Should I fund a move by borrowing or selling other property assets?
"When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as ""buy-to-let"" mortgages often have higher interest rates." "that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage.  So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home.  From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for ""retirement income"".  Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone.  Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage).  You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments." It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans...  If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that  your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on. It is a lot easier to make money when you are not in debt. If you can sell the apartment, get rid of your existing mortgage and buy the new house outright, that is probably the best course of action.
"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, ""If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?"" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is ""maybe"" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate." "There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider ""nice"" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades." I can't think of any more negatives apart from what you mentioned, but the positives might include higher cost base for when you sell the place (this only applies in Australia if it is an investment property) thus having to pay less tax on the capital gains, and being able to borrowing extra funds which may help with your cashflow (especially if you keep the extra funds in an 100% offset account so your interest payable is not increased until you really need the extra funds). "I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. ""does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?"". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire." "I'd probably say ""buy"" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me." "The best answer for you is going to depend completely on your financial goals.  Do you want to be debt free?  Are you comfortable with the risks of long-distance rentals?  Do you have good resources to take care of any issues where the properties are at?   You can't directly compare the returns of risky investments versus the risk-free ""return"" of paying off debt. The expected return of the property might be higher that the interest on the loan, but when you incorporate risk, there's a decent chance that you'll make less money on the property than you pay on the loan. Other things to consider: Another way to think about it is:  If you did not have the debt or the houses, Would you borrow money at 4% (or whatever your student loan is at) to buy a rent house in Arizona?" The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different. First, I would want cash around the time I made the move.  I would like enough for a 20% down payment, moving expenses, and enough for 6 months of mortgage payments on the existing house.  This way if the house does not sell quickly, you are safe.  As you approach the time it comes to move, you can work backwards on how much time you would need to accumulate that kind of money. Second, this does not have to be an all or nothing kind of thing.  Perhaps you use some of the proceeds to beef up your retirement, some to pay down the mortgage, and some for savings.  You could be very wrong about the market, even so it is a wonderful opportunity to add to your nest egg at such a young age.  My own self prefers to do things in ratios.  In your case I might do 10% of the proceeds in for retirement, 10% for savings, and 80% for mortgage reduction.  (You may want to also add some charitable giving.)   I really like paying down the mortgage.  Not only is it a risk less investment, it reduces your personal risk. I'd rent and put the $30K/ yr into savings. When the short sale comes off your credit, you'll have a substantial downpayment.  You don't mention the balance, but the current rate you're paying is 3% too high. Even if you get the rate reduced, you have a $100K issue.  I recommend reading through Will Short Sale Prevent Me From Getting VA Home Loan Later? A bit different question, but it talks more about the short sale. A comment for that question makes a key point - if you have a short sale, will the bank chase you for the balance? If not, you have a choice to make.  Adding note after user11043 commented - First, run the numbers. If you were to pay the $100K off over 7 years, it's $1534/mo extra. Nearly $130K, and even then, you might not be at 80% LTV. I don't know what rents are like in your area, but do the math. First, if the rent is less than the current mortgage+property tax and maintenance, you will immediately have better cash flow each month, and over time, save towards the newer house.  If you feel compelled to work this out and stay put, I'd go to the bank and tell them you'd like them to recast the loan to a new rate. They have more to lose than you do, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of a threat. You can walk away, or they can do what's reasonable, to just fix your rate. With a 4% rate, you'd easily attack the principal if you wish. As you commented above, if the bank offers no option, I'd seriously consider the short sale. There's nothing wrong with that option from a moral standpoint, in my opinion. This is not Bedford Falls, and you are not hurting your neighbors. The bank is amoral, if not immoral. I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate.  Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light.  You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low.  I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments.  What happens if a water heater needs replacement?  (41K left) EDIT:  As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K.  At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K.  I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed.  In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund.  Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs.  Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease.  That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car.  How much?  Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K?  (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company.  What kind of cash do you anticipate needing?  How about keeping 10K designated for that?  (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it?  Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor.  The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates. Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think   it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax. "There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also ""buy"" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business." To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk. You say that one property is 65% of the value of the two properties and the other is 35%.  But how much of that do the two of you actually own?  If you have co-signed mortgages on both properties, then your equity is going to be lower.  If you sold both properties, then your take away would be just half of that equity.  And while the 35% property may be less valuable, if you bought it first, it may actually have more equity.   It's the equity that matters here, not the value of the property.  With a mortgage, the bank is more of an owner than you are until you've paid down most of the loan.   You may find that the bank won't agree to a single-owner refinance.  A co-signed mortgage is a lot easier for them to collect, as they can hold either of you responsible for the entire loan.   If you sell the 65% property, then you can pay off any mortgage on that property and use the equity payout from that to buy out your relative on the 35% property.  If you currently have no mortgage, you'd even have cash back.  This is your fewest strings option.   Let's say that you have no mortgage now.  So this mortgage would be the only mortgage on the property.  It's not so much, as 15:65 is 3:13 or 18.75% of the value of the property.  That's more of a home equity loan than a mortgage.  You should be able to get a good rate.  It might reduce your short term profit, but it should be survivable if you have other income.   If you don't have other income, then seriously consider selling the 65% property and diversifying the payout into something else.  E.g. stocks and bonds.   Perhaps your relative would be willing to float you the loan.  That would save you bank fees and closing costs.  Write up a contract and agree to take assignment of the title at payoff.  You'll need to pay a lawyer to write up the contract (paying a modest amount now to cover the various future possibilities), but that should still be cheaper.   There's a certain amount of trust required on both sides, but this gives you some separation.  And of course it takes your relative out of the day-to-day management entirely.  Perhaps the steady flow of cash would provide what they need.   If your relative is willing to remain that involved, that can work.  Note that they may not want to do this, so don't get too attached to the idea.  Be prepared for a no.  This would be a great option for you, as you pretty much get everything you have now.  They get back the time meeting with you to make decisions, but they also give up control over those decisions.  Some people would not like that tradeoff.   The one time I was involved with a professional managing a property for me, the fee was around 7% of the rent.  If that fits your area, you might reasonably charge 5%.  That gives a discount for family and not being a professional.   There's a relatively easy way to find out what fits your area.  Look around and see what companies offer multiple listings.  Call until you find a couple that will do management for you.  Get quotes for managing your properties.  Now you'll know the amounts.   The big failing though is that this may not describe the issue that your relative has.  If the real problem is that the two of you have different approaches to property management, then making you the only decision maker may be the wrong direction.  This is certainly financially feasible, but it still may not be the right solution for your relationship.   If you get a no on this, I'd recommend moving on to other solutions immediately.  This may simply be too favorable to you. What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.