Sell your home and invest in growth stock mutual fund
It wouldn't surprise me to see a country's return to show Inflation + 2-4%, on average. The members of this board are from all over the world, but those in a low inflation country, as the US,Canada, and Australia are right now, would be used to a long term return of 8-10%, with sub 2% inflation.  In your case, the 20% return is looking backwards, hindsight, and not a guarantee. Your country's 10 year bonds are just under 10%. The difference between the 10% gov bond and the 20% market return reflects the difference between a 'guaranteed' return vs a risky one.  Stocks and homes have different return profiles over the decades. A home tends to cost what some hour's pay per month can afford to finance.  (To explain - In the US, the median home cost will center around what the median earner can finance with about a week's pay per month. This is my own observation, and it tends to be correct in the long term. When median homes are too high or low compared to this, they must tend back toward equilibrium.)  Your home will grow in value according to my thesis, but an investment home has both value that can rise or fall, as well as the monthly rent. This provides total return as a stock had growth and dividends.  Regardless of country, I can't predict the future, only point out a potential flaw in your plan. The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money.  They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds.  Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk.  This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point.  By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market.  You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset.  If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market.  You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point.  That's the way risk works.  No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate.  If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets.  If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff.  If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.
Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is. "You are a ""strategic"" investor, which is to say that you are in the best position to evaluate the deal because you already live there. Others don't have this advantage going in, which is why they might not be inclined to do what you're doing. Your biggest advantage is that you know at least one tenant. In essence, you are your own ""tenant"" for the top floor You also presumably have a pretty good idea of the neighborhood. These are arguments for owning your own home, although it does get a bit trickier with a second tenant, whom you may not know. Do check credit and references, etc. You might ask the landlord why he wants to sell. Presumably it's because he wants to retire or move, and not a problem with the property. But it does no harm to ask." Other answers are already very good, but I'd like to add one step before taking the advice of the other answers... If you still can, switch to a 15 year mortgage, and figure out what percentage of your take-home pay the new payment is.  This is the position taken by Dave Ramsey*, and I believe this will give you a better base from which to launch your other goals for two reasons: Since you are then paying it off faster at a base payment, you may then want to take MrChrister's advice but put all extra income toward investments, feeling secure that your house will be paid off much sooner anyway (and at a lower interest rate). * Dave's advice isn't for everyone, because he takes a very long-term view.  However, in the long-term, it is great advice.  See  here for more. JoeTaxpayer is right, you will not see anything near guaranteed yearly rates in mutual funds, so make sure they are part of a long-term investing plan. You are not investing your time in learning the short-term stock game, so stay away from it.  As long as you are continuing to learn in your own career, you should see very good short-term gains there anyway. This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral. One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict. "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.)" 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. You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money. In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be  short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the  connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it.  Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on.  The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank. Myself I am in a similar position. I've had a few good conversations about this with people in the financial services industry.  It all depends how much time you want to spend on yielding your profits and how much risk you would like to take. High time and high risk obviously means higher expected gain, but also has a high chance of creating a loss. Option 1: You could buy a home now and take out a mortgage with a high down payment (thus lower interest rates) and rent it out. By the time you are ready to have your own house, you can decide to either take out a mortgage on your second house and make money off your first house, and keep renting it out. Or you could move in there yourself.  If you use an asset-back mortgage (i'm not sure if that is the term, but a mortgage where in the worst case you give your home back to the bank), you generally carry least risk. If you keep doing this you can have 2 houses paid off if everything goes well. Option 2:  You could also invest in stocks. This all depends on the risk you want to take and the time you want to put in it.  Option 3:  You could also put the money in a savings account. Some banks will give you better interest rates if you lock the money for a set amount of years.  Option 4:  You could buy a foreclosure and try to flip it, though this is very risky and requires a lot of time. Also, it is important to also have some sort of emergency fund, so whatever you do, don't spend all your money.  Save some for a rainy day :-) Hope it helps.. This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast. It's generally a bad idea to use low-risk credit (low-risk in sense you're practically guaranteed to be forced to pay it off) to buy high-risk shares. In optimistic scenario, the profit from shares would be higher than your credit percentages. In less optimistic scenario you come with nothing. In worse scenario you have worthless shares and another credit to pay.  If your only problem is the non-profitable property, you can always sell it and get rid of negative cash flow. It won't affect your quality of life negatively. In your high-risk scenario you trade the opportunity for a bit better life with for a risk of turning it into disaster for you and your family. "is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index.  Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them.  Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these ""duds"". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now.  But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month.  No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate.  Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion.  Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income.  If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years.  The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers.  (Amongst many other possible measures.)  They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years.  Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example.  There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old.  Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses.   Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better.  I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments.  Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former.  In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns.  Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio.  Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though." "Typically mutual funds will report an annualized return. It's probably an average of 8% per year from the date of inception of the fund. That at least gives some basis of comparison if you're looking at funds of different ages (they will also often report annualized 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10- year returns, which are probably better basis of comparison since they will have experience the same market booms and busts...).  So yes, generally that 8% gets compounded yearly, on average. At that rate, you'd get your investment doubled in roughly 9 years... on average... Of course, ""past performance can't guarantee future results"" and all that, and variation is often significant with returns that high. Might be 15% one year, -2% the next, etc., hence my emphasis on specifying ""on average"". EDIT: Based on the Fund given in the comments: So in your fund, the times less than a year (1 Mo, 3 Mo, 6 Mo, 1 Yr) is the actual relative change that of fund in that time period. Anything greater is averaged using CAGR approach. For example. The most recent 3 year period (probably ending end of last month) had a 6.19% averaged return. 2014, 2015, and 2016 had individual returns of 8.05%, 2.47%, and 9.27%. Thus that total return over that three year period was 1.0805*1.0247*1.0927=1.21 = 21% return over three years. This is the same total growth that would be achieved if each year saw consistent 6.5% growth (1.065^3 = 1.21).  Not exactly the 6.19%, but remember we're looking at a slightly different time window. But it's pretty close and hopefully helps clarify how the calculation is done." Current evidence is that, after you subtract their commission and the additional trading costs, actively managed funds average no better than index funds, maybe not as well. You can afford to take more risks at your age, assuming that it will be a long time before you need these funds -- but I would suggest that means putting a high percentage of your investments in small-cap and large-cap stock indexes. I'd suggest 10% in bonds, maybe more, just because maintaining that balance automatically encourages buy-low-sell-high as the market cycles. As you get older and closer to needing a large chunk of the money (for a house, or after retirement), you would move progressively more of that to other categories such as bonds to help safeguard your earnings.  Some folks will say this an overly conservative approach. On the other hand, it requires almost zero effort and has netted me an average 10% return (or so claims Quicken) over the past two decades, and that average includes the dot-bomb and the great recession. Past results are not a guarantee of future performance, of course, but the point is that it can work quite well enough.