When to liquidate mutual funds for a home downpayment
"This question is calling for a somewhat subjective answer. What I would recommend is liquidate now, since it is a stock fund and stocks have performed very well this year, no need to be greedy and hope that they do as well in 2014. Since it is not an enormous amount of money, put it in an interest yielding savings account which unfortunately are all sub 1%. But the key here is since we cannot predict the markets, no investment is going to be ""safer"". You want the 18k to be there when you need it for the down payment. If you invest it in a fund now, you may not be able to get at least 18k at the time you are forcing yourself to liquidate. A good rule for investing is never to have to sell to make a purchase because there is a high probability that you will be selling at a sub-optimal price. Some savings accounts that have slightly higher yields. http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/pf/savings-account-yields/"
There is no correct answer. It all depends on you. If you have a fund dedicated to a purpose (house, car, daycare, vacation, etc), in my opinion you are best served by keeping it dedicated to that function in most cases.  Say that you find a home that you want to by in two years. If you have good credit and appropriate debt/income ratios, your car payment will not pose a problem to getting that home. But not having enough money for a down payment will. The primary reason to put 20% down on your home is to avoid paying PMI (private mortgage insurance).  Anyone who buys a house with a down-payment of under 20% is required to pay for this insurance (which protects the lender in case you default on your loan). PMI is what enables people to buy homes with as little as 3-5% down. I would recommend against paying more than 20%, because having liquidity for emergency funds, or other investments will give you the sort of flexibility that's good to have when the economy isn't so great.  Depending on whether the house you purchase is move-in ready or a fixer-upper, having funds set aside for repairs is a good idea as well. The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I   keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year?  Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this?  In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of   the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low. While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property. 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. If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI. In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be  short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the  connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it.  Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on.  The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank. Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some  of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock,  and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made). If you can get a mortgage with 10% downpayment and the seller will accept (some may want at least 20% downpayment for whatever reasons) and with PMI it still lower than your rent, sounds like it's a good idea to buy now.  Of course this assumes that the money you'd be otherwise saving for 20% downpayment will be used to pay off a mortgage faster. I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again. "If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard   ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs   may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same   fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage   firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result   in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market,   Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not   allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of   the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional   shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers   may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your   brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot   convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held   through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate.  Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top.  If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern ""asset allocations"" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%.  If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance.  Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal.  Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash." Have you changed how you handle fund distributions?  While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase.  While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day.  I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year.  Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now.  Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund. The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV.  Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%). Your 5-8 year time frame is interesting because it is actually a two windows.  When people are savings for retirement, they tell us how many years or decades they have until they reach retirement age. But they also imply that they are planning on spending decades withdrawing the money.  But you wanting the money for a house in 5-8 years are needing the money more like somebody who is saving college money for a teenager. In fact your plan is similar in time frame as a 13 year old has for their college fund; start in 5 years but only have a 4 year spending window. Take the California 529 program: Beneficiary Age 13-14: Beneficiary Age 18+: The funding agreement provides a minimum guaranteed rate of return on the >amounts allocated to it by the Investment Portfolio. The minimum effective >annual interest rate will be neither less than 1% nor greater than 3% at >any time. So you plan of investing 100% in the S&P with your window is way too risky. You should only invest a portion of your down payment in equities, and be prepared to only be in that mode for a few years. Any drop in the market now hurts you, but one just before you need the funds would be devastating. "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value.  So each year, another .02N is removed.  Assume the property value rises with inflation.  Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N.   After inflation return.   Let's assume a 20% rate.  And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation.  Inflation is still taxable.   Result  Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase.   Return after inflation.   After-inflation return minus property taxes.   Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry).   Amount left.   If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes.  But with the property, that drops to .008N.  Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k.   So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year?  If so, then no problem.  If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house.   On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N.  You still need housing out of the .036N without the house.   These formulas should be considered examples.  I don't know how much your property taxes might be.  Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes.  Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation.  You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return.  But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is.   If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly.  The ""no house"" number becomes .024N.  The ""with house"" number becomes  So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed).  There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the ""with house"" option.  Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year.   This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually.  Lower property taxes would of course make this better.  Higher property taxes would be even less feasible.   When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home.  If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested.  You'll also have less tied up with property taxes.  It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k.   Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes.  You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually.   There are options with a house that you don't have without one."