Should I pay cash or prefer a 0% interest loan for home furnishings?
There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal.  When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item.  By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest.  You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments.  You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong.  Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail.  As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account.  A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash. Read the terms and conditions very carefully. Many zero percent deals have a requirement that you pay back at a certain date, and if you don't, you'll have to pay some enormous percentage. Nobody will remind you of the date, because the lender has the secret hope that you will forget. If you can set up automatic payments (like direct debits in the UK) and you can be disciplined enough to not spend the money on something else then this can be a good way of building/improving your credit rating. Banks / Lenders like it when they see you have previously taken, and repaid, credit. This can help you get better finance deals etc. in the future. Update: as noted in the comments France had a different financial system and people do not have credit ratings, so this point isn't valid in France A friend recently bought an 800€ TV on 0% financing. Sounded like a sensible thing to do. Why pay 800 when you can pay 80pm for 10 months? It took 30mins to set up the 'loan'. She had to sign all kinds of documents, giving away much personal information (age, employment info, income, email address etc). She now has a financial relationship with an institution which has nothing to do with the item purchased. She is bombarded with all kinds of financial offerings. She regrets taking out the finance. She had the money. The hassle and the unwanted links to banks make the deal unattractive. Perhaps she should have tried to make a cash deal... If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price! Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind. Remember that due to inflation you are paying back the loan with cheaper dollars in the future.  If there are no gimmicks in the loan like early payment penalties, or must pay by a certain date or that the credit was for a store that sold the products at a higher price than you could get elsewhere then you are not just getting free money they are paying you to take the money. "0% furniture loans can hurt your credit rating. I was told by a bank mortgage officer (sorry I can't cite a document) that credit rating algorithms consider ""consumer"" loans like 0% appliance loans and certain store-specific credit cards as a negative factor, lowering your overall score. The rationalization given was that that taking that type of credit is an indicator that you have zero cash reserves. The actual algorithms are proprietary, so I don't know how you could verify this. If true, it runs counter to the conventional wisdom that getting credit and then paying it off builds your credit score." There are lots of good points here already, but something that hasn't been mentioned yet is what would happen if the purchased items break or are somehow defective? Depending on the warranty and how trustworthy the company is, there could be an advantage to not having fully paid for the item yet when a defect is discovered, as it might incentivize the company to be more attentive to your warranty claim, since they are faced with knowing that you could stop making payments if they don't act in a timely manner. Note I'm not suggesting you stop making payments in this case, just that companies (and banks) are oftentimes more willing to work with you when you owe them money.
"It's rarely advisable to pay interest for something you can afford with cash. Just because you have no credit or loan history doesn't mean you aren't credit worthy. When applying for loans or credit, the lending institutions look at your credit report, not just your credit score. There are lots of things that show up on the reports they receive including (but not limited to): Right now, so many people are focused on their credit score, they're taking on unnecessary debt and potentially losing money in the long run. Yes, having a higher credit score will ultimately be beneficial, but your score will start growing naturally as you live your life. Unless of course you can and do pay for everything with cash. The concept of monitoring your score and striving to get it as high as possible is being shoved down our throats by advertisers at the moment. Don't fall for it. Rather than taking out a loan, which will cost you money in interest and actually show up as a closed account once it's paid off, you might be better served by applying for a credit card and using it sparingly just to start getting that credit history together. (Add usual ""don't spend more than you can pay back"" mantra here). Get a card with no annual fee and maybe some cash back options, and use it as the auto-payment for a utility if possible. You build credit history, increase your score, and it doesn't cost you any more than you'd be paying anyways.   With regards to the investment question: With little to no credit history, you're not going to be approved for a loan with a low enough interest rate anyways. Think double digits. With a co-signer, you'll get a better rate, but then you need a co-signer. I don't know the exact math, but in today's market I'd say you'd need a loan interest rate of 2% or lower for investing to be worth thinking about.  I believe this answer helps clarify the loan to invest math: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/26193/30798" The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt.   Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk.  In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow.  Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan.  That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow. "Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (""the most expensive money""). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally ""free money"" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans.  Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same.  In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called ""snowballing"", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week.  Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress.  It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target.  Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt.  Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments.  You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance.  Paying off your car... so your car's paid off.  If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan.  But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency.  This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan.   Many modern banks actually use ""mortgage offsetting"" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted ""as if"" you'd paid it off your mortgage.  So you get the benefit without the commitment.  The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement.  And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars.  But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing." use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption. "Buying now with a mortgage gets you: Waiting to buy with all cash gets you: These are also some of the pros or cons for the rent or buy dilemma that Paul mentioned in comments to the OP. This is a very complex, multi-faceted question, that would not respond well to being put into any equation or financial model. Most people answer the question with ""buy the home now with a mortgage"" if they can pay for the down payment. This is why the mortgage industry exists. The people who would want to finance now rather than buy with all cash later would not only be analyzing the question in terms of financial health but also in terms of general well being. They might consider the tremendous pride that comes with home ownership and living under a roof of one's own. Who can say that those people are wrong?" "It depends on your situation. If your floor is broken, fix it. If you don't have $1,000 on hand, spend appropriately. It seems silly to be doing ROI calculations on the potential impact on resale value.  It's sillier to blow money frivolously, whether you do so with cash or credit. I'm assuming that if you have a broken linoleum floor that the kitchen isn't new, so it doesn't make sense to install your ""dream tile"" into the kitchen. Skip the imported travertine or wood and buy some nice linoleum and hire a handyman to put it in or install it yourself. You can probably do this for $500-700. If you have longer term plans for the kitchen, get them on paper and figure out what exactly you want to do and when you'll be able to do it." If you are an entrepreneur, and you are looking forward to strike on your own ( the very definition of entrepreneur) then I suggest that you don't invest in anything except your business and yourself. You will need all the money you have when you launch your business. There will be times when your revenue won't be able to cover your living costs, and that's when you need your cash. At that point of time, do you really want to have your cash tie up in stock market/property? Some more, instead of diverting your attention to learn how the stock market/property works, focus on your business. You will find that the reward is much, much greater. The annual stock market return is 7% to 15%. But the return from entrepreneurship can be many times higher than that. So make sure you go for the bigger prize, not the smaller gains.  It's only when your business no longer requires your capital then you can try to find other means of investment. I am sorry to say, you are asking the wrong question. If I own a rental that I bought with cash, I have zero mortgage. The guy I sell it to uses a hard money lender (charging a high rate) and finances 100%. All of this means nothing to the prospective tenant.  In general, one would look at the rent to buy ratio in the area, and decide whether homes are selling for a price that makes it profitable to buy and then rent out.  In your situation, I understand you are looking to decide on a rent based on your costs. That ship has sailed. You own already. You need to look in the area and find out what your house will rent for. And that number will tell you whether you can afford to treat it as a rental or would be better off selling.  Keep in mind - you don't list a country, but if you are in US, part of a rental property is that you 'must' depreciate it each year. This is a tax thing. You reduce your cost basis each year and that amount is a loss against income from the rental or might be used against your ordinary income. But, when you sell, your basis is lower by this amount and you will be taxed on the difference from your basis to the sale price.  Edit: After reading OP's updated question, let me answer this way. There are experts who suggest that a rental property should have a high enough rent so that 50% of rent covers expenses. This doesn't include the mortgage. e.g. $1500 rent, $750 goes to taxes, insurance, maintenance, repairs, etc. the remaining $750 can be applied to the mortgage, and what remains is cash profit.  No one can give you more than a vague idea of what to look for, because you haven't shared the numbers. What are your taxes? Insurance? Annual costs for landscaping/snow plowing? Then take every item that has a limited life, and divide the cost by its lifetime. e.g. $12,000 roof over 20 years is $600. Do this for painting, and every appliance. Then allow a 10% vacancy rate. If you cover all of this and the mortgage, it may be worth keeping. Since you have zero equity, time is on your side, the price may rise, and hopefully, the monthly payments chip away at the loan. If you are very sure, say 90%, that you'll pay the zero percent card off before paying interest, that would be my choice. Less certainty than that, I think the 6.8% over a longer term is less of a cash flow issue, and you can still pay it in full upon getting the job bonus. As a general rule of thumb, and assuming you have a choice, my advice is to pay cash for things things that depreciate, expenses, and consumables. Consider credit (even if you have cash) for things that will appreciate in value or generate cash flow. That is, use credit as leverage. A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank.  Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends)  annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences. In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end.  This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go. Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn. "If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a ""cash out"" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved." "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."