Why is it good to borrow money to buy a house?
"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and   then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over   paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is   recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion ""The general advice"" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low.  However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it." First, who is saying that it is a better option? In general it is best to pay cash for things when you can. I think the reality is that for most people owning a house would be very difficult without some sort of financing. That said, one argument for financing a house these days even if you could afford to pay cash is that the interest rates are very low. For a 30-year fixed loan you can borrow money under 4.5% APR with decent credit. If you are willing to accept even a little risk you could almost certainly invest that same money and get a return higher than 4.5%. With the US mortgage interest tax deduction the numbers are even more favorable for financing.  Those rates look even more attractive when you consider you are paying for the house with today's dollars and paying back the loan with dollars from up to 30 years in the future, which will be worth much less. 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. You can explore the scenarios in which it is better to rent or to buy using this application: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ In the possibly unlikely scenario shown below, at the term of the mortgage (20 years) the tenant and the buyer have practically the same return on investment.  At this point the tenant's savings would be sufficient to buy a house equivalent to the buyer's, and this would be the advisable course of action (based on the figures alone).
"People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods.  It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly ""the neighborhood is pretty bad."" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass.  Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change.  (And, ""welcome, stranger"")" Apart from the reasons currently given (which have to do with personal relations), wouldn't a good reason to take the loan from the bank be to build up a credit history and/or improve your credit score? there are several reasons you might want good credit even if you could afford to pay for all your expenses in cash. having pointed out all the above reasons to have good credit, it is probably worth noting that many people with good credit choose to not borrow simply because they are more comfortable with the risks of not borrowing (e.g. inflation risk), than they are with the risks of borrowing (e.g. investment volatility). "1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a ""leveraged investment"" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily." I would not recommend borrowing your 401(k) money to buy a house for two reasons: When you borrow money from your 401(k), it is no longer invested. Yes, you pay yourself interest, but you miss out on the investment gains for the life of the loan.  If you leave your job, the loan is due in full shortly thereafter. If you do not pay it back, you are hit with taxes and penalties.  If I were you, I would roll it over into an IRA for the reasons you mentioned. "The purpose of taking a ""secured loan"" is to build credit. This might be done by someone who had a bad stain on their credit history such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure, or possibly by someone just out of school (presumably with few or no student loans),and no credit history. Not everyone needs to, or should do this, however. The advantage for a borrower is that s/he gets to create a record of repaying a loan that will partly mitigate the bad credit history. The advantage for the bank is that it is ""no risk,"" because the savings account is the security for the loan. That would make it willing to ""lend"" to a bad credit risk." "Your Spidey senses are good. A good friend would not put you in such a position. It's simple, to skirt some issue (we'll get to that in a second) you are being asked to lie. All for a 15% return on your $$$$. <<< How much is that?  You can easily lend him the money, and have a better paper trail. But the bank is not going to like that, and requires this money from friends or family to be a gift. I've heard mortgage guys at the bank say ""It's just a formality, we need this paperwork to sell the loan to the investors."" These bankers belong in jail, or at least fired and barred from the industry. They broke the economy in 2008, and should be stopped from doing it again." "Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money.  In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money.  They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own.  Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time.  That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold.  What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard.  By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment.  Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide?  A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a ""great apartment to invest in?"", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years?  The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist.  There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate.  Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate.  (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk.  They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan.  Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank.  You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are.  They get less return if things go really well." "Judging from your comments, you seem to be confused about the way banking works.  Banks can only lend out money that they actually have: whether from deposits or investors or loans taken from other banks/government entities.  The rules on how this works varies from country to country, but the principle is always the same.  There is no magic money. Let's imagine a closed system.  There's only one town, and that town only has one bank.  There are 100 people total in town, and each has $10,000.  Everyone deposits all of their money in the bank. The bank now has $1,000,000 in total deposits.  You take a loan for $100,000 and buy a house.  The bank now has $900,000.  You make your payments of $965 per month: $833 of interest and $132 toward principal.  In this ideal world, the bank has no costs associated with doing business.  After one month, the bank has $1,000,000 in deposits, $900,965 in cash on hand, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit (from interest). Now here's the confusing part.  You bought a house from someone.  That person also lives in town.  He takes the $100,000 you gave him and... deposits it in the bank.  The bank now has $1,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $99,868 in loans, and $833 in profit. Assume 10 more people buy houses at $100,000 each, taking loans for that whole amount (for the same terms you did).  Assume those sellers then deposit the money back in the bank.  The bank now has $2,100,000 in deposits, $1,000,965 in cash, $1,099,868 in loans, and $833 in profit.  The bank is taking in $10,615 per month ($965 x 11) in loan payments, making profit of $9,163 ($833 x 11) per month from interest. This process of loans and deposits and payments can go on forever without any outside influence.  This is the primary way money is created.  It's like printing money without the paper. Of course, we're not in a closed system.  Banks are limited in endlessly creating money, primarily by two things: Reserve Requirements are set by government agencies.  They might say banks can lend until their cash on hand (or liquid equivalent) is, at minimum, 35% of total deposits.  So a bank with $1,000,000 in deposits would have to keep $350,000 in cash at any given time. Capital Requirements work largely the same way.  It's more the bank saying, ""What happens if a bunch of people want their deposits back?""  They plan a reasonable amount of cash to have on hand for that scenario." "All very good answers for the most part, but I have a definition for Good and Bad debt which is a little bit different from those mentioned here so far. The definitions come from Robert Kiyosaki in his book ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"", which I have applied to all my debts. Good Debt - Good Debt is debt used to fund a money making asset, an asset which puts money into your pockets (or bank account) each month. In other words the income produced by that asset is more than all the expenses (including the interest repayments on the debt) associated with the asset. Bad Debt - Bad Debt is debt used to fund both money losing assets and non-assets, where the interest repayments on the debt are more than any income (if any at all) produced by the goods or services the debt was used to purchase, so that you need to take money out of your pockets (or bank account) each month to sustain the debt. Based on this definition a mortgage used to purchase the house you live in would be classed as bad debt. Why? Because you are making interest repayments on the mortgage and you have other expenses related to the house like rates and maintenance, but you have no income being produced by the house. Even a mortgage on an investment (or rental) property where the rent is not enough to cover all the expenses is considered to be bad debt. For the debt on an investment property to be considered as good debt, the rent would have to cover the full interest payments and all other expenses. In other words it would need to be a positively geared (or a cashflow positive) asset. Why is this definition important in distinguishing between good and bad debt? Because it looks at the cashflow associated with the debt and not the profit. The main reason why most investors and businesses end up selling up or closing down is due to insufficient cashflow. It may be a profitable business, or the value of the property may have increased since you bought it, but if you don't have enough cash every month to pay the bills associated with the asset you will need to sell it. If the asset produces enough cashflow to pay for all the expenses associated with the asset, then you don't have to fund the asset through other sources of income or savings. This is important in two ways. Firstly, if you are working and suddenly lose your job you don't have to worry about paying for the asset as it is more than paying for itself. Secondly, if you don't have to dig into your other source/s of income or savings to sustain the asset, then theoretically you can buy an unlimited number of similar type assets. Just a note regarding the mortgage to buy a house you live in being classed as bad debt. Even though in this definition it is considered as bad debt, there are usually other factors which still can make this kind of debt worthwhile. Firstly, you have to live somehere, and the fact that you have to live somwhere means that if you did not buy the house you would probably be renting instead, and still be stuck with a similar monthly payment. Secondly, the house will still appreciate over the long term so in the end you will end up with an asset compared to nothing if you were renting. Just another note to mention the definition provided by John Stern ""...debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine..."", that's a clever way to think of it, especially when it comes to good debt." Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden. 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. The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so.  Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates   would/should not get back to 10%?   Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage   rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected.  Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time   when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders.  Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure.  That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it. First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.) With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment.