More money towards down payment versus long-term investments
There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision:  Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt. "One thing that's often overlooked is that cash reserves are also a long-term investment.  Anything can be a long-term investment if it's expected to appreciate or pay interest/dividends.  So it's not either/or.  Stocks are but one way to do long-term investments. Having said that, taking on less debt for a consumer good is never a bad idea.  Your primary residence is a consumer good, regardless of those who would say that ""your home is your biggest investment.""  So, there's my vote for a larger down-payment. Beyond that, a couple of outside-the-box comments:" I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference.  If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses. Every payment you make on your house will already be increasing your equity in it.  For that reason alone, I'd recommend moving additional savings into other long-term funds. Another vote for a bigger downpayment, for the reasons Benjamin mentions. Also, from experience, I would save up at least a small pile as a separate house emergency fund because you will find things that are wrong and/or that got bodged by the previous owner and it's probably not going to last past the first few months of home ownership. In my case, the home inspector missed - amongst other things - that the shower on the 2nd floor was leaking both into the adjoining bedroom and the living room below. That added a little unexpected expenditure as you might guess.
"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to ""short term investment"", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books ""parrot""), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign)." "Forget the math's specifics for a moment: here's some principles. Additional housing for a renter gives you returns in the form of money. Additional housing for yourself pays its returns in the form of ""here is a nice house, live in it"". Which do you need more of?  If you don't need the money, get a nicer house for yourself. If you need (or want) the money, get a modest house for yourself and either use the other house as a rental property, or invest the proceeds of its sale in the stock market. But under normal circumstances (++) don't expect that buying more house for yourself is a good way to increase how much money you have. It's not. (++ the exception being during situations where land/housing value rises quickly, and when that rise is not part of a housing bubble which later collapses. Generally long-term housing values tend to be relatively stable; the real returns are from the rent, or what economists call imputed rent when you're occupying it yourself.)" "For most people ""home ownership"" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be ""swapped"" for a different one.  In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating ""permanent"" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms.  That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are ""investing in a vintage car"" rather than ""buying a means of personal transportation"", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc).  The ""scariness"" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that ""being underwater"" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one." "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!" I believe this argument is most often used when considering which debts to pay back first, or when there are other options available such as investment options, building up an emergency fund, or saving for a large purchase.  In that case, it's simply justifying making minimum payments and paying more over the life of the loan in exchange for larger liquidity in the present. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between which debts to pay (e.g. My mom pays more than the minimum on her car because she can't deduct auto loan interest, despite her mortgage carrying a higher interest rate), it's only beneficial if the tax savings offsets the interest savings difference. The formula for that is: tax bracket > (1 - (target loan interest rate / mortgage interest rate)) That said, most people don't think in the long term, either by natural shortsightedness, or by necessity (need to have an emergency fund). Often times the commission fees add up a lot. Many times the mundane fluctuations in the stock market on a day to day basis are just white noise, whereas long term investing generally lets you appreciate value based on the market reactions to actual earnings of the company or basket of companies. Day trading often involves leverage as well. You can look at buying a house as being a long term investment in not paying rent.   In the short time there are costs to buying (legal, taxes, etc).   This depends on only buying house of the size/location you need e.g. no better then what you would have rented. House buying tent to work out best when there is high inflation, as the rent you would otherwise be paying goes up with  inflation – provided you can live with the short term pain of high interest rates. "I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his ""formula"" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the ""fun"", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit." Have you changed how you handle fund distributions?  While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase.  While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day.  I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year.  Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now.  Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund. My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage.  So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily.  Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future.  On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A.  Let's say you lose your job a year from now.  Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed.  But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it.  People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job. In day trading, you're trying to predict the immediate fluctuations of an essentially random system.  In long-term investing, you're trying to assess the strength of a company over a period of time. You also have frequent opportunities to assess your position and either add to it or get out. It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD.  Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too. It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized.  On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load. Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction.  There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month.  In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan.  Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase. Yes you should invest; and yes you should save for the house down payment. These should be two separate pools of money and the goals and time frames for them are different. With a 3 year time frame for the down payment on the house, the risk you should accept should be essentially zero. That means it is less of an investment and more plain vanilla savings account, or maybe a higher interest account, or a CD. The worst thing to have happen would be to try and save for the house while the value of your investment keeps dropping.  You have to decide how to allocate your income between retirement accounts and saving for the house, while still meeting all your other obligations. The exact balance depends on how much you need to save for retirement, and things such as rules for the company match.