How do you choose which mortgage structure is appropriate when buying a home?
There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house.  Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice :  If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand.  In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year. Go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do. Do not assume the average ROI will +(8-10%). It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. Down payment: Emphatically avoid PMI if at all possible; it's pouring money down the drain. Do 20% down if you can, or pay off enough to bring you above 20% and ask for PMI to be removed as soon as you can. Beyond that it's a matter of how much risk you want to accept and how long you'll own the place, and you'll have to run the numbers for the various alternatives -- allowing for uncertainty in your investments -- to guide your decision. Do not assume you will be able to make a profit when you sell the house; that's the mistake which left many people under water and/or foreclosed on. Do not assume that you will be able to sell it quickly; it can take a year of more. Do not assume immediate or 100% occupancy it you rent it out; see many other answers here for more realistic numbers.... and remember that running a rental is a business and has ongoing costs and hassles. (You can contract those out, but then you lose a good percentage of the rent income.) Double mortgage is another great way to dig yourself into a financial hole; it can be a bigger cost than the PMI it tries to dodge and is definitely a bigger risk. Don't.
You are thinking about this very well.  With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract.  What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance?  If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person.  (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one.  The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own.    If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage.  Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic. "Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit.  The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be ""other than house debt"" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment.  PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering.  I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low.  By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?" Generally, interest-only mortgages are a bad idea, because a lot of people get them so that they can buy more house than they could otherwise afford (lower payment = affordable, in their minds).  If the house continues to go up in value, they probably get away with it, because when the balance becomes due, they can refinance.  However, the last few years has shown how risky that strategy can be, and this kind of things is what cost a lot of people their houses. In your case, if the house is something you could afford on a regular 15 or 30-year mortgage, and you really are as disciplined as you say you are, you might get away with it.  But you have to take into account the risk, and consider what happens if there is a job loss or similar difficulty in the future. Another thing to consider is the term of the mortgage.  How many years will you get this lower interest rate?  Interest rates are at historic lows right now, and pretty much everyone thinks they're going up soon.  You might be better off locking in a higher rate for 15 years. I don't know any clever way to do what you're describing.  And, in a sense, you can see why there might not be one.  A mortgage isn't just a magical way to reduce your housing expenses; it's a tradeoff in which you agree to a long-term commitment in exchange for fixed costs (or at least costs with a prearranged structure) over that long term.  If you're unwilling to accept the obligation of paying for and maintaining the property over a long period, you can't really expect to reap the benefits of lowered costs.  Part of the reason people say buying is better is because people often do live in the same place for a long time, in which case, if they rent, they might miss out on savings they could have had if they bought instead.  If you're not going to live in the same place for a long time, buying may not actually be better for you. I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house.  So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house.  If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be. As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house.  You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach. "I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount).  So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income.  If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount.   But if you're concerned about the ""what if""s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary." It's complicated. Really, there's no solid answer for your question. Everybody's risk tolerance and time horizon is going to be different. Those who can take on more risk can take on lower-grade C-G loans at Lending Club. Those with less risk tolerance should emphasize As and Bs. 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. All of the answers given so far are correct, but rather narrow. When you buy a 30-year-mortgage, you are buying the right to pay off the debt in as long as 30 years.  What you pay depends on the interest rate and how long you actually take to pay it off (and principal and points and so on). Just as you are buying that right, the mortgager is selling you that right, and they usually charge something for it, typically a higher rate.  After all, they, and not you, will be exposed to interest risk for 30 years. However, if some bank has an aneurism and is willing to give you a 30-year loan for the same price as or lower than any other bank is willing to go for a 15-year loan, hey, free flexibility.  Might as well take it.  If you want to pay the loan off in 15 year, or 10 or 20, you can go ahead and do so. 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. The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix.  My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions. A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market.  A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k.  The loan has two components. a.  The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b.  The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top).  The originating bank lends $180k of their own money.  Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it.  The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less.  The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient.  Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around.  One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1.  One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for. "How to spend the money is up to you. That includes spending money on your house. (This is a safer way to look at it than an ""investment"". Not that it can't ever be treated as such, but that doing so often makes it easy to justify bad decisions and overspending on the house.) So with regards to the mortgage: So if it's not a monstrously huge deal, you might prefer to avoid default. Now,  how to invest the rest while waiting to spend it, now..." "I'll start by focussing on the numbers. I highly recommend you get comfortable with spreadsheets to do these calculations on your own.  I assume a $200K loan, the mortgage for a $250K house. Scale this up or down as appropriate. For the rate, I used the current US average for the 30 and 15 year fixed loans. You can see 2 things. First, even with that lower rate to go 15 years, the payment required is 51% higher than with the 30. I'll get back to that. Second, to pay the 30 at 15 years, you'd need an extra $73. Because now you are paying at a 15 year pace, but with a 30 year rate. This is $876/yr to keep that flexibility. These are the numbers.  There are 2 camps in viewing the longer term debt. There are those who view debt as evil, the $900/mo payment would keep them up at night until it's gone, and they would prefer to have zero debt regardless of the lifestyle choices they'd need to make or the alternative uses of that money. To them, it's not your house as long as you have a mortgage. (But they're ok with the local tax assessor having a statutory lien and his hand out every quarter.) The flip side are those who will say this is the cheapest money you'll ever see, and you should have as large a mortgage as you can, for as long as you can. Treat the interest like rent, and invest your money.  My own view is more in the middle. Look at your situation. I'd prioritize  In my opinion, it makes little sense to focus on the mortgage unless and until the first 5 items above are in place. The extra $459 to go to 15? If it's not stealing from those other items or making your cash flow tight, go for it.  Keep one subtle point in mind, risk is like matter and energy, it's not created or destroyed but just moved around. Those who offer the cliche ""debt creates risk"" are correct, but the risk is not yours, it's the lender's. Looking at your own finances, liquidity is important. You can take the 15 year mortgage, and 10 years in, lose your job. The bank still wants its payments every month. Even if you had no mortgage, the tax collector is still there. To keep your risk low, you want a safety net that will cover you between jobs, illness, new babies being born, etc.  I've gone head to head with people insisting on prioritizing the mortgage payoff ahead of the matched 401(k) deposit. Funny, they'd prefer to owe $75K less, while that $75K could have been deposited pretax (so $100K, for those in the 25% bracket) and matched, to $200K. Don't make that mistake."