Buying a House and Taking Part of 20% to move initial payment date forward
In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI.  Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you.  There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing.
Save up a bigger downpayment.  The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house. Can't I achieve the exact same effect and outcome by exchanging currency now and put that amount of USD in a bank account to gain some interest, then make the payment from one year from now? Sure, assuming that the company has the money now.  More commonly they don't have that cash now, but will earn it over the time period (presumably in Euros) and will make the large payment at some point in time.  Using a forward protects them from fluctuations in the exchange rate between now and then; otherwise they'd have to stow away USD over the year (which still exposes them to exchange rate fluctuations). If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why. 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. "There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing.  When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money.  That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts.  Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself.  What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility.  You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain.  Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of ""what happens if..."" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship.  It's a recipe for disaster.  That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position.  She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights.  Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back.  The money will literally come between you. This is what money does.  Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience.  Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed.  (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.)  This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party.  You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty.  But if it does, you'll be in much better shape.   The other passive fraud is taxes.  By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that.  (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.)  As an example, defining the payment as ""rent"" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none." between two people purchasing a house together, one with good and one with bad credit, will having both persons on the loan raise the interest rates. If the house deed is on both names, generally the Bank would insist the loan should also be on both of your names. This to ensure that Bank has enough leverage to recover the house in case of default. If one of you has bad credit, bank would raise the interest rate, assumption that bad credit would drag the good credit and force him to some activities / actions that could stretch the finance of one with good credit. If timely payments are not made, it would make your good credit to bad. If the house deed is on only on your name and you can get the loan on your own, this would be a better position. If the house deed is on only on your name and you would like to loan to be on both names, then the positive side is credit score of the person with bad credit would start showing improvement over period, provided both of you make timely payments. As pointed out by keshlam, there are enough question where people have entered into agreement without deciding what would happen if they separate. There is no right / wrong answer. It would be best you decide how it would be with respect to the ownership in the house and with respect to payments and if in worst case you part ways, how the settlement should look like. 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. "There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a ""hard money"" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options." "You seem to think that you are mostly paying interest in the first year because of the length of the loan period. This is skipping a step.  You are mostly paying interest in the first year because your principle (the amount you owe) is highest in the first year.  You do pay down some principle in that first year; this reduces the principle in the second year, which in turn reduces the interest owed. Your payments stay the same; so the amount you pay to principle goes up in that second year. This continues year after year, and eventually you owe almost no interest, but are making the same payments, so almost all of your payment goes to principle. It is a bit like ""compounded interest"", but it is ""compounded principle reduction""; reducing your principle increases the rate you reduce it. As you didn't reduce your principle until the 16th year, this has zero impact on the interest you owed in the first 15 years. Now, for actual explicit numbers.  You owe 100,000$ at 3% interest.  You are paying your mortgage annually (keeps it simpler) and pay 5000$ per year. The first year you put 3000$ against interest and 2000$ against principle. By year 30, you put 145$ against interest and 4855$ against principle.  because your principle was tiny, your interest was tiny." I know that both Lowes and Home Depot (in Canada at least) will offer a 6 month deferred interest payment on all purchases over a certain dollar amount (IIRC, $500+), and sometimes run product specific 1 year deferred interest specials. This is a very effective way of financing renovations. Details: You've probably seen deferred interest -- It's very commonly used in furniture sales (No money down!!! No interest!!! Do not pay for 1 full year!!!)  (Personally, I think it's a plot by the exclamation point manufacturers) It works like this: Typically, I manage these types of purchases by dividing the principal by 6, and then adding 5%, and paying that amount each month.  Pay close attention to the end date, because you do not want to pay 22% interest on the entire amount.   This also requires that you watch your card balance carefully.  All payments are usually put to current purchases (i.e. those not under a plan) first, before they are applied to the plan balance.  So if you are paying 250 a month on the new floor, and run up another $150 on paint, You need to pay the entire new balance, and then the $250 floor payment in order for it to be applied correctly.  Also <shameless plug> http://diy.stackexchange.com </shameless plug>  Consider doing it yourself. This isn't exactly an answer, but I can not comment at the moment.  I have bought a house in NZ in the last year, being my first. There are a couple of things that you might need to watch out for with the First Home Subsidy (the $5000), especially the one that says that you have to live in the house that you buy for a certain amount of time otherwise you have to pay it back.  I also assume that you have been in Kiwisaver (the superannuation) for at least 5 years? You can only take $1000 for each year you have been in there up to $5000. You can take all of the Kiwisaver funds except what the Government has put in, so if you have $4000 from your employer, then you would probably have more in your contributions that you could use as well.  You don't have to have the 20% deposit to be able to buy a house, I went through a broker, and was able to get in with less. Not sure on the exact percentage. The 20% does help to get the bank to put some extra funds in for legal fees etc. My house wasn't an investment property, but I hope this helps. If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight. Just to add: the 20% APR is the annualized interest rate, but applied monthly. So you'd be charged $0.50 of interest on your $30 balance, which gets capitalized on the next month. So if you were to miss the next payment for some reason, your new interest charge would be on $30.50 instead of $30 (actually, it'd be much more since there would be a fee for the late payment, but discounting that to illustrate the point). "As I understand it, if the ""borrower"" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the ""borrower"" own the home jointly as  tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The  ""borrower"" moves into the home and pays the bank 80% of the fair rental  value of the home each month.  {Material added/changed in edit: For the purposes of illustration, suppose that the ""borrower"" and the bank agree that the fair rental per month is 0.5% of the purchase cost. The  ""borrower"" pays 80% of that amount i.e. 0.4% of the purchase cost  to the bank on a monthly basis.  The ""borrower"" is not required to do  so but may choose to pay more money than this 0.4% of the purchase cost each month, or pay some amount in a lump sum. If he does so, he will own a larger percentage of the house, and so future monthly payments will be a smaller fraction of the agreed-upon fair rental per month. So there is an incentive to pay off the bank.} If and when the house is sold, the sale price is divided between ""borrower"" and bank according to the percentage of ownership as of the date of sale. So the bank gets to share in the profits, if any. On the other hand, if the house is sold for less than the original purchase price, then the bank also suffers in the loss. It is not a case of a mortgage being paid off from the proceeds and the home-owner gets whatever is left, or even suffering a loss when the dust has settled; the bank gets only its percentage of the sale price even if this amount is less than what it put up in the first place minus any additional payments made by the ""borrower"". I have no idea how other costs of home ownership (property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance) or improvements, additions, etc are handled. Ditto what happens on Schedule A if  such a ""loan"" is made to a US taxpayer." I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference.  If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses.