Is it possible to make money by getting a mortgage?
To keep the math simple, say you are in the 25% federal tax bracket. Your 4% mortgage effectively costs you 3%. Did Mr Advisor tell you what he suggests investing the money in? Borrowing at 3% net to put the money in .1% CDs makes little sense. And for most people, investing it in the stock market hoping to come out ahead, also makes little sense.  Credentials or not, people like him give humans a bad name, and make me love my dog even more. I'd stay far away from this guy. Very far away.  Edit - on further reflection (seeing mhoran's reference to $100K) it occurred to me that once a house is paid off, the only deductions allowed is for the first $100K of new mortgage or HELOC, absent a renovation or improvement of some kind. Given the limit and current 4% rates, it would seem to me that a rich retiree paying a fortune in taxes, isn't going to benefit much for a $4000 deduction. Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions  that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize.  Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year.  If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam. Sounds like a poorly written piece at best... The way you make money with a mortgage, if you're careful and/or lucky and/or patient, is to use that loan to make leveraged investments. If the return on the investments is higher than the interest on the loan, you win. Of course if the investments don't do well you can lose money on this deal... but at current interest rates it isn't that hard to make a profit on this arrangement, especially if you can get the tax deductability helping you. "I think this is possible under very special conditions.  The important part of the description here is probably retired and rich.  The answers so far apply to people with ""normal"" incomes - both in the sense of ""not rich"" and in the sense of ""earned income."" If you sit at the top tax bracket and get most of your income through things like dividends, then you might be able to win multiple ways with the strategy described.  First you get the tax deduction on the mortgage interest, which everyone has properly noted is not by itself a winning game - You spend more than you save.   BUT... There are other factors, especially for the rich and those whose income is mostly passive: I'm not motivated enough on the hypothetical situation to come up with a detailed example, but I think it's possible that this could work out.  In any case, the current answers using ""normal sized"" incomes and middle tax brackets don't necessarily give the insight that you might hope if the tax payer really is unusually wealthy and retired." I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough. "The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%" "This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is ""Negative Gearing"". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum." "the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest.  particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.).  and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are ""rich"" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows.  while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client." "In the Netherlands its cheaper in some cases to have a mortgage then to own a house.   Example: If you own a house you pay more taxes (because you own something expensive you have to pay ""eigendoms belasting"" < owners tax). So if you instead of owning the house,  keep the mortgage low and only pay the mortgage interest, the interest will be much lower then the tax you would have to pay. The sweet spot (for lowest interest and not having to pay the owners tax) is different for any mortgage but by grandparents use this method and they pay a really small amount for a rather large house." yes.   you can take out 500,000 form your paid of house.  you pay back 500,000 at 3.5. percent.       you do get a tax break for not owning your house.  it is less then 3.5 you are paying back the back. about one forth of that, BUT you take the 500,000 in invest.   Now cd low 1 percent,  stock is risky.    You can do REIT, with are about 8 to 12  every year. so even at 8 - tax 1.5 is 6.5 - 3.5 bank loan.  that   3 percent on your 500,000 thousand, plus tax break, but that only at 8 percent.      or 500,000 and buy a apartment building, again about 7 to 10 percent,   so that 2 to 3 percent profit, but the building goes up over years.
Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower. The answer is generally yes.  Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to   get help through a federal, state, or lender program that: "Joe has explained how most mortgages work A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's   both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws). As   such, the bank isn't an ""investor"" in your house; it simply is lending   you money with the property as collateral. So, it doesn't get any   share of the profit. However there are some mortgages when the bank takes part of the increase in the property value, e.g. Castletrust’s “But to Let Equity Loan” in the UK.  Other products allows a old person to take money out of their property in exchange for say 60% of what the property sells for on their death. Islamic mortgages also work in a different way as interest is not allowed to be charged.  For example Unlike a conventional mortgage where the purchaser borrows money from   a lender which is then repaid with interest, Al Rayan Bank's Sharia   compliant Islamic mortgage alternatives (Home Purchase Plans or HPP)   are based upon the Islamic finance principles of a Co-Ownership   Agreement (Diminishing Musharaka) with Leasing (Ijara)." If you are able to buy a 150K home for 50K now that would be a good deal!  However, you can't you have to borrow 100K in order to make this deal happen.  This dramatically increases the risk of any investment, and I would no longer classify it as passive income.   The mortgage on a 150K place would be about 710/month (30 year fixed).  Reasonably I would expect no more than 1200/month in rent, or 14,400.  A good rule of thumb is to assume that half of rental revenue can be counted as profit before debt service.  So in your case 7200, but you would have a mortgage payment of 473/month.  Leaving you a profit of 1524 after debt service.  This is suspiciously like 2K per year.  Things, in the financial world, tend to move toward an equilibrium. The benefit of rental property you can make a lot more than the numbers suggest.  For example the home could increase in value, and you can have fewer than expected repairs.  So you have two ways to profit:  rental revenue and asset appreciation. However, you said that you needed passive income.  What happens if you have a vacancy or the tenant does not pay?  What happens if you have greater than expected repairs?  What happens if you get a fine from the HOA or a special assessment?  Not only will you have dip into your pocket to cover the payment, you might also have to dip into your pocket to cover the actual event! In a way this would be no different than if you borrowed 100K to buy dividend paying stocks.  If the fund/company does not pay out that month you would still have to make the loan payment.  Where does the money come from?  Your pocket.  At least dividend paying companies don't collect money from their shareholders. Yes you can make more money, but you can also lose more.  Leverage is a two edged sword and rental properties can be great if you are financial able to absorb the shocks that are normal with ownership. "The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees.  All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation.  But there's a lot of it.  They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent.  They don't have any capital involved in the deal.  Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow.  They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in.  They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer.  Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts.  The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow.  The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure.  Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default.  But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases.  This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study ""the time value of money"", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these." You could achieve the same result with a balance transfer with many institutions. Some institutions allow bank accounts to be used as the balance transfer destination (instead of another credit card). Balance transfers typically have much lower fees than cash advances, and also are typically more readily available during 0% interest promotional periods. After you receive cash in your checking account it is just as fungible and liquid as any other source of cash. Making the answer yes. One caveat being that your credit utilization will also spike, which has the effect of lowering your credit eligibility for the mortgage. But there is a delay of a month or two before that is reported to the credit bureaus, so the time delay mitigates that particular concern. "It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a ""second mortgage"". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it." It depends on how much equity you have in your home. Scenario 1: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $100K (or more which means you are underwater.) In this case you can't get a 2nd mortgage because: That being said, you can use different portions of equity in your home as collateral for multiple mortgages, as long as none of the equity overlaps, but you may need permission from the primary mortgage bank first, for example: Scenario 2: Your home is worth $100K, and your current mortgage is for $80K meaning you currently have $20K in equity. It is possible to get a 2nd mortgage or home equity line of credit for $20K. As a side note, if your loan agent is telling you to use a different bank, it sounds like she is trying (and willing) to do something shady. If you are in Scenario 1, I'd find a new agent. You will make very little cash in real estate. Don't think of it like a money farm, unless if you have the capital to forgo the loan. The rent will pay the equity towards owning the place which at any point you can sell into cash. But you won't get lots of spending cash upfront, it takes a while to build.    Source: have a good friend who does this- the second he gets any capital he instantly buys and manages a new property. Poorest rich guy I know "Simple answer YES you can, there are loads here are some links : world first , Baydon Hill , IPF Just googling ""foreign currency mortgage"", ""international mortgage"", or ""overseas mortgage"" gets you loads of starting points.  I believe its an established and well used process, and they would be ""classified"" as a ""normal"" mortgage. The process even has its own wiki page Incidentally I considered doing it myself. I looked into it briefly, but the cost of fee's seemed to outweigh the possible future benefits of lower interest rates and currency fluctuations." "Yes you can, but to do so successfully, you need lots of money. You also need to be able to meet the criteria for being classified as a ""professional trader"" by the IRS. (If not, you'll be buried in paperwork.) The fact that you're asking about it here probably means that you do not have enough money to succeed at HFT." From a pure monetary point of view, paying 5% to earn 1%  doesn't make sense... Though there is also the question of retaining enough immediately available emergency funds, which may make the loan worth considering anyway. On the other hand, if you consider putting the funds into the stock market rather than a bank account, you have quite  decent odds of earning more than 5%. In that case, this becomes an opportunity for leveraged investment. I'm doing exactly that with my mortgage. "Leverage here is referring to ""financial leverage"". This is the practice of ""levering"" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt.  For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. ""Beta riders"" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore ""leveraged beta riders"" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered ""blindly"" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A ""quant process driven discipline"" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether ""beta riding"" or ""quant processes"" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented." "The other answers are talking about seller financing.  There is another type of arrangement that might be described as ""writing your own mortgage,"" where the buyer arranges his (or her) own financing.  Instead of using a bank, a buyer might find his own investor to hold the mortgage for him. An example would be if I were to buy a house that needs fixing up.  I might be able to buy a house for $40,000, but after I fix it up, I believe it will sell for $100,000.  Instead of going through a traditional mortgage bank, I find an investor with cash that agrees the house is a good deal, and we arrange for the investor to provide funds for the purchase of the house on a short-term basis (perhaps interest-only), during which I fix up the house and sell it.  Just like a regular mortgage, the loan is backed by the house itself. I am not recommending this type of arrangement by any means, but this article does a good job of describing how this would work.  It is written by a real-estate guru with lots of training courses and coaching materials that she would like to sell you.  :)" @JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you.