$10,000 to invest in the house - Pay down principal or spruce up to increase appraisal?
"There is no guarantee improvements will raise the appraised value.  You also don't want your property tax appraisal to go up if you can avoid it. Since you are talking on the order of $10k I'll assume you're only a few thousand dollars more from getting to 20%. That said, any schemes you might come up with like refinancing or second line of credit will probably cost more in fees than they are worth, unless you can get a much nicer interest rate. Figure out how long you plan to stay there, Evaluate your options (do nothing, principal reduction, refinance for 30, 15, or even an ARM) and figure out your bottom line by comparing everything in a spreadsheet One more thing: if you do pay a substantial amount of extra principal, you can ask the lender to ""rebalance"" which will correct the minimum monthly payment to your remaining term. This will likely incur a fee, but could be helpful in an emergency"
Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house.  To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc.  Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down.  The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking. Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal.  By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time. "There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a ""hot"" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K).  If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow  $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark.  Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the  higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford.  If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K,  and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!)  really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision.  What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations." The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there. It's important because it shows that the amount you owe does not decrease linearly with each payment, and you gain equity as a correspondingly slower rate at the beginning of the loan and faster at the end. This has to be figured in when considering refinancing, or when you sell the place and pay off the mortgage. It also shows why making extra payments toward principal (if your loan permits doing so) is so advantageous -- unlike a normal payment that lowers the whole curve by a notch, reducing the length of time over which interest is due and thus saving you money in the long run. (Modulo possible lost-opportnity costs, of course.) "Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of ""here is a nice house, live in it"". Which do you need more of?  If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)" "Much of the interest on a loan comes in the first years of a mortgage, so the sooner you can pay that off, the better.  But let's see what the numbers say. If you have a loan at 4%, principal of $100,000, a term of 30 years, then this gives monthly payments of $477.42 (using the Excel PMT function). If you sell the house after precisely 5 years worth of payments, then you have made $28,644.92 in payments, you still owe $90,924.93. Suppose you sell the house for $100,000.  That means you will be in the hole for: $100,000 - $90,924.93 - $28,644.92 = -$19,569.85 Now, suppose you pay an extra $50 per month over the five years.  The same calculation becomes: $100,000 - $87,659.98 - $31,644.92 = -$19,304.90 So in this scenario, which is a little simplistic, you are $264.95 better off. The question you have to ask is whether you could have done better investing the $3,000 in extra payments somewhere else. The CAGR in doing this is 1.7%, so you might be better off putting the money away. Running the same numbers for a 6% mortgage the CAGR you have is about 2.7%. Edit I've added a Google Docs spreadsheet (read-only) that you can download and play with.  Feel free to correct anything you find amiss! Edit 2  OK, so I've had a look at what JoeTaxpayer is saying in the comments below, and now I agree:  The CAGR should be 4%. Where I want wrong was to assume that the $50 per month payments over the five years are worth $50 * 5 * 12 = $3000.   This neglects the ""time value of money"" --- having small amounts of money periodically, rather than all of it in a lump sum. Including this makes the ""effective"" value of the monthly $50 payments $2714.95 written as =PV(0.04/12,60,-50) in Excel or Google Docs. I've added a tab to the original spreadsheet to show the different calculations.  Note that it still doesn't quite come to 4%, but I guess it's a minor error in the sheet. NB: I know, I'm leaving out mortgage interest tax relief, costs for selling etc. etc." 1 - For FHA loans PMI is required for mortages where there is not at least 20% equity.  Bank Financed Non-FHA loans may have other standards. If you are getting an FHA loan ,if possible put down 20%  so that you do not have to pay PMI.  That said your PMI costs should be reduced by the size of your down payment since the PMI covers the difference between your equity value (Based on the appraisal at time of purchase) and 20% equity value of the home. So if you buy a home for 425k(assuming 100% appraisal price) 20% equity would be 85k.  So if you put 10% down you would be paying PMI until you accrue an addition 42500 in equity.  And you will be paying PMI on that for about 12 years(typical on 30 year mortgage) or until you refinance(having home appraised at higher value than purchase price where you would have 20% equity).  There are ways to get out of PMI early but few banks are willing to help you through the hoops unless you refinance(and pay more closing costs). 2 - Different banks offer better rates or other benefits for paying points.  We paid $300 for a 1.5% reduction in our interest rate (less than 1%) but it was called a point. We were offered a few other points (.25% for 2500 and an one time on demand interest rate adjustment for ~3k) but declined but they may make more sense on a 425k home than our more modest one.  You can talk to a banker about this now, get preapproved(which helps with getting offers accepted sometimes), and find out more details about the mortgage they will offer you.  This meeting should be free(I would say will but some bank would charge just to prove me wrong) and help answer your questions more authoritatively than anyone here can.   3 - The costs will come out of your down payment.  So if you put down 42.5k down your costs will come out of that.  So you will probably end up with 30~35k being applied towards your purchase price with the rest going for costs.  You can tell the banker you want to put 10% towards the price and the banker will give you a down payment probably around 50k to cover costs etc.  (My figures are hopefully intentionally high better to find out that it will cost less than my guesstimate than get your hopes up just to find out the costs are higher than expected.) "I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind.  Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI?  Edit - I just re-read the link. The line ""you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down"" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO." After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house.  5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate.  The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right.  That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds.  As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment?  There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal.   Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house. Keep in mind, there are times that house is in such bad shape that it's going to need 6 months of renovations, in which case you might ask the town if they are willing to reappraise a lower value until the work is completed. Keep in mind, you'll get a new appraisal when permitted (I mean pulling a permit from the town) work is done. I finished my basement and the town was eager to send the appraiser over even before work was fully complete. "Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision.  As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house?  Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important?  Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious.  Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you.  The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible.  They are always looking to ""sheer the sheep"". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home?  Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort.  With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more." "Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one.  As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice.  Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart.  I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself.  ""Buy the biggest house you can""? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit." If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account.  Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable.  One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly.  The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property.  I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero).  Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting.  Run the numbers.  Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer.  It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation.  Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side.  Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting.  Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side).  Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area.   Assuming that the numbers add up to buying:  buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small. Depends on the house. If it's a house that's <10 years old, you're looking at pretty minor repair work. You can probably afford to be aggressive. I bought a home built in 1927 in 2006. Since then, I've put on a roof, replaced windows, replaced hot water tanks, replaced bathroom fixtures and corrected plumbing horrors. Total cost: $20k. Had I spent down savings on a down payment, I would have been in rough shape financially. Other things to think about are: