60% Downpayment on house?
Keep in mind, this is a matter of preference, and the answers here are going to give you a look at the choices and the member's view on the positive/negative for each one.  My opinion is to put 20% down (to avoid PMI) if the bank will lend you the full 80%. Then, buy the house, move in, and furnish it. Keep track of your spending for 2 years minimum. It's the anti-budget. Not a list of constraints you have for each category of spending, but a rear-view mirror of what you spend. This will help tell you if, in the new house, you are still saving well beyond that 401(k) and other retirement accounts, or dipping into that large reserve.  At that point, start to think about where kids fit into your plans. People in million dollar homes tend to have child care that's 3-5x the cost the middle class has. (Disclosure - 10 years ago, our's cost $30K/year).  Today, your rate will be about 4%, and federal marginal tax rate of 25%+, meaning a real cost of 3%. Just under the long term inflation rate, 3.2% over the last 100 years. I am 53, and for my childhood right through college, the daily passbook rate was 5%. Long term government debt is also at a record low level. This is the chart for 30 year bonds.  I'd also suggest you get an understanding of the long term stock market return. Long term, 10%, but with periods as long as 10 years where the return can be negative.  Once you are at that point, 2-3 years in the house, you can look at the pile of cash, and have 3 choices.  We are in interesting times right now. For much of my life I'd have said the potential positive return wasn't worth the risk, but then the mortgage rate was well above 6-7%. Very different today. "I put about that down on my place.  I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making ""leverage"" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money." Voluntarily assuming a loan is a bad idea, especially for a non-investment purpose. It would be one thing to take on a loan to operate a business or buy a piece of capital equipment, like a machine that would make you money. Borrowing money to have a more luxurious house is foolish. The smart move is to buy a good quality home that will meet your needs for as little as possible. Having $800,000 leaves a quit a bit of leeway in that department. You don't say where you live, but if this occurred in my area (eastern Massachusetts) I would buy a house for $500,000 and then invest the remaining $300,000. If I lived in the California bay area, it might be necessary to spend the whole $800,000. Either way there should be no need to borrow money. Also, if you buy a house for cash, often you can get a substantially better deal than if you have to involve a bank. Not owing anyone money is a huge psychological advantage in business and in life in general. View being debt-free as a springboard to success and happiness. Strictly by the numbers, putting more than 20% down is a losing proposition.  With interest rates still near all time lows, you're likely able to get a mortgage for less than 4%. The real rate of a return on the market (subtracting inflation and taxes) is going to be somewhere around 5-6%.  So by this math, you'd be best off paying the minimum to get out of PMI, and then investing the remainder in a low fee index fund. The question becomes how much that 1-2% is worth to you vs how much the job flexibility is worth. It boils down to your personal risk preference, life conditions, etc. so it is difficult to give good advice.  The 1-2% difference in your rate of return is not going to be catastrophic.    Personally, I would run the numbers with your fiance.  Build a spreadsheet tracking your estimated net worth under the assumption that you make a 20% down payment and invest the rest.  Then hold all other factors equal, and re-build the spreadsheet with the higher down payment.  Factor in one of you losing your job for a few years, or one of you taking off for a while to raise the kids.   You can make a judgement call based how the two of you feel about those numbers. I would lean towards making a smaller down payment and hanging onto savings for flexibility. Questions to think about: If you have enough cash that you can make a huge down payment and still have all the other bases covered, then it comes down to your risk tolerance and personal style.  You can almost definitely build a portfolio that will beat your mortgage rate on average over the long term, but with more risk and volatility.  Heck, you could make a 20% down payment on another house and rent it out. If you decide you need the extra money, you can always go refinance and get more cash out.  At the end of the day, though, if you pay off your house sooner you can invest more of your income sooner; that's just a matter of discipline. Peace of mind is the key to your question. Just before the US housing bust of 2007, I had someone try to convince me to take all the equity from my house which was overvalued in an overheated market. The idea was to put that money in the stock market for a bigger return than the interest on the house. Many people did that and found themselves out of jobs as the economy crashed. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. I never lost a night of sleep over the money I didn't make in the stock market. I did manage to trade up to a house twice the size by buying another when the housing market bottomed out, but waiting for a market recovery to sell the smaller house. The outcome of my good fortune is a very nice house with no mortgage worth about 1/3 of my total net worth. That's probably a larger percentage than most money managers would recommend, but it is steadily decreasing because now, all the money that would go to a mortgage payment instead gets deposited in retirement accounts, and it still has 30 years to grow before I start drawing it down. I almost don't remember the burden of a mortgage hanging over my head each month. Almost. To answer your precise question, your plans are not at all misguided, and are in fact very reasonable. You are clearly financially very comfortable, and from the tone of your post it sounds like you value security and simplicity over maximizing your investment return over the coming years.  If money was the most important thing to you then you would stay shackled to your high paying jobs. @JoeTaxpayer's answer has some great information for a person who is interested in maximizing their investment return.  If you followed that advice, you might increase your return on investments by up to 1%/year (I'm just throwing a ball park number out there). So your choice is simple.  Peace of mind on one hand and perhaps 1% additional return on investments on the other hand.
"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." Just echoing the other answers here. You're not ready yet. 3% down, or no money down loans are what got so many of us into trouble these last few years. It sounds like you make a pretty good living and are able to squirrel away money despite paying rent. Let me suggest something that I haven't seen here yet. Save  up for a 20% down payment. You will get better rates, won't have to buy mortgage insurance and it will give you enough of a cushion on your payment that you could better weather a job loss or other loss of income. Your priority for saving are, in order: Home prices aren't going up any time soon, so you're not going to miss out on a great deal. Keep your expenses low, treat yourself and your kids once in a while and keep saving. the total principal is also dropping - you mean you're paying it down, right? All else the same, if you found a house whose payments are less than rent, and planned to stay long term, buying can make sense. But let's not forget the other costs and risks. How badly do you want to be a homeowner? Adding image from another post here:  This shows that housing prices have fallen below the long term trend line and equilibrium level. You want to buy a house for $150,000.  It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment.  That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance).   You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?).  You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies.  Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that.  Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard.  This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs.   What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof?  Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance?  A plumbing problem?  Damages from a storm?  What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place?  What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted?  Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations.   You checked comps (comparable properties).  Great!  But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses.  Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper.  Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people.   While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds.  What are you doing for retirement?  Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available?  It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market.   I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this.  What makes the job steady?  Is it employment with a large company?  Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers?  Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession.  The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority).  The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained.  And your tenants may move out.  At the same time.  What will you do then?   A mortgage is an obligation.  You have to pay it regardless.  While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback?  I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio.  Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase.  This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase.  Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape.   It would be a lot safer to stick to securities.  The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover).  With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some.  Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage. "A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage.  The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI.  Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for ""pay off student loan? Pro / Con""  Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled.  Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach." Since I have 10k in my account after down-payment, will I get a   good interest rate on the loan? When the bank considers your loan, they will see $70K. Regardless, they will want to see certain amount of savings that would allow you to continue paying your loan in case of an emergency, and $10K might not be enough. I was planning to put down 15%, but I have been told that I should buy   something called PMI to satisfy the rest 5% and if I take that my   interest will be more and sometimes, bank will not go for anybody who   pays less than 20%. Is that true? Yes. After downpayment + closing costs, how much money in the savings   accounts, is the bank looking for to say that I am a good buyer? Depends on the bank, my wild guess would be they're looking for several months' worth of loan payments (you should have ~6 months worth of savings for emergencies, regardless of loans). "This doesn't say the whole story (like the length of the HELOC). if you have 15 years left on a mortgage and ""refinance"" into a 30 year HELOC then yes, your payments maybe 20% lower, but you add 15 years to pay it off.  Just remember that interest occurs daily on what you owe. If you move 100K of debt from 5% mortgage to 6% HELOC you'll be paying more to the banks no matter how you slice it." Lenders pay attention to where your down payment money comes from. If they see a large transfer of money into your bank account within about a year before your purchase, this WILL cause an issue for you. Down payments are not just there to make the principal smaller; they are primarily used as an underwriting data-point to assess your quality as a borrower. If you take the money as loan, it will count against your credit worthiness. If you take the money as a gift, it will raise some other red flags. All of this is done for a reason: if you can't get a down payment, you are a higher credit risk (poor discipline, lack of consistent income), even if you can (currently) pay the monthly cost of a mortgage.  (PS - The cost of home ownership is much higher than the monthly mortgage payment.) Will all this mean you WON'T get a loan? Of course not. You can almost always get SOME loan. But it will likely be at a higher rate than you otherwise would qualify for if you just waited a little bit and saved money for a down payment.  (Another option: cheaper house.) EDIT: The below comments provide examples where gifts were/are NOT a problem. My experience from buying a house just a few years ago (and my several friends who bought house in the same period, some with family gifts and some without) is that it IS an issue. Your best bet is to TALK, IN PERSON with an actual mortgage broker in your area who can go through the options with you, and the downsides to various approaches. Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house.  To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc.  Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down.  The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking. A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market.  If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage. There is some element of truth to what your realtor said.  The seller takes the house off the market after the offer is accepted but the contract is contingent upon, among other things, buyer securing the financing. A lower down payment can mean a higher chance of failing that. The buyer might be going through FHA, VA or other programs that have additional restrictions. If the buyer fails to secure a financing, that's weeks and months lost to the seller. In a seller's market, this can be an important factor in how your bid is perceived by the seller. Sometimes it even helps to disclose your credit score, for the same reason. Of course for your situation you will have to assess whether this is the case. Certainly do not let your realtor push you around to do things you are not comfortable with. Edit:  A higher down payment also helps in the situation where the house appraisal does not fare well.  As @Dilip Sarwate has pointed out, the particular area you are interested in is probably a seller's market, thus giving sellers more leverage in picking bids. All else equal, if you are the seller with multiple offers coming in at similar price level, would you pick the one with 20% down or 5% down? While it is true that realtors have their own motives to push through a deal as quickly as possible, the sellers can also be in the same boat. One less mortgage payment is not trivial to many. It's a complicated issue, as every party involved have different interests. Again, do your own due diligence, be educated, and make informed decisions. If your debt will all be less than 25% gross (yes, I see you said take home) you are in great shape. I'd get the car and not worry.  The well written mortgage is 20% down, with a housing payment (which of course includes prop tax and insurance, as noted by mhoran, below) under 28% and total debt under 36%. You are well within the limits, not even close. That's great. Don't do it.  I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage.  Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments. "You can't get a HELOC, to the best of my knowledge, without actually ""owning"" the house. If you get an 80% mortgage (of the purchase price - not the appraised value, btw), you still need 20% as a down payment. Once you own the home, you can apply for a HELOC ... presuming you have enough equity (eg, the purchase price is $40k less than the appraised value). We haven't looked at the norm, at least where I live, of 5% down for a traditional mortgage and 3.5% for an FHA (which your question touches on). If you can do 5% down, on a $1,000,000 mortgage you need $50,000 on the day of closing. If the home is worth (ie appraises for) $1,250,000, you're getting 20% of the house ""for free"". Presuming the bank(s) will go for it, you could likely then open a HELOC for as much as $250,000 (again, depending on individual lender rules). tl;dr: If you don't have the money ready on the day of signing (via seasoning, if it is a loan/gift, or because you have been saving), you cannot afford the house. To clarify from comments with the OP, I am in no way speaking to the buyer's ability to afford the monthly payments - this is only about affording the initial costs associated with the home buying process (down payment, closing, whatever else the bank(s) require, etc)." "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."