Buying real estate with cash
If they really want cash, you notify your bank in advance of the amount and have it put in your account, then you both sign the paperwork at the bank and after everything is signed you have the bank hand them the money. Guarding it after that is entirely their problem. Personally, I would consider this a stupid request and tell them to have their lawyer discuss it with my lawyer in the hope they can be talked out of it.  As far as where to get the money: Same as for any purchase, find a bank willing to write a mortgage for you on this new house. What you choose to do about the other two houses is an independent question. You can sell one or both, but that may take money so you probably won't finish doing so before needing to pay for the new house. Of course when they do sell you can use the money toward paying down/paying off the new mortgage. "I've been prompted to turn my comments into an answer -  Disclosure - I am a Realtor. I work for an investor for whom an offer on a house he will buy describes him as a ""cash buyer."" This phrase most often means one of two things -  The buyer has funds that are liquid enough to either wire the cash or produce a cashier's check in some number of days, a week or two would be common. (And not wait for another house to sell) The other point of this is that the seller is not willing to finance the property. The flip side being that the seller will take a down payment and let the buyer pay over time.  I am nearly 54, and I'm open to the fact that language changes. Definition follows usage. In personal finance, we refer to a stock/bond/cash mix. Here, the word ""cash"" simply means money such as money market or short term T-bills. A 60/30/10 mix doesn't mean I have a briefcase of cash under my bed for that 10%.  To answer the OP, I'd ask the seller does ""cash"" mean - Keep in mind, when a seller has a buyer who needs to sell their home first, there can be a chain going a few levels. When it's ""turtles all the way down"" it becomes too risky to the seller.  No, you are not out of luck. I'd open a dialog with the seller or their agent if any. Sales is all about understanding what each person's goal is." To give the seller cash at the closing, you will need to borrow the money ahead of time, which means a mortgage is out. A bank will only make a mortgage if they get the deed. Therefore, you will have to borrow a different way, such as through a more-expensive home equity loan. i think and what i understand when a house seller is asking for cash, thats means he is looking for a ready and quick buyer doesn't rely on mortgage and its long process. cash means a certified check for sure, but not physical money in suitcase!
"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house ""all cash,"" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the ""renter."") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest." You can increase your monthly cash flow in two ways: It's really that simple. I'd even argue that to a certain extent, decreasing expenses can be more cash-positive than increasing income by the same amount if you're spending post-tax money because increasing income generally increases your taxes. So if you have a chunk of cash and you want to increase your cash flow, you could decrease debt (like Chris suggested) and it would have the same effect on your monthly cash flow. Or you could invest in something that pays a dividend or pays interest. There are many options other than real estate, including dividend-paying stocks or funds, CDs, bonds, etc. To get started you could open an account with any of the major brokerage firms and get suggestions from their financial professionals, usually for free. They'll help you look at the risk/reward aspects of various investments. Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster. Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it.  Then, yes, they will use it for that.  But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate. "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." It sounds as though you were able to purchase your properties through fortuitous circumstances.   Not everyone is going to have spare cash lying around, especially considering [ 71% of  US college grads have loan debt, averaging ~$30,000.](http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-data.php) The right time to buy real estate is easy to spot. It's when it is difficult to get loans or when real estate agents selling homes are tripping over each other. It's the wrong time to buy when houses are sold within hours of the sign going up. The way to profit from equities over time is to dollar-cost average a diversified portfolio over time, while keeping cash reserves of 5-15% around. When major corrections strike, buy a little extra. You can make money at trading. But it requires that you exert a consistent effort and stay up to date on your investments and future prospects. "1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a ""leveraged investment"" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily." "Every situation is possible, it depends on what the contract states. According to Nolo:  Your ability to withdraw from a home purchase depends on two things: 1) the exact point at which you are ""in contract"" to buy the house,   and  2) after you're in contract, what the contract says about terminating   the transaction. Therefore, you need to be 100% ready for anything to happen. After you sign the contract, it is binding and you must adhere to what the contract states. Buying a home is a big purchase - arguably the biggest of your life - you need to be comfortable with every aspect of this experience." If you put down 80% of the purchase price for a house, you can very likely get a loan with few problems.  After all, people with credit scores in the mid-500 range can get loans with 20% down.   My question would be this -- if you actually had $400,000 then why not just buy a $400,000 house?  If the goal is to improve your credit then if you buy a house for cash, you can then take out a home equity loan and make the payments, which would greatly improve your credit. You're buying the operations of firm A for $450, or 4.5x EBITDA. You're buying the operations of firm B for $500, or 5.0x EBITDA.  You're paying a higher multiple for firm B.  Of couse subtracting cash 'skews multiples' - but you need to pull it out. You're paying for a business' ability generate that EBITDA over time. Cash is a one-shot deal. You need to pull it out to get the value of what you're actually investing in. Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of.  These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly.  Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market.  While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers.   There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash.  Namely, how was that cash invested?  If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit.  If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then?  Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in? "I have been a landlord in Texas for just over 3 years now. I still feel like a novice, but I will give you the benefit of my experience. If you are relying on rental properties for current income versus a long term return you are going to have to do a good job at shopping for bargains to get monthly cash flow versus equity growth that is locked up in the property until you sell it.  If you want to pull a lot of cash out of a property on a regular basis you probably are going to have to get into flipping them, which is decidedly not passive investing. Also, it is easy to underestimate the expenses associated with rental properties. Texas is pretty landlord friendly legally, however it does have higher than usual property taxes, which will eat into your return. Also, you need to factor in maintenance, vacancy, tenant turnover costs, etc. It can add up to a lot more than you would expect. If you are handy and can do a lot of repairs yourself you can increase your return, but that makes it less of a passive investment. The two most common rules I have heard for initially evaluating whether an investment property is likely to be cash flow positive are the 1% and 50% rules. The 1% rule says the expected monthly rent needs to be 1% or greater of the purchase price of the house. So your hypothetical $150K/$10K scenario doesn't pass that test. Some people say this rule is 2% for new landlords, but in my experience you'd have to get lucky in Texas to find a house priced that competitively that didn't need a lot of work to get rents that high. The 50% rule says that the rent needs to be double your mortgage payment to account for expenses. You also have to factor in the hassle of dealing with tenants, the following are not going to happen when you own a mutual fund, but are almost inevitable if you are a landlord long enough: For whatever reason you have to go to court and evict a tenant. A tenant that probably lost their job, or had major medical issues. The nicest tenant you ever met with the cutest kids in the world that you are threatening to make homeless. Every fiber of your being wants to cut them some slack, but you have a mortgage to pay and can't set an expectation that paying the rent on time is a suggestion not a rule. or the tenant, who seemed nice at first, but now considers you ""the man"" decides to fight the eviction and won't move out. You have to go through a court process, then eventually get the Sheriff to come out and forcibly remove them from the property, which they are treating like crap because they are mad at you. All the while not paying rent or letting you re-let the place. The tenant isn't maintaining the lawn and the HOA is getting on your butt about it. Do you pay someone to mow the grass for them and then try to squeeze the money out of the tenant who ""never agreed to pay for that""?  You rent to a college kid who has never lived on their own and has adopted you as their new parent figure. ""The light in the closet went out, can you come replace the bulb?"" Tenants flat out lying to your face. ""Of course I don't have any pets that I didn't pay the deposit for!"" (Pics all over facebook of their kids playing with a dog in the ""pet-free"" house)" "It's worth pointing out that most ""cash"" deals are actually debt financed, at least in part. A quick review of the 8K tells us they plan on debt financing the entire transaction with some senior notes and not use any of the 15B on their BS. This is fairly typical these days because debt is cheaper then the foregone interest on cash." http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/buying-house-with-cash/ It looks like you can, but it's a bad idea because you lack protection of a receipt, there's no record of you actually giving the money over, and the money would need to be counted - bill by bill - which increases time and likelihood of error.   In general, paying large amounts in cash won't bring up any scrutiny because there's no record. How can the IRS scrutinize something that it can't know about? Of course, if you withdraw 200k from your bank account, or deposit 200k into it then the government would know and it would certainly be flagged as suspicious.