Should I buy a house because Mortgage rates are low
The simple answer is that you are correct. You should not purchase a house until you are financially stable enough to do so. A house is an asset that you must maintain, and it can be expensive to do so.  Over the long term, you will generally save money by purchasing. However, in any given year you may spend much more money than a similar rental situation - even if the rent is higher than your mortgage payment. If you are financially stable with good cash savings or investments plus a 20% down payment, then anytime is a good time to buy if that is part of your financial plan. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates   would/should not get back to 10%?   Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage   rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? The mortgage rates are not the primary driver for your purchase decision. That might be like saying you should buy everything on sale at Target... because it's on sale. Don't speculate on future rates. Also, keep in mind that back when rates were high, banks were also giving much better savings/CD rates. That is all connected.  Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time   when rates are high? You need to make sure you get a loan that allows it. Always do a break-even analysis, looking at the money up-front you spend to refi vs the savings-per-year you will get. This should give you how many years until the refi pays for itself. If you don't plan on being in the house that long, don't do it. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Buying a house they can afford, taking into consideration the entire payment+interest. It should be a reasonable amount of your monthly income - generally 25% or less. Note that this is much less than you will be 'approved' for by most lenders.  Don't let good rates suck you into a deal you will regret. Make sure you have the margin to purchase and maintain a home. Consider where you want to be living in 5 years. Don't leave so little financial breathing room that any bump will place you at risk of foreclosure.  That said, home ownership is great! I highly recommend it. There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates.  As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates.  This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there.  Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%.  Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks).  That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation.  Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about?  Those were in the 70's and early 80's.  Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years?  Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%.  Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually.  That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing.   In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation.  They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%).  This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point.  Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board).  Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less.  The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term.   Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also.  Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace.  Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for.  Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level.  If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references: How can people afford 10% mortgage? Part of the history of housing prices was the non-bubble component of the bubble. To be clear, there was a housing bubble and crash. Let me offer some simple math to illustrate my point -  This is what happened on the way down. A middle class earner, $60K/yr couple, using 25% of their income, the normal percent for a qualified mortgage, was able to afford $142K for the mortgage payment. At 10% fixed rate. This meant that after down payment, they were buying a house at $175K or so, which was above median home pricing.  Years later, obviously, this wasn't a step function, with a rate of 4%, and ignoring any potential rise of income, as in real term, income was pretty stagnant, the same $1250/mo could pay for a $260K mortgage. If you want to say that taxes and insurance would push that down a bit, sure, drop the loan to $240K, and the house price is $300K.  My thesis ('my belief' or 'proposal', I haven't written a scholarly paper, yet) is that the relationship between median home price and median income is easily calculated based on current 30 year fixed rate loans. For all the talk of housing prices, this is the long term number. Housing cannot exceed income inflation long term as it would creep up as a percent of income and slow demand. I'm not talking McMansion here, only the median. By definition, the median house targets the median earners, the middle class.  The price increase I illustrate was just over 70%. See the famous Shiller chart -  The index move from 110 to 199 is an 81% rise. I maintain, 70 of that 81 can be accounted for by my math. Late 80's, 1987 to be exact, my wife got a mortgage for 9%, and we thought that was ok, as I had paid over 13% just 3 years earlier. As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI.  Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate. Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low -  prices high.  Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes:   Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel...     Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot     of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.
When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis.  Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries.   Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting.  But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices.  I think this could be down.  If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble.  Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit.  Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal. It's worthwhile to try and find a better minimum down-payment.  When I bought my home, I got an FHA loan, which drastically reduced the minimum down-payment required (I think the minimum is 3% under FHA).  Be aware that any down-payment percentage under 20% means that you'll have to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI) as part of your monthly mortgage.  Here's a good definition of it. Part of the challenge you're experiencing may be that banks are only now exercising the due diligence with borrowers for mortgages that they should have been all along.  I hope you're successful in finding the right payment.  Getting a mortgage to reduce your spending on housing relative to rent is a wise move.  In addition to fixing your monthly costs at a consistent level (unlike rent, which can rise for reasons you don't control), the mortgage interest deduction makes for a rather helpful tax benefit. "I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount).  So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income.  If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount.   But if you're concerned about the ""what if""s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary." All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost. "If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses   value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing   the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis.  It all depends on the numbers you plug in.  Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k.  Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k.  You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc.  Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k.  It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo.  In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it.  It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years.  That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger   property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is:  if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value.   However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would   gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have   increased in price. But it may not scale.  When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses.  That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low.   Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either   market? I don't think so.  I think, in general, buying ""more house"" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable.  Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles.   The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes.  You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was.   In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point:  let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!" "If this is an issue of opportunity cost then there is a benefit. Mortgage interest rates are extremely low, low enough that they can effectively be used to indirectly fund investments. If one stores equity in a house, ie ""pays it off"", then that wealth returns only the rate of growth of the house less expenditures. If one borrows against the house to fund investments, then the above stated returns which on average exceed the mortgage interest rate can be augmented by the investments, yielding a greater return. The tax benefit is more of a cherry on top. If one is using this as a justification to spend then it is frivolity." Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment.  It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area.  There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash.  If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame.  This is no guarantee of course.  Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further.  While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home.  The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk.  Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate.  When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa).  Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn. I'll add this to what the other answers said: if you are a renter now, and the real estate you want to buy is a house to live in, then it may be worth it - in a currency devaluation, rent may increase faster than your income.  If you pay cash for the home, you also have the added benefit of considerably reducing your monthly housing costs. This makes you more resilient to whatever the future may throw at you - a lower paying job, for instance, or high inflation that eats away at the value of your income.  If you get a mortgage, then make sure to get a fixed interest rate. In this case, it protects you somewhat from high inflation because your mortgage payment stays the same, while what you would have had to pay in rent keeps going up an up. In both cases there is also taxes and insurance, of course. And those would go up with inflation.  Finally, do make sure to purchase sensibly. A good rule of thumb on how much you can afford to pay for a home is 2.5x - 3.5x your annual income. I do realize that there are some areas where it's common for people to buy homes at a far greater multiple, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do.  Also: I'll second what @sheegaon said; if you're really worried about the euro collapsing, it might give you some peace of mind to move some money into UK Gilts or US Treasuries. Just keep in mind that currencies do move against each other, so you'd see the euro value of those investments fluctuate all the time. Your wealth will go up if your effective rate after taxes is less than the inflation rate.  That is, if your interest rate is R and marginal tax rate is T, then you need R*(1-T) to be less than inflation to make a loan worth it.  Lately inflation has been bouncing around between 1% and 1.8%.  Let's assume a 25% tax rate.  Is your interest rate lower than between 1.3% and 2.4%?  If not, don't take out a loan. Another thing to consider: when you take out a loan you have to do a ton of extra stuff to make the lender happy (inspections, appraisals, origination charges, etc.).  These really add up and are part of the closing costs as well as the time/trouble of buying a house.  I recently bought my house using 100% cash.  It was 2 weeks between when I agreed to a price to when the deal was sealed and my realtor said I probably saved about $10,000 in closing costs.  I think she was exaggerating, but it was a lot of time and money I saved.  My final closing costs were only a few hundred, not thousands, of dollars. TL;DR: Loans are for suckers. Avoid if possible. 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. If you need / want the car, I would get the car.  Without car payments you can save your money again to get the house.  Moreover, I wouldn't want to be saddled with payments to the mortgage and car loan at the same time. Lastly, a car is a more temporary possession (10 years) vs a house (30+) years so shopping around for the house longer while you save money is a good thing.  I know you want to buy while prices are low, but I personally think it is more important to get a house that you want to live in later than settle for a cheap one you get a deal on now. Over the last ten years you have reaped the benefits of a good financial decision. (Presumably your low mortgage has freed up money for other financial priorities.) There would be no harm in making a clean break by selling as is.  On the other hand, the resale value would probably be rather low considering the condition and the neighborhood. I don't want to assume too much here, but if a potential buyer is interested in the house by virtue of not being able to afford a house in a better neighborhood or better condition, their finances and credit history may make it difficult for them to be approved for a mortgage. That would reduce the potential buyer pool and further reduce the sale price. If you can pull more in rent than the mortgage, you definitely have an opportunity to come ahead. Maybe window A/C units and a repaired chimney are enough if you're renting. Your rental income would pay for that in less than a year even while paying your mortgage for you. (Of course you don't want to become a sleazy slumlord either.) If you can't afford it don't buy it, the next perfect house is just around the corner. The more time you spend researching and looking at houses, the increased chance you will find the perfect house you can afford. Also, here in Australia, we (the banks as well) factor in an interest rate rise of 2% above current rates to see if repayments can still be afforded at this increased rate. "Welcome to Money.SE, and thank you for your service.  In general, buying a house is wise if (a) the overall cost of ownership is less than the ongoing cost to rent in the area, and (b) you plan to stay in that area for some time, usually 7+ years.  The VA loan is a unique opportunity and I'd recommend you make the most of it. In my area, I've seen bank owned properties that had an ""owner occupied"" restriction. 3 family homes that were beautiful, and when the numbers were scrubbed, the owner would see enough rent on two units to pay the mortgage, taxes, and still have money for maintenance. Each situation is unique, but some ""too good to be true"" deals are still out there." Note:  This is not professional tax advice.  If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000?  US$100,000?  I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own.  Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation.  Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising.  Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors.  Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned.   Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes.  BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder).