When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more?
You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all.  In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K. "Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your ""equity"" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it." It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%. @victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done.  The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth.  By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked.  Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression.  People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment.
"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go." "How can I use a house I own free and clear to purchase another home? Answer: walk in to any bank, that's any bank, or any lending institution. State that you own a house free and clear. This will happen: In all jurisdictions, it's incredibly easy to borrow large amounts of money at the lowest possible rate, once you own a house outright. On top of that, you want to spend the money on another house (as opposed to s sports car or the like), so you have even more equity.  Winner! Your main question will be this.  Say your current house (owned outright!) is worth $500,000.  Go to a bank or lender, and say to them, ""How much money will you give me to buy house B putting both the houses on the mortgage.""  One bank will say ""fantastic!  buy any house you want up to $400,000!""  Another will say ""$450,000!"" another will say ""$300,000!""  In a hot market another will say ""$650,000!"".  So shop around and see who will give you the most." If you can qualify for two mortgages, this is certainly possible.  For this you can talk to a banker. However, most people do not qualify for two mortgages so they go a different route.  They make offers on a new home with a contingency to sell the existing home.  A good Realtor will walk you through this and any possible side effects. Keep in mind that the more contingencies in an offer the less attractive that offer is to sellers.  This is how cash buyers can get a better deal (no contingencies and a very fast close).  Given the hotness of your market a seller might reject your offer as opposed to first time home buyer that does not need to sell an old home.  On the other hand, they may see your contingency as low risk as the market is so hot.   This is why you probably need a really good agent.  They can frame the contingency in a very positive light. Although it may be a little late for you, the real answer is this:  When you close on a mortgage for a primary residence you are affirming (in an affidavit), two intents: Now, these are affirming intentions — not guarantees; so if a homeowner has a change of circumstance, and cannot meet these affirmed intentions, there is almost always no penalty.  Frankly, the mortgage holder's primary concern is you make payments on time, and they likely won't bother with any inquiry.   That being said, should a homeowner have a pattern of buying primary residences, and in less than 1 year converting that primary to a rental, and purchasing a new primary; there will likely be a grounds for prosecution for mortgage fraud. In your specific situation, you cannot legally sign the owner-occupancy affidavit with the intention of not staying for 1 year.  A solution would be to purchase the condo as a second home, or investment; both of which you can still typically get 80% financing.  A second home is tricky, I would ask your lender what their requirements are for 2nd home classification.   Outside that, you could buy the condo as a primary, stay in it for a year, then convert.  If you absolutely had to purchase the 2nd property before 1 year, you could buy it as a primary with a 2 month rent back once you reach 10 months.  Should you need it earlier, just buy the 2nd house as an investment, then once you move in, refinance it as a primary. This last strategy requires some planning ahead and you should explain your intention to the loan officer ahead of time so they can properly price the non-owner occupied loan. Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about.  The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house.  They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation. Yes this is possible. The most likely tool to use in this case would be a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). This is a line of credit for which the full amount is backed by home equity (difference between market and book prices). Most likely your financial institution will apply a factor to this collateral to account for various risks which will reduce the maximum amount that can be taken as a line of credit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_equity_line_of_credit Most likely, this will not work they way you think. First things first, to get a loan, the bank needs to accept your collateral. Note that this is not directly related to the question what you plan to do with the loan. Example: you have a portfolio of stocks and bonds worth USD 2 million. The bank decides to give you a loan of USD 1 million against that collateral. The bank doesn't care if you will use the loan to invest in foreign RE or use it up in a casino, it has your collateral as safety. So, from the way you describe it, I take it you don't have the necessary local collateral but you wish to use your foreign investments as such. In this case it really doesn't matter where you live or where you incorporate a company, the bank will only give you the loan if it accepts the foreign collateral. From professional experience with this exact question I can tell you, there are very few banks that will lend against foreign property. And there are even less banks, if any, that will lend against foreign projects. To sum it up: Just forget banks. You might find a private lender to help you out but it will cost you dearly. The best option you have is to find a strategic partner who can cough up the money you need but since he is taking the bigger risk, he will also take the bigger profit share. The loan agent surely knows that having a combination of loans greater than the value of the property (less some margin) is illegal, but also impossible.  Your first mortgage, mechanic's liens, tax liens, and so forth are a matter of public record.  In most states the records can be viewed online, by anyone, for free. The title search prerequisite for getting the second mortgage looks beyond the low hanging fruit for things like aborigines claims for parcels of land that include your property.  The loan agent is trying to sell you a home equity line of credit. Almost everyone gets one after building up some equity.  There's often no closing cost and it's not necessary to ever use it.  Keep it for emergencies. "That is called ""substitution of collateral."" And yes, it can be done, but only with consent of the lender. The ""best case"" for this kind of maneuver is if the second house is larger and more valuable than the first. Another possibility is that you have two mortgages on the first house and none on the second, and you want to move the second mortgage on the first house to the second one, effectively making it a ""first"" mortgage. In these instances, the lender has a clear incentive to allow a substitution of collateral, because the second one is actually better than the first one. The potential problem in your case, is if the second house were more expensive than the first house, you could not use the sale proceeds of the first house as to buy the second house without borrowing additional money. In that case, a possible solution would be to go back to the lender on your first house for a larger mortgage, with the proceeds of that mortgage being used to retire the earlier mortgage. Depending on your credit, payment record, etc. they might be willing to do this." what are my options for raising the funds? Assuming you have decent credit, you can either mortgage your home or apply for a land loan in order to purchase the land. Since both your home and the land have value, either one can act as collateral in case you default on your loan. Land loans tend to have a higher interest rate and down payment, however. This is because banks see land loans as a riskier investment since it's easier for you to walk away from an empty plot of land than your own home. "Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax ""aggressive"" you are willing to be." No, you can't do this indefinitely. For one, you can't just take money out as home equity with no strings attached. The cash out is done as a loan (often a HELOC) or second mortgage and you have to make payments. The lender will always make sure you are able to afford the payments. At some point, you won't qualify for the loan because of insufficient income or too many previous liens on the property. While home values often go up, there's no guarantee. And your examples are more than a bit optimistic. Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability. "There are two options (according to Wells Fargo). You can either apply for a Business/Commercial Equity Loan or a Line of Credit. A loan is what it sounds like - they give you a lump sum of money for you to use and you have to pay it in monthly installments. A line of credit is like a credit card, you have money that you can borrow (up to a certain amount) and you have to make monthly payments. The process can differ for different business, they probably look at what your real estate is worth, how much money you are generating from it, etc. I am not recommending or endorsing Wells Fargo, other major banks offer the same types of products, Wells Fargo just happened to appear first when I searched for ""business line of credit""." I agree with the deposit part. But if you are buying a new car, the loan term should meet the warranty term. Assuming you know you won't exceed the mileage limits, it's a car with only maintainence costs and the repayment cost at that point.