowed all the money from a single lender. For example, to borrow $100,000 on a house would incur something called PMI (private mortgage insurance).  So to borrow $100,000 to buy my house, my payment might be $800/month, but I would have an additional $100/month of PMI to pay.  (These numbers are totally made up and not based in math in any way) So instead of that, borrows might get a first mortgage for $80,000 so they don't have to pay the PMI and get a second mortgage for the difference.  This can be beneficial if the second mortgage payment is less than the PMI for borrowing 100%. As far as I know they aren't as easy to get these days, like any loan you need to be qualified and I think 100% financing is probably harder to come by.  The negative connotation is no worse than any other loan.  I am personally against borrowing money, but if you had big medical expenses, major home repairs or some other emergency I could see it justified.  Probably not for a big vacation or for new car though. 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). "The current mortgaged owner would typically not have the right to sell any portion of the house without approval from the bank. The bank doesn't ""own"" the house through the mortgage, but they do have a series of rights that, in some cases, look similar to ownership.  Remember that a mortgage is just a loan that uses a house as collateral, to reduce the risk to the lender in the event of default. If it was just a personal loan, without collateral, then there would be a much higher risk of default (and therefore the interest rate would be closer to 20% than 2%). But because the loan was taken with collateral, that collateral can't be sold without the bank's permission. If the bank allowed this to happen, then one risk would be exactly as you say - that the mortgagee stops paying the bank, and the bank no longer is able to recover the full value of the loan on selling the remaining 50% of the house owed as collateral." First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false.  It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash.  This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor.  The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods. The problem comes when the borrower cannot afford his home.  If a borrower buys more home than they can afford, as long as he can sell the house for more than he owes, he's not in a disastrous situation. He can sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and choose more affordable housing instead.  If he is upside-down on his home, he doesn't have that option. He's stuck in his home. If he sells it, he will have to come up with extra money to pay off the mortgage (which he doesn't have, because he is in a home he can't afford). It used to be commonplace for banks to issue mortgages for 100% of the value of the home. As long as the home keeps appreciating, everybody is happy. But if the house drops in value and the homeowner finds himself unable to make house payments, both the homeowner and the bank are at risk. Recent regulations in the U.S. have made no-down-payment mortgages less common. Of course you don't need to take a mortgage - if you happen to have enough cash (or other assets) to pay your sister her share, or if she is willing to take it in installments over the next years. Mortgages are not needed to buy houses, but to pay for them - subtle difference. If you can pay - in whichever agreed way - without a mortgage, you won't need one. And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank. Certainly there are people who do pay off their homes.  Others do not.  It's a question of risk tolerance and preference.  Some considerations relevant to this question: Taxes - Interest on a mortgage is tax deductible.  Particularly for high earners, this is a significant incentive to maintain a mortgage balance and place extra money in the market instead. Liquidity - If you lose your job, you can sell stocks to pay the mortgage.  But if you have made principle payments on your mortgage but still owe some outstanding balance, you are still required to make monthly payments without any source of income. Rates - In recent years it is been common to get a mortgage for 3.2% to 3.5%.  The difference between those rates and 9% rate of return for the market is substantial.   There are other considerations but the answer in the end is that for many people the risk / reward calculus says the ~5% difference in rate of return is worth the potential risks. The tight lending standards such as elimination of low-documentation and sub-prime mortgages and requirements for lower loan to value, contribute to keeping all but those with pristine credit and cash reserves out of the market.  Some might consider this good for long term stability in the market.    I just went through doing a 20% down mortgage plus had to have one year extra liquidity in reserve. Well quite a few countires have tax breaks on the first house you own ... this is typically to promote people to have atleast one house of their own ... having a house of your own provides lot more stability in the long run ... and without tax breaks it makes it difficult for quite a few to own a house ... the tax breaks form a motiviation as well ...  There are at times other effects of this breaks, people buying houses beyond their need [bigger house than required] or capacity [buying in a central / expensive location] by maximizing the breaks ... Banks don't want to manage property.  They despise the fact that they have all of these foreclosures that they can't sell.  They just want to loan you the money at X% and collect the fees and interest. The value of a reverse mortgage to the lender is that it's a collateralized loan against a property.  When the owner exits the property, it's attached to the property and must be paid back before the property is sold.  They carefully consider the age of the recipient, equity in the property, etc. when they decide how much to pay the owner so that the chances of the loan going underwater are minimized. I think you're missing a couple of things. First - why do you think its a reverse mortgage? More likely than not its a regular mortgage - home equity loan. If so, if they expect the stock market to rise significantly more than the amount of interest they pay on the loan - then its a totally sensible course of action. Second - the purchase in cash only to take out a loan later can definitely be a sensible way to do things. For example, if the seller wants to close fast, or if there are competing offers where not having a contingency is the tipping point. Another reason might be purchasing in an entity name (for example holding the title as an LLC), and in this case it is easier to get a loan if you already have the house, since the banks see the owner's actual commitment and not just promises. First of all debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine. From borrowers point of view debt is good when it increases overall economic utility.  A young person wants to bring up a family but cannot afford the house. Had they waited for 30 years they would have reached the level of income and savings to buy the house for cash. By the time it might be too late to raise a family, sure they'd enjoy the house for the last 20 years of their life. But they would loose 30 years of utility - they could have enjoyed the house for 50 years! So, for a reasonable fee, they can bring the spending forward.  Another young person might want to enjoy a life of luxury, using the magical debt time machine and bringing forward their future earnings. They might spend 10 years worth of future earnings on entertainment within a year and have a blast. Due to the law of diminishing marginal utility - all that utility is pretty much wasted, but they'll still will need to make sacrifices in the future. The trick is to roughly match the period of debt repayment to the economic life of the purchase. Buying a house means paying over 30 years for an asset that has an economic life of 80 years+, given that the interest fee is reasonable and the house won't loose it's value overnight that's a good debt. Buying a used car with a remaining life of 5 years and financing its with a seven years loan - is not a good idea. Buying a luxurious holiday that lasts a fortnight with 2 years of repayments, i.e. financing non-essential short term need with medium term debt is insane. The other question is could the required utility be achieved through a substitute at a lower cost without having to bring the spending forward or paying the associated fee. It depends on where you are in life, and where you want to be at some point in the future, and the taxes, expenses and income at those points in your life. You don't get a mortgage to save on taxes, or keep a mortgage to save on taxes. But if somebody said they want to have the house paid off before they retire, that sounds to me like a great plan. They do need to balance it with saving for retirement, emergency fund, and college costs for themselves or their children.  Without having the whole picture it is impossible to say doing X is always a good idea.