How to take advantage of home appreciation
"Assuming ""take advantage"" means continue to build wealth, as opposed to blow it all on a fancy holiday...  Downgrade As you already note, you could downgrade/downsize. This could happen via moving to a smaller house in the same area, or moving to an area where the cost of buying is less.  HELOC Take out a Home Equity Line of Credit. You could use the line of credit to do home improvements further boosting the asset value (forced appreciation, assuming the appreciation to date is simply market based). Caution is required if the house has already appreciated ""considerably"" - you want to keep the home value within tolerance levels for the area. (Best not to have the only $300K house on a street of $190K-ers...) Home Equity Loan Assuming you have built up equity in the house, you could leverage that equity to purchase another property. For most people this would form part of the jigsaw for getting the financing to purchase again." "There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider ""nice"" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades." There might just not be anything useful for you to do with that 'value'. As others mentioned, HELOCs have their risks and issues too. There is no risk-less way to take advantage of the value (outside of selling) It is similar to owning a rare stamp that is 'worth a million' - what good does it do you if you don't sell it? nothing. It is just a number on a sheet of paper, or even only on some people's minds. Even selling isn't riskless. Sure, your house has gained value-- but unless that's due to improvements you made to it, every other house in the neighborhood you might buy has gained value too, so moving might not result in extracting any net value. This is one of the reasons I keep reminding folks that a house is not an investment. It can be a business, if you're renting it out. But if you're occupying it, it is simply housing. If you are lucky you'll make a profit if and when you sell it, but don't count on that.  It does store value, but except for taking loans against that it's had to access that value. And lower loan rates than you'd otherwise pay are not a huge value when you'd save more if you don't borrow at all. The only use I'm making of my house's value is that by taking a very-low-rate mortgage when I could have paid cash I was able to leave more money in my investments -- arguably the safest leveraged investment possible.
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. For an investment to appreciate in value, one of two things needs to happen: 1) Demand for that particular item needs to increase. 2) The supply of that item needs to decrease. Houses are good because everyone needs a place to live, but there is a finite amount of land.  No matter how much you invest in Manhatten real estate, Manhatten ain't growin'.  The trick there is to find an area that people are going to want to live in when you're ready to sell.  Specific vintages of wines and spirits are another good example, because it's literally impossible to create more of that vintage. Cars, and most consumer goods, usually don't appreciate because they don't last long enough.  Most cars are resold within three to five years after the initial purchase.  This is also why jewelry is a good investment; properly cared for, it can last centuries without wearing out. So, look for something durable that has a limited supply. You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income. "The homeowner gets all the profit from the price rise, because it's their asset. The bank will charge early repayment fees, but these are often a small fraction of the profits. This is why homeownership in rising markets is so popular: it offers the benefits of ""gearing"" a financial investment so that you can make profits that are a very large fraction of your principal (initial equity)." "This seems to be a very emotional thing for people and there are a lot of conflicting answers.  I agree with JoeTaxpayer in general but I think it's worth coming at it from a slightly different angle. You are in Canada and you don't get to deduct anything for your mortgage interest like in the US, so that simplifies things a bit.  The next thing to consider is that in an amortized mortgage, the later payments include increasingly more principal.  This matters because the extra payments you make earlier in the loan have much more impact on reducing your interest than those made at the end of the loan. Why does that matter?  Let's say for example, your loan was for $100K and you will end up getting $150K for the sale after all the transaction costs.  Consider two scenarios: If you do the math, you'll see that the total is the same in both scenarios.  Nominally, $50K of equity is worth the same as $50K in the bank. ""But wait!"" you protest, ""what about the interest on the loan?""  For sure, you likely won't get 2.89% on money in a bank account in this environment.  But there's a big difference between money in the bank and equity in your house: you can't withdraw part of your equity.  You either have to sell the house (which takes time) or you have to take out a loan against your equity which is likely going to be more expensive than your current loan. This is the basic reasoning behind the advice to have a certain period of time covered.  4 months isn't terrible but you could have more of a cushion.  Consider things like upcoming maintenance or improvements on the house.  Are you going to need a new roof before you move?  New driveway or landscape improvements?  Having enough cash to make a down-payment on your next home can be a huge advantage because you can make a non-contingent offer which will often be accepted at a lower value than a contingent offer. By putting this money into your home equity, you essentially make it inaccessible and there's an opportunity cost to that.  You will also earn exact 0% on that equity.  The only benefit you get is to reduce a loan which is charging you a tiny rate that you are unlikely to get again any time soon. I would take that extra cash and build more cushion.  I would also put as much money into any tax sheltered investments as you can.  You should expect to earn more than 2.89% on your long-term investments.  You really aren't in debt as far as the house goes as long as you are not underwater on the loan: the net value of that asset is positive on your balance sheet.  Yes you need to keep making payments but a big account balance covers that.  In fact if you hit on hard times and you've put all your extra cash into equity, you might ironically not being able to make your payments and lose the home. One thing I just realized is that since you are in Canada, you probably don't have a fixed-rate on your mortgage.  A variable-rate loan does make the calculation different.  If you are concerned that rates may spike significantly, I think you still want to increase your cushion but whether you want to increase long-term investments depends on your risk tolerance." "You can make a contingent offer: ""I will buy this house if I sell my own.""  In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with ""Please Reject Me"".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest.  If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash).  If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one.  (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of ""R."" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other.  Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself.  If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against.  With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties." What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons).  The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems.  When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset.  When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used.  You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt.  Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet).  Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt.  Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt.  Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt?  It will be a tough task to repay the debt.  And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it.  One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt.  So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt.  Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own.  It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate.  Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt? Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately.  Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible.  You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business.  Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house.  If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately.  Taxes suck. I suggest that you first decide on what %'s of the home value you each have a legal claim to. Then split the mortgage using the same %'s. Then, if someone feels their % is slightly higher, they are compensated because they 'own' a correspondingly higher share of the house. Use the same %'s for downpayments (which may mean that an 'adjustment' payment might be required to bring your initial cash outlay from 70/30 into the %'s that you agree to). Tenant income gets split the same way. Utilities are a bit more difficult - as heating depends more on square feet, but water and hydro depend more on how many people are there. You can try to be really precise about working out the %'s, or just keep it simple by using the same %'s as the mortgage. "Pete B mentioned adjusting your payments using the Debt Snowball Method and I agree it is one possible solution, another being the Debt Avalanche Method. Here is a link that describes both.  There was a time in my past when I had 17 credit lines open totaling about $12,000. If I had paid them the way the banks asked (minimum monthly payments) it would have taken decades to pay off. Then I was shown these two techniques and as a result I was able pay them down rapidly and close all but 2 lines within 5 years. Like others I am going to say that if you already own your house free and clear never Never NEVER put a loan on it unless the loan is (a) to improve the house, or (b) a life & death emergency. If you get sick or fired and miss even a single payment on a HELOC you could lose your house forever and that just plain sucks. Not only will you then be forced into renting a place (money down the drain) but your credit rating will take such a huge hit it will be years (if ever) before you can even try and buy a new home.  Debts come and go, as do the ""toys"" and other things we buy with that debt. Homes are security & stability for tomorrow. Never give that up for a little ease & comfort today. UPDATE: I had to go looking for it but here is some software that I used all those years ago to figure out my strategy for paying down all my credit bills. It's a bit clunky but it's super easy to use plus it has some other variations on snowball and avalanche methods as well. I definitely found it helpful." "A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these.  A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient.  It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to ""diversify"" a primary residence.  You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes.  The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts?  Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac?  A big hurricane hits your county?  Ha-ha, now you're screwed.  As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to ""enjoy"" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not.  Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27.  When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to." "@Alex B already answered the first question. I want to respond to the second and third: I have heard the term ""The equity on your home is like a bank"". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? Yes, you can borrow against the equity in your home. What you should keep in mind is that you can only borrow against the amount that you've paid on your house. For example, if you've paid $100,000 against your house, you can then borrow $100,000 (assuming the value hasn't changed). The argument that this is a good deal misses the obvious alternative: If you didn't spend that $100,000 on a house, then you'd still have it and wouldn't need to take out a loan at all. Of course, equity still has value, and you should consider it when doing the cost/benefit analysis, but make sure to compare your equity to savings you could have from renting. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? Economically: As you'll notice from my parenthetical remarks, this is extremely situational. It might be good to come up with a spreadsheet for your situation, taking all of the costs into account, and see if you end up better or worse. Also, there's nothing wrong with buying a house for non-economic reasons if that's what you want. Just make sure you're aware of the real cost before you do it." 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. If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property,  you can use that portion as an investment property.  the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice...  Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan. "I would start with long term data. It would show how 40 years worth of stock investing puts the investor so far ahead of the ""safe"" investor that they can afford to lose half and still be ahead. But - then I would explain about asset allocation, and how the soon to be retired person had better be properly allocated if they weren't all along so that the impact of down years is mitigated. The retiree is still a long term investor as life spans of 90 are common.  Look at the long term charts for the major indexes. So long as you average in, reinvest earnings (dividends) and stay diversified, you will be ahead. The market is still not where it was at the end of 2001, but in the decade, our worth has risen from 5X our income to 12.5X. This was not genius, just a combination of high savings and not panicking."