Should I buy a house with a friend?
No.  This amount of money is not appropriate for friends to go in on. Although you could consider buying a house with a business partner, have the contracts drawn up, see an attorney, read up on the penalties if one of the partners doesn't hold up their end from the law's point of view. Also, since this is a business arrangement, write and sign all sorts of details regarding the penalties amongst the partners (not just the law) when one person doesn't hold up. It isn't that you don't have good intentions, or that you couldn't do it just fine if no problems ever happen.  The issue is that over the course of a mortgage, which is at least several years, something is very likely to come up.  If you and your friend aren't prepared to think about all those issues and how to handle them, you will lose a friend, probably a house and your good credit. I wouldn't go into business with my best friend because I want him to stay my best friend. Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this.  Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend.  We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money.  The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses.  Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable..  It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend.  You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend.  My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios.  If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary. "I'll chime in here with the ""don't do it crowd."" I think it's fraught with ugly possibilities. However, you may, for various reasons, decide to say, ""to hell with it, we'll make it work."" If that is the case, treat it like a business transaction and not an emotional transaction. Work up a binding contract with your attorney for how the two of you will handle issues such as: Of absolutely critical importance is the bail-out clause: how will you handle it when one person says, ""Sayonara.""  None of this ensures a smooth road - god knows I wouldn't do it - but it could help protect your sanity and some of your investment down the road. Good luck." I did this about 8 years ago with a buddy in Chicago for the reasons specified in the original post.  As other posters have suggested, we discussed  a lot of the same questions listed above, figured out the possible scenarios, and then had a lawyer draw up a contract.  We bought a 3 bedroom house, and rented out the 3rd bedroom.  Overall, it was a great experience.  We both built equity while having a renter pay a third of the mortgage.  Plus the property tax and interest on the loan were tax deductible.  Compared with renting an apartment, it made us  a lot more money.  In the end, we sold the house, and split the profits.  Assuming you have the personalities to make it work, I say go for it. A real life experience. A friend of mine did that with his housemates. They bought a house together as students and it worked for them. The tricky bit is to have a very good contract with your housemates as to how the venture should work.  What if? Somebody can't pay, somebody can't enjoy the house (on an extended trip), somebody wants out (marriage, etc.) It worked for my friend... I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage.  I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed. Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else. There are lots of good reasons not to do this. HOWEVER if you do decide to, there are four things you need to consider:
"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with ""A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.""  So, the update to the first comment should be ""A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.""  Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan?  I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house." Considering your question, I have been in the market for a house to buy. There is a house that I   like and I wanted to know if I could afford it. You state your Assets: Awesome! Current Income:  Great job putting $1000/month into your 401k!  That is $12,000/year saved for retirement. Excellent! Current expenses: Why do you want to buy a house for more than 4x your gross income, and 3x median house price (U.S.)?  Are you planning on living in the house for at least 5-7 years?  There is a risk that interest rates will rise, and that will affect your ability to sell the house. Expected expenses: Adding your other essentials, You are considering increasing your expenses by $1000-1200/month. Looking at the amounts you quoted for direct housing expenses, you will have committed $2600/month to a mortgage payment.  Adding your other estimated essentials, you will spend over $3700/month (leaving $2200/month for everything else). You may have higher utilities for a house than an apartment, you are doing well with your food budget, and your cellphone is lower than many.  You anticipate $650/month ($7800/year) tax savings (be careful, congress is looking for ways to increase tax revenue). You want to keep your essential expenses under 50% (much more than 50% is difficult, and I am trying to get to 40%).  You may live in an area where housing costs are an out-sized expense.  But an option would be to save more, and a larger down payment could lower the monthly expenses below that 50% mark. "The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level ""paying rent"" should be avoided.  I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it.  A quote from the article -  annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too   high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are   reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a ""4.16"" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a ""20"", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision.  Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment.   The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses." Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't  get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage. In the situation you describe, I would strongly consider purchasing.  Before purchasing, I would do the following: Think about your goals. Work with good people. Set a budget. Be able to handle surprises. If buying a home makes sense, you can do the following after buying: Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes. Adding to what others have said, if the mortgage for the new house is backed by the federal government (e.g., through FHA or is to be sold to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) you would be violating 18 USC § 1001, which makes making intentionally false statements to any agent or branch of the federal government a crime punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment. The gift letter you are required to sign will warn you of as much. Don't do it, it's not worth the risk of prison time. The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it. When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis.  Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries.   Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting.  But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices.  I think this could be down.  If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble.  Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit.  Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal. between two people purchasing a house together, one with good and one with bad credit, will having both persons on the loan raise the interest rates. If the house deed is on both names, generally the Bank would insist the loan should also be on both of your names. This to ensure that Bank has enough leverage to recover the house in case of default. If one of you has bad credit, bank would raise the interest rate, assumption that bad credit would drag the good credit and force him to some activities / actions that could stretch the finance of one with good credit. If timely payments are not made, it would make your good credit to bad. If the house deed is on only on your name and you can get the loan on your own, this would be a better position. If the house deed is on only on your name and you would like to loan to be on both names, then the positive side is credit score of the person with bad credit would start showing improvement over period, provided both of you make timely payments. As pointed out by keshlam, there are enough question where people have entered into agreement without deciding what would happen if they separate. There is no right / wrong answer. It would be best you decide how it would be with respect to the ownership in the house and with respect to payments and if in worst case you part ways, how the settlement should look like. You may want to start a company for a few reasons, the main one would be liability, you don't want your friend to drop a weight on a foot and sue you for millions taking your house away. You'd need to pay taxes on the income, that's after you pay all your expenses, bills, mortgage interest, insurance premiums (!), equipment depreciation. So it's going to be a lot less than you collect from your friends. Whether you incorporate or not you have to pay taxes on your income. If it's $200/year IRS may not notice that, if it's $20K a month it would be very hard to hide. If you pay your friends more than some amount (check the laws) you'd need to tell IRS about it (issue 1099-misc), then your friends must pay taxes on that income. The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that. All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost. A professional home inspection will clue you in on any problems you might be buying, so it's important in any real estate transaction. If the seller finances the loan, you need a lawyer. It might be a nice opportunity - being in the right place at the right time.  You just have to investigate all angles. I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them.