In which situations is it better to consider a loan instead of paying cash?
Your practice of waiting until you can pay cash is a good one. It will certainly prevent you from getting into debt! Now, to be clear, your question puts a credit card in the same category as a loan, but it doesn't have to be. You could use a credit card almost like cash, if you are careful. I'm not familiar with the system in France, but in the US, even if you are paying cash all the time, there are some benefits to getting a credit card and paying it off in full every month, instead of simply paying with cash. Some of those benefits are: One pretty big downside of having a credit card depends on your personality. Some people, once they have credit, end up spending beyond their means, and end up getting into debt. Please look into whether credit cards work the same way in France before considering the above advice. As for your question regarding getting a loan vs paying cash, that will usually be personal preference, since with a loan you can buy expensive items (such as a house or car) much sooner than you otherwise could if you waited until you saved the money. For example, it might take 10 years or more to build up enough money to purchase a house with cash, so if you don't want to wait that long, you'll need to finance it. A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank.  Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends)  annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.
In general I'd say, yeah, if you can pay cash, pay cash. If you pay cash, then by definition you pay zero interest. If you get a loan, you'll pay interest. Most people get a loan to buy a car because they don't have the cash. Possible reasons not to pay cash when you could: One: Technically you can pay cash, but if you did, you would have little or no reserve for emergencies. Like if the car costs, say, $20,000.00, and you have $20,010.00 in your bank account, then technically you could afford to pay cash, but you probably shouldn't, because you don't want to have just $10 left. What if tomorrow something comes up? Two: Arguably, you have a place to invest money that pays more than the interest on the loan. Like say you can get a car loan for, whatever the going rate is today, say 6%. And you know a place to invest your money that is very safe and almost guaranteed to pay 10%. It would make sense to borrow to buy the car, invest the cash, and then withdraw money from the investment to make the payments on the car. You'd end up 4% ahead. There are a lot of catches to that strategy, though. The biggest is that the more the investment pays, the more likely that it is risky. If you thought the investment would pay 10% but it ends up paying only 4%, then you will lose money by this strategy. Also, there's the psychological element: Many people SAY and fully INTEND to invest their money, but then find other things they want to buy and so spend it instead. If you pay cash, you're committed. "My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter.  It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say ""almost"" only because I dislike absolutes).  Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option.  But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing." The latter. Simply because having some savings is always better than having no savings. Using a credit card in an emergency will always be an option (as long as you are paying off debt) but using savings earmarked for emergencies is better. The only time borrowing instead of paying from cash would make sense is if you have (or think you might run into) opportunities to put that cash to work for you earning more than the interest you're paying. For instance, you might run into investment opportunities where having the cash to jump in would let you get into them.   Beyond something like this, it'd be foolish to pay interest just so you can have a bigger bank balance and feel like you're somehow better off! I hope this helps. Good luck! First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false.  It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash.  This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor.  The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods. "Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong.  Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. ""I know I promised to pay \$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand."" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. ""You promised you'd pay it back."" ""And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?"" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, ""Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash."" ""I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't."" ""Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it."" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)" As mentioned in the comments, there are costs associated with owning & living in an apartment. First you have to pay maintenance charges on a monthly basis and perhaps also property tax. Find out the overall outgoings when you live in that apartment & add the EMI payments to the bank, it should not be way higher than your current rent. As an advantage you are getting an asset when you buy an apartment & rent is a complete loss, ast least financial terms. So, real estate is in general a good idea over paying rent. As for the loan part, personal loans are by far the most expensive of loans as they are in general unsecured loans (but do check with your bank). One way is to try and get a student loan, which should be cheaper. If you can borrow from family that is the best option, you could return the money with perhaps bank fixed deposit rates, it is better to pay family interest than bank. If none of the options are workable, then personal loan is something you need to look at with a clear goal to pay it off as soon as possible and try to take it in stages, as an when you require it and if possible avoid taking all the 15,000/- at once. I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off.  If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car.  Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once.  They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending.  If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%.  So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off.  Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price.  As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car. "Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is ""No""." Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn. "The purpose of taking a ""secured loan"" is to build credit. This might be done by someone who had a bad stain on their credit history such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure, or possibly by someone just out of school (presumably with few or no student loans),and no credit history. Not everyone needs to, or should do this, however. The advantage for a borrower is that s/he gets to create a record of repaying a loan that will partly mitigate the bad credit history. The advantage for the bank is that it is ""no risk,"" because the savings account is the security for the loan. That would make it willing to ""lend"" to a bad credit risk." "The number one reason to borrow is quite simple; when you have no other choice. The primary reason to do this is when renovations or additions must be made in a timeframe that precludes you being able to save enough money to pay cash. Harmanjd's example of a kid on the way with no space to put him is a very good hypothetical. Disaster recovery is another; insurance doesn't cover everything and can sometimes be slow to pay out, and even if the payoff will rebuild the house exactly the way it was, these situations are deceptively good opportunities to improve on what you had. Since you already have to call in the contractors to demo and rebuild, the cost to do that is sunk, and the incremental cost of improvements or even additional square footage is relatively minor. Other acceptable reasons to borrow are: When cost of capital is very cheap. A typical amortized HELOC is pretty expensive when paid on-schedule, but if you can pay it off very early (i.e. when you sell the home next month) or you get a good deal on the interest rate (a subsidized disaster recovery loan, perhaps; you have to be careful with these as they're not intended to turn a burnt-down hovel into a McMansion) the cost of borrowing can be acceptable even if you had cash savings for the project. You have other uses for the cash that can offset cost of borrowing. This generally requires the first point to be true as well, as it's a general rule that borrowing $10,000 costs you more than you would gain by investing $10,000, but there are situations in which the reverse can be true (if you have $10k in oil or major tech stocks right now, it would probably be a bad move to liquidate them for home improvements if you can get a HELOC at less than 6%). You can realize a net gain in home value from the reno. These situations are rare in cases of an already livable home; ""flippers"", which make their living on renovating homes for a profit, generally choose homes with obvious but easy-to-fix problems that depress home value because they look worse than they are. If you bought your home without any such problems, you probably paid something close to market value at the time, and so you're probably behind the curve. However, if you (or your family in the case of an estate transfer) have owned the home for a long time, long enough for things to fall WAY out of date, then you can catch up a lot of market value with one renovation, where if the home had had two or three renovations along the way a reno now wouldn't gain you as much value." use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption. Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster. "A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or ""called"" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period  the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made.   in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic."