Currently sole owner of a property. My girlfriend is looking to move in with me and is offering to pay 'rent'. Am I at risk here?
"The rent payment is in principle taxable. However, you should be able to take advantage of the ""rent a room"" scheme, and the proposed rent falls well under the £7,500/year tax threshold for that. So no tax will be actually payable and you don't have to formally declare it as long as you stay below that threshold. You should also be fairly well legally protected in case you do split up in future and you want to remove her. As you would be living there too, she would just be a lodger, not a tenant (technically, an ""excluded occupier""). If you did want her to leave you would only need to give reasonable notice and wouldn't need a formal court order if you needed to force her to go. As JBentley points out, there have been court cases where domestic partners contributing to household expenses while the other partner paid the mortgage have later been able to claim that this implied joint ownership. This was on the basis of a ""constructive trust"" being implicitly setup by the way they arranged their finances. In your case, if there's a clear intention, formalised in writing, for the money to be treated as rent rather than a contribution towards purchasing the property, I think it should make it very hard to claim the contrary later. I would also suggest you be clear about whether the rent includes a share of the utility bills, and that things like groceries would be handled separately and split 50:50 or whatever. As pointed out in a comment, there are template agreements for lodgers you could use a starting point (e.g. this one), but it's likely you'd need to customise it to your circumstances. Another point made in another answer is that there's potential upcoming legislation to give some rights to cohabiting partners. In the current draft, those would kick in after three years or having children. If the bill does come into effect, you'd also be able to sign an opt out, but only after getting legal advice, and it would still be possible (though presumably hard) to persuade a court to overturn an opt out. Overall that does create a small risk to you, but not one that comes directly from your girlfriend paying rent. It's likely that if you are both on an equal financial footing and had always kept your finances separate, that there wouldn't be any award made anyway. And you can't run your entire life on hypothetical risks." "With regard to worries about ownership:  I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the ""cohabitants"" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants        where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a        couple before the commencement date;    However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous        period of three years or more. and the ""have lived together"" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law:  Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining        the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived       together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before        the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either—       (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or       (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage,       as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns." "Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did ""not amount to much"" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail.  Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way." "Edit #2 My whole answer was based on my misunderstanding that you were renting out a totally separate property to your girl friend.  I finally understand now that you're renting out a room in YOUR apartment flat to your gf.  So, based on my new understanding, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.  The answer below is my answer to a different question ;) Original Answer My answer has nothing to do with business, but is totally relationship based.   If you care about her in a ""we might be together a long time"" way, then I wouldn't do this.  I don't care what arrangements you setup before hand, at some point, you're bound to feel like she owes you something at some point.  Let alone the easiest of situations to imagine (she's late on the rent, she loses her job and can't pay, etc) you'll be forced to make decisions about how much your desire to love and care for her outweighs your need to pay your mortgage.  You can argue how magnanimous your are all day long, but is this something you want to bring into your relationship? Now, if you don't really care to stay with her that long and you could do life with or without her, then go for it.  I think the big question is, is your relationship worth £200? Edit In the interest of supporting my opinion, here are a few articles I found on the subject: Unfortunately, the way renting to friends or family often works out is far from what would be expected between people who care about one another. For the most part, friends and family members will actually make bad renters, because they’ll expect more from you than a tenant who doesn’t know you. You may get a lot of requests for maintenance and repairs, even for minor things, and you may also find that family members and friends think they should be entitled to perks because of your personal relationship with them. When they don’t get special treatment, they can get angry with you, and that hurts both your professional relationship and your personal relationship. American Apartment Owners Association ""In my experience, landlords renting to relatives doesn't work out perfectly,"" said Ceyhun Doker, a REALTOR® associate at Keller Williams Realty in Burlingame, CA. ""When you don't know each other, there are fewer problems."" realator.com" "If you are living together 'casually' (no formal partnership agreement) then my option would be to ask her politely to as she has offered make a contribution  by buying the groceries or some such which you share. A 'voluntary contribution' not an enforceable one. Just as between flat mates where only one is the actual tenant of the flat but the tenancy allows 'sharing' . Check your tenancy allows you to share lodgings. PS An old Scots saying is ""never do business with close family"". I.e do not charge your wife or living in partner rent. It mixes emotional domestic life with a formal business life which can set feuds going in case of a break up or dispute. If you enter into child bearing relationship or parent hood or formal partnership or marriage then all this changes at some time in the future." I have been renting rooms out of my house for over 7 years now.  When renting to non-family, the arrangement is usually successful.  People leave for various reasons, an occasionally I will ask someone to move out if they are not working out.  In the USA, this works well because by keeping things formal (rental agreements, etc) you actually have a great business with lots of deductions that end up reducing you net income quite a bit. However, US law makes a big distinction about whether or not you're renting to family/relatives, specifically around whether or not they are paying full-market rent for their room.  If not, then you are subsidizing them which could disqualify your property (or at least the portion they are using) from being legitimately rented -- and thus no tax deductions for said activity. The other risk, -- again, in the USA -- is the possibility of a long-term relationship falling under rules of common-law marriage.  This is rare unless children are involved.  A couple who have children, married or not, may have the courts get involved to oversee the division of assets with regards to ensuring the children have a place to live and adequate financial support. For the UK, I would think the laws would be roughly similar.  Check out this website for more a detailed review.  https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/
Equity means having ownership, and I think that's a REALLY bad idea in the scenario that you described.  If you stay together, there's really no upside to either of you in this scheme.  If you break-up then you'll have a terrible mess, especially if the break-up goes badly.  If she's really building equity, you're going to be faced with several hard questions: If this went bad at the end, it might be worse than a divorce in some sense since at least in the divorce you have established law to sort out the issues.  You'll be on your own here without a formal contract. (Marriage being a special case of a contract for our purposes here.) If she wants to share costs (which seems perfectly fair) then agree to rent and a split on utilities.  If you really insist on going down the path that you described, I think that you'll need some sort of contract, which probably involves a lawyer.  Anything short of that could not be considered having equity at all and will be completely unenforceable in the event of a bad break-up. (There is some notion of a verbal contract, but that's very hard to prove and subject to misunderstanding and misremembering.) Aside from all of these potential problems in event of a break-up, you would probably also be violating the terms of your mortgage, if you have one. From the bank's perspective, you are selling the property that is the collateral for that loan, which you're almost surely not allowed to do. @Pete B.'s answer is good, but there's an important note to consider for tax purposes.  It's too large for a comment, so I'm adding it as an answer. And that is: you cannot claim the property as a rental property under certain conditions.  This affects things like claiming mortgage interest (which you don't have), and depreciation in value (which a rental is allowed). See IRS topic 415 for details, but I've included an important excerpt below with emphasis added: If you rent a dwelling unit to others that you also use as a residence, limitations may apply to the rental expenses you can deduct. You're considered to use a dwelling unit as a residence if you use it for personal purposes during the tax year for more than the greater of:  ...   A day of personal use of a dwelling unit is any day that it's used by: Talk to a tax accountant to better understand the ramifications of this, but it's worth noting that you can't just rent it to her for a paltry sum and be able to take tax advantages from this arrangement. "Sheesh, are people kidding here? It's a gift. It's not fraud. Just keep in mind that, because it's a gift, you cannot get it ""back"" if you break up--you are giving it to her. If you happen to get married at some point in the future, you will then own part of the apartment, but that is a completely separate matter. Give her the money, don't expect it back. Ever." "Expenses: IMO, The best way to deal with this situation is by treating you staying at her house as flatting/renting a room as @Pseudonym stated he does with his partner in the comments of another answer.  This means you pay X amount of dollars a week to her as rent which she can most likely choose to put it towards house insurance, interest, repayments, repairs and improvements etc etc. From there you split your ""living"" expenses 50/50. Living expenses include stuff like telephone, internet, utility bills, food, contents insurance etc. Renting Income: Then the earnings/losses you make from renting your apartment out are yours alone. After all if your place gets trashed by a tenant with a meth lab, she won't and shouldn't have to pay the ridiculous amounts of money required to get it fixed up.  Determining the rent to pay: Not Ideal, but an easy method: Use your place's renting value as a indicator/market research example to determine how much rent you would pay to her (however since you are only a half resident at her place you would only pay half).  Ideal: Your place would have a different renting value to hers, so do some research together and find a median renting value of her house based on similar houses or ask her how much she wants you to pay in rent since after all the owner of the house has final say on the renting value. You ""might"" want to consider that you staying with her is a more secure tenancy as she knows you won't wreak her place, but the same cannot be said for the tenant you have in your place. (Post in the comments if you think this last sentence should be removed, I'm on the fence about it but it seems relevant.) Disclaimer: Remember you are considering a long-term relationship with her don't get too picky and don't let it get personal/emotional when deciding the renting amounts." The simplest way to handle this is for you to rent the apartment and sublet to the girlfriend and friend.  I'd split the utilities evenly, one-third from each.  The reason for this is that each of you contribute evenly to generating the utility bills.  It's not like your income makes the water cost more for you.   Utilities are driven by usage.  Dividing them other than equally is likely to lead to more problems than it solves.  Also, it seems unlikely that a different apartment would use significantly different water, electricity, or internet.  Those are driven by the appliances rather than the size or location of the apartment.  Only pay more for the utilities if you want something that they don't.  For example, maybe you want HBO, etc.  It would be reasonable for you to pay the entire premium if that's a luxury that they simply wouldn't buy.   I'd also divide the groceries evenly if you share and share alike.  If you eat separate meals, you can buy separate groceries.   If the rent can't be split evenly but you could afford it alone, then you can just sign up for it.  If you break up with the girlfriend and/or the friend moves out, you're still fine.  You have your fancy apartment and can afford it.   The bigger problem comes if you can't afford the apartment without both the girlfriend and friend contributing.  If so, you should probably avoid this situation.  It's fragile.  Any person leaving would put you in a financially untenable position.  You can look for a new tenant to replace your friend, but you can't exactly rely on getting a new move-in girlfriend on demand.   Neither the girlfriend nor the friend can afford to be on the main lease.  In case of emergency or tragedy, they couldn't replace you as a tenant.  That's why they should sublet.  Then their obligation is to you, not to the landlord.   How much apartment would the girlfriend and friend get if you weren't involved?  What rents would they pay?  That's probably how much rent they should pay for this apartment.  You want a better apartment (or a better location)?  That's on you.   You should only do this if you want to do it.  If you want to share apartments with the girlfriend and friend, then do so.  Work out something equitable.  If you plan on moving in together to reduce your costs, then you don't sound like you are compatible.  Obviously there are reasons to move in with the girlfriend aside from costs.  Why can't the friend get his or her own place?  The added rent probably won't do more than pay for the added room (you could get a one bedroom without the friend).   That points to an alternative way of calculating the friend's contribution:  the difference between a two bedroom and a one bedroom apartment.  That's the additional cost of the bigger apartment.  If the friend can't afford that, then this might not be a good idea.   Make sure that you can afford the apartment if one or both of the friend and girlfriend move out.  You can eventually replace the friend as the tenant but don't rely on doing the same with the girlfriend.  Share utilities evenly.  Possibly groceries too.  The friend should pay at least the added cost of the additional bedroom.  Don't expect either to pay more in the new apartment than they would pay without you.  You should be the only one on the main lease; sublet to them. Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this.  Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend.  We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money.  The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses.  Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable..  It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend.  You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend.  My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios.  If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary. "You're making $100k together per year: you're not in the donut hole, you're in the top 25% of all households, and the top 10% of non-family households (as yours would be).  To be blunt, you're not in the ""rely on assistance"" area: you're in the ""save up for your downpayment"" sector. My suggestion would be to figure out a way to save more than $200-$400 a month for now.  $100k gross income means you have about $8k net income per month; $2k for rent and other necessities means you have $6k per month that you can potentially save.  Even half of that - $3k per month - means you have $24000 saved by the end of this year, and $36000 on an annual basis. As far as marriage or domestic partnership - I wouldn't get into one based on whether it helps you afford a home.  It might be a good idea because it helps you handle some of the details arising when you have joint property, perhaps, but not solely for the financial aspect. And as far as how much home is realistic?  $250k is certainly realistic if you can save up enough for a good down payment.  Try to get to the 20-25% range.  If you're already halfway there, another year of renting won't kill you, and it will mean no PMI and much better rates.   Also consider a 15 year mortgage; we're in the same general income category as you and manage a 15 year on a $250k range house quite nicely.  It doesn't add all that much to your monthly payment amount, compared to what you'd expect - particularly since the monthly payment includes property taxes which won't increase based on the length of the mortgage. Now that we have actual numbers from the OP: So, without cutting anything, you have $2k yourself you can be saving.  (This assumes your rent number of $1345 is your portion of rent, and not the 100% amount.)  That's $24000 per year, just by yourself.  On top of that, you've got another $40k or so coming from your partner, at least some of which should be available as well if he/she is going to be co-owning?  But if not, at least you have about $2000 a month you can be saving.  You could also downsize the car, cut cable TV, downsize the phone, and have another $500 or so available - but it doesn't really look like you need to do that, given how much you have available now. I'd look at what you're doing with that ~$2000 per month right now, and see how you can free most of it up.  You haven't mentioned a few things like utilities, not sure if that's just forgetfulness or if your partner is paying them; so perhaps not all of it is available.  But - even $1000 a month is $12000 to add to the $20000 you have now, which makes a big dent in that down payment." You are thinking about this very well.  With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract.  What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance?  If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person.  (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one.  The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own.    If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage.  Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic. There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage.  She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice. The mortgage and title of the house would be under both your names equally.  When I applied for a mortgage with my girlfriend, I was the primary applicant because of my credit score and she was the secondary because of her income (she makes more).  When all was said and done, it was explained to us that the mortgage was ours equally and so was the house, and that I didn't hold more ownership than her over either.  We were approved quickly and hassle free. This is our first house too. This is in Florida. what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing.  Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship.  If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase. Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred.  I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title. "It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single ""balloon payment"" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold).  Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious.  With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case.  Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's ""75% of the gross proceeds of the sale"".  If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that ""gross proceeds"" means ""before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale""), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you.  If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you.  But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment.  So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses.  That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell.  That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale.  I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled.  But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest.  But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631.  So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself.  So we might as well eliminate those from consideration.   It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history.  Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating?  Do they in general tend to respect your wishes?  Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that?   Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to ""refinance"" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable.  For instance, do they have a lien on the property?" Quite a bit as in, $100K+? If you're a sole operator, not sure what constitutes a real likelihood that a risk of liability will materialize, and in need of a lot of up front financing, I am genuinely concerned that you're going to a lay a giant egg on this one. What is it your business is going to be doing? I don't really want to give a free consultation, but I'm worried you're either misunderstanding something or about to make a mistake, and I don't want to see that happen. No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings.  You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest.  Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.