Why will the bank only loan us 80% of the value of our fully paid for home?
To supplement existing answers: the appraised value does not necessarily represent the net amount the bank could actually recover with a foreclosure. Let's look at it from the point of view of the bank.  Suppose the property appraises at $200,000 and they do what you want: loan you $200,000 with the property as collateral.  Now suppose a short time later, you quit paying the mortgage and they have to foreclose.  Can the bank get their $200,000 back? An appraisal is only an estimate; nobody can predict perfectly how much a property will sell for.  Maybe the appraiser missed something significant, and the property will only fetch $180,000. Even if the appraisal was accurate when it was made, property values may have dropped in the meantime.  Maybe a sudden economic crisis is driving real estate prices down across the board.  Maybe interest rates have spiked.  Maybe the county has changed the zoning regulations to locate a toxic waste dump next door to the property.  In any of these cases, the property may again fetch well under $200,000. Maybe the condition of the property has changed.  Perhaps you trashed the place and it will take $30,000 to clean it up.  (People have a tendency to do things like that when they get foreclosed.) If the bank wants to get full market value for the property, they will incur the usual costs of selling a property: paying a real estate agent's commission, painting, renting furniture to stage the property, and so on.  This will eat into the net amount they actually get from the sale. It may take some time (perhaps months) for a property to sell at its full market value.  During this time, the bank is out $200,000.  That's money they would rather be loaning out at interest to someone else, so this represents lost income. Foreclosing a mortgage is a fairly complicated procedure.  The bank has to pay its staff, including lawyers, for a significant number of hours to get the foreclosure done.  There will be court filing fees and so on.  If you refuse to leave, they may have to get the sheriff to evict you; that has a fee as well.  If you fight the foreclosure, that racks up even more legal fees.  This too eats into the net proceeds from the sale. So if the bank loans you the full $200,000, they stand a pretty significant risk of not getting all of it back, after expenses.  You can understand that risk may not be worth the interest they would get from you on the extra $40,000. On the other hand, if they loan you only 80% of the property's appraised value ($160,000), they effectively shift that risk onto you.  Should you default on the loan, and they foreclose, all they have to do is sell the property for $160,000 or a little bit more.   That shouldn't be too hard, even if it is not freshly painted or a bit trashed.  They probably don't need to hire a real estate agent: just hold a quick auction, maybe first calling up a few investors who might be interested in flipping it.  If it happens to sell for more than the outstanding principal of the loan, plus the bank's costs, then they will pay you the difference; but they have no incentive to make that happen, and every incentive to just get it sold quick.  So any difference between the property's true value and the actual sale price now represents a loss to you first, not to the bank. So you can see why the bank would rather not loan you the full value of the property.  80% is a somewhat arbitrary figure but it cuts their risk by a lot. If you get a loan for 80% of the value of your house, that's equivalent to buying a house with a 20% down payment (assuming the appraised value is what you'd buy it for).  That's the minimum down payment for Fannie Mae backed loans without PMI (mortgage insurance).  See this table for more details. Freddie Mac (the other major mortgage backer) has a good fact sheet on cash out loans (which is what this is called) here.  It also specifies: Maximum LTV ratio of 80 percent for 1-unit primary residences  As noted in other answers, the 80% rule is to protect the bank (and ultimately, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will eventually buy most of these loans) so it is more likely to recoup the total value of the mortgage if they must foreclose on the house. Banks and lenders have become a bit more conservative since the housing crisis. 80% is a typical limit. The reason is to minimize the lender's risk if declining property values would put the borrower upside-down on the loan. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/home-equity/how-much-equity-can-you-cash-out-of-home.aspx The banks figure that they'll get 80% of the value of the property at a sheriff's sale. So, they're lending you what they think they can recover if you default. "I am going to add just one more item to what are some very well thought out answers. The element of ""Cash Out"" If you are taking out 80% of the value of the home that you already own free and clear the bank considers this a ""Cash Out"" transaction - meaning you would effectively walk away from closing with a check for 80% of your home's value. So in a hypothetical situation you have a $200,000 home value - you would be handed a check for $160,000 with which you could do anything that you wanted. Granted, you are likely going to do something responsible with it and purchase another home - BUT (big BUT) the bank can't control what you do with it and that is the part they don't like - and therefore they treat these types of transactions with a higher degree of scrutiny. It is all about control - if the property you are downsizing to fits their rules for lending they may actually loan you a higher loan to value on that purchase than they would on your ""cash out"" refinance transaction on your current home.  With the purchase loan the money you get goes immediately to the purchase of a new home.  In the ""cash out"" transaction it goes to a check with which you could do anything you want . . .  and then not pay the loan back . . .  I know no one here would do that - but there are some folks that would . . . and this is one of the reasons ""Cash Out"" loans are not nearly as easy as they once were to get. http://www.justice.gov/usao/az/mortgagefraud.html" Imagine the bank loaning 100% of the sum of money you needed to buy a house, if the valuation of the house decreases to 90% of the original price after 3 months, would it be unfair for them to ask them for 10% of the original price from you immediately? I suppose the rationale for loaning 80% is so that you will fork our 20% first, and so your property is protected from fluctuations in the market, that they do not need to collect additional money from you as your housing valuation rarely drops below 80% of the original price. Banks do need to make money too, as they run as a business.
That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors -  On the one hand  mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time. It's so that your total mortgage payment stays the same every month. Obviously, the interest due each month decreases over time, as part of the principal is paid off each month, and so if the proportion of interest and principal repayments were to stay the same then your first payment would be very large and your last payment would be almost nothing. "A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid ""I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price"". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. ""Back in the day"" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions." Banks don't want to manage property.  They despise the fact that they have all of these foreclosures that they can't sell.  They just want to loan you the money at X% and collect the fees and interest. The value of a reverse mortgage to the lender is that it's a collateralized loan against a property.  When the owner exits the property, it's attached to the property and must be paid back before the property is sold.  They carefully consider the age of the recipient, equity in the property, etc. when they decide how much to pay the owner so that the chances of the loan going underwater are minimized. If the foreclosed property is sold for more than is owed, then the borrower is entitled to the excess. If sold for what is owed or less, then the borrower gets nothing. Any money that you are entitled to would be determined by your contract with the mortgaged owner, but the bank is the first lien-holder, they get made whole first, and if there is excess then you may see some of your money back depending on your contract with the mortgaged owner. Since the bank owns the property until the mortgage is paid off, you would have had to work with the bank in order to have legal ownership of a portion of the house and approving partial sale of a house is not something most banks would likely care to do. A contract you worked up with the borrower doesn't give you legal claim to the house (in foreclosure, at least), due to the bank's lien. You'd have to contact a lawyer for firm answers, but it sounds bleak. It seems a bit late in the process, no? They moved in, you are elsewhere, etc. Today, the Prime Rate is 3.25%. I don't know enough to suggest whether this is fair to both parties. It's more than you'd earn in the bank, and less than they'd pay for a business loan. My own equity line is currently 2.5%, for what that's worth. I wanted to know that what if the remaining 40% of 60% in a LTV (Loan to Value ratio ) for buying a home is not paid but the borrower only wants to get 60% of the total amount of home loan that is being provided by lending company. Generally, A lending company {say Bank] will not part with their funds unless you first pay your portion of the funds. This is essentially to safeguard their interest. Let's say they pay the 60% [either to you or to the seller]; The title is still with Seller as full payment is not made. Now if you default, the Bank has no recourse against the seller [who still owns the title] and you are not paying. Some Banks may allow a schedule where the 60/40 may be applied to every payment made. This would be case to case basis. The deal could be done with only paying 20% in the beginning to the buyer and then I have to pay EMI's of $7451.  The lending company is offering you 1.1 million assuming that you are paying 700K and the title will be yours. This would safeguard the Banks interest. Now if you default, the Bank can take possession of the house and recover the funds, a distress sale may be mean the house goes for less than 1.8 M; say for 1.4 million. The Bank would take back the 1.1 million plus interest and other closing costs. So if you can close the deal by paying only 20%, Bank would ask you to close this first and then lend you any money. This way if you are not able to pay the balance as per the deal agreement, you would be in loss and not the Bank. And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank. Even post meltdown, there are banks that will lend money based on a low loan to value, so 50% might not be a problem. But such loans come at a price. The current 30 year fixed rated is 4.5% or so, but you might see quite a bit higher than this on the loan. "The part that I find confusing is the loan/stock hybridization.  Why would the investor be entitled to a 30% share if he's also expecting to be getting paid back in full? This is the part that's making me scratch my head.  I can understand giving equity and buying out later.  I can understand giving equity with no expectation of loan repayment.  I can understand loan repayment without equity.  I can even understand collateralizing the loan with equity.  I can not understand how ""zeroing out"" the loan still leaves him with a claim on 30% of the equity. Would this be more of a good will gesture as a way to thank the investor for taking a chance?  Please forgive any naivety in my questions." I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions: 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. You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%. No. When you file your Articles of Organization, simply state that your business will operate under the law. You don't need to give any further specification. The S&P 500 is an index, you can't buy shares of an index, but you can find index funds to invest in. Each company in that fund that pays dividends will do so on their own schedule, and the fund you've invested in will either distribute dividends or accumulate them (re-invest), this is pre-defined, not something they'd decide quarter to quarter. If the fund distributes dividends, they will likely combine the dividends they receive and distribute to you quarterly.  The value you've referenced represents the total annual dividend across the index, dividend yield for S&P500 is currently ~1.9%, so if you invested $10,000 a year ago in a fund that matched the S&P 500, you'd have ~$190 in dividend yield.