What do I need to consider when refinancing one home to pay the down-payment of another?
What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation.  While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of.  Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it.  You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings.   From there things get trickier.   While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent.  PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk.  The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it.  That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation.   Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property.  Some are able to make it work.  Some of those go broke or lose their properties.   when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%.  Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment.  It's not worth the fees of a refinance. and I need to upgrade my current home to a larger, longer-term property Would selling your current home give you (at least) a 20% DP on the new home? Take additional cash out of the refinance of the first home to accelerate saving Dittoing D Stanley, that makes no sense. Purchase and move to a second property of greater cost and value to first You'll need to find the new house at the same time you're selling the existing home, and write the new-home purchase contract in such a way that you can back out in case the purchaser of your home backs out.
The loan you will just have to get by applying to a bunch of banks or hiring someone (a broker) to line up bank financing on your behalf for a point on the loan. FHA is for your first house that you live in and allows you to get 97.5% loan to cost financing. That isn't for investment properties. However, FHA loans do exist for multifamily properties under section 207/223F.   Your corporations should be SPEs so they don't affect each other. In the end, its up to you if you think it makes sense for all the single family homes to be in one portfolio. May make it easier to refi if you put all the properties in a cross collateralized pool for the bank to lend against. There is also no requirement for how long a corporation has been in existence for a loan. The loan has a claim on the property so it's pretty safe. So long as you haven't committed fraud before, they won't care about credit history. "When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a ""no points no cost"" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that." I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow.  Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time.  It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value.  Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off.   Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value.  And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do. It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details.  To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example.  The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close.  With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year.  Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against. 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. Let me give you the benefit of my experience. I paid a bunch of points (4) when I bought my first house for similar reasons than you mentioned including: Why I wish I hadn't: (1) Interest rates plummeted (not as likely to happen today) and I wound up refinancing the loan within the fist 10 years negating the savings that I would have had over the life of the loan. Also, it made me feel stupid for paying close to $5K to knock 1% or so off the loan rate only to have an even lower rate offered to me with no points within a decade. (2) I didn't take into account that I'm the type of person who would try to pay the loan off early, and I did. Way Early. So even if I hadn't refinanced, the extra points were really a waste of money. (3) In the US, at least, you can't always deduct ALL of the money you paid in points in the first year. You may have to spread that deduction over several years. (4) You are right about the alternative being better (investing the points), since the benefit of paying them is at most 1-2% on your loan, you don't even need a 6-7% return to make it a better deal to invest them. HOWEVER, I get skeptical when people compare paying interest to returns on invested money like that. If you don't pay the points will you actually invest that money for the 30 years (or whatever the term of the loan is)? It's easy to say that when you are talking theoreticals, but $5k in your pocket is also pretty tempting when the deal is done. Good luck with the new house! "Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us   at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is   financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to   pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment   and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our   family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no ""ROI"" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your ""RIO"" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year." There may be a third option. The bank gives you the first mortgage of 80%, and a second, maybe a HELOC, for that missing 5%. This way, you get the lower rate and the money they'd charge you for PMI goes to paying down the second loan.  Alternately, do you have any other sources to tap to bridge this small gap? A 401(k) loan perhaps? The rate willbe low, and for home purchase, a 10 yr payback. If these aren't viable options, I agree that taking the PMI route while tracking the balance is the way to go. "Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. ""Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?"" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal?  You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer." You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable. "There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a ""hot"" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K).  If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow  $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark.  Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the  higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford.  If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K,  and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!)  really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision.  What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations." The big one is to keep you from refinancing it with someone else to get a better rate. There may also be some funny-money reasons having to do with being able to count this as a new sale. If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete.  Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind.  If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs. Our mortgage provider actually took the initiative to send us a refinance package with no closing costs to us and nothing added to the note; took us from a 30-year-fixed ~6.5% note to a 15-year-fixed ~5% note, and dropped the monthly payment in the process.  You might talk to your existing lender to see if they would do something like that for you; it gives them a chance to keep your business, and it cuts your costs. There's no objectively correct answer to this question, given your circumstances. Ideally, the stepmom would put in 60% of the downpayment and 60% of the monthly maintenance costs and mortgage. You and your partner would evenly split the 40%. Then, it is very obvious. However, my guess is that this isn't going to be the situation. Without knowing the numbers, I suggest that, upon sale of the house, the exact value of each person's downpayment is immediately returned without interest. What's left of the equity is returned to everyone as per the amount they paid in mortgage. The monthly maintenance costs are excluded from this calculation entirely. You are, of course, free to take any other approach all three of you deem to be fair. In my example, consider a home that costs $200,000. Your stepmom puts in $40,000 for a downpayment, you put in $10,000, and your parter puts in $10,000. The mortgage payments are $1500/month. Your stepmom puts in $500 a month, you put in $250 a month, and your partner puts in $750 a month. You sell the place for $300,000 after paying off the entire mortgage. Your stepmom gets $40,000 + $80,000. You get $10,000 + $40,000. Your partner gets $10,000 + $120,000. Keep in mind, though, that you may have to sell the house for a loss. In which case, some or all of the downpayment may not even be returned. In fact, you may end up having to cover money over and above the downpayment and the payments you've made. Any good lawyer will make you consider this. Additionally, any good lawyer will make you spell out under what circumstances, people can force sale of the home.