Is an interest-only mortgage a bad idea?
Really the question you need to ask yourself is how much Risk you want to take in order to save a little on interest for 5 years. Rates are pretty close to a historic low, and if you have good credit you should shop around a bit to get a good ideal of what a 15 or 30 year fixed loan would go for. For people that are SURE they will be selling a property in a few years, a 5-yeah balloon, or ARM might not be a bad thing.  OTOH, if their plans change, or if you plan to stay in the property for longer (e.g. 10-15 years) then they have the potential to turn into a HUGE trap, and could have the effect of forcing you to sell your house.   The most likely people to fall into such a trap are those who are trying to buy more house than they can really afford and max out what they can pay using a lower rate and then later cannot afford the payments if anything happens that makes the rate go up.  Over the last three years we've seen a large number of foreclosures and short-sales taking place are because of people who fell into just this kind of trap..  I strongly advise you learn from their mistakes and do NOT follow in their footsetps  You need to consider what could happen in 5 years time.   Or if the economy takes off and/or the Fed is not careful with interest rates and money supply, we could see high inflation and high interest rates to go along with it.   The odds of rates being any lower in 5 years time is probably pretty low.  The odds of it being higher depends on who's crystal ball you look at.  I think most people would say that rates are likely to increase (and the disagreement is over just how much and how soon).  If you are forced to refinance in 5 years time, and the rates are higher, will you be able to make the payments, or will you potentially be forced out of the house? Perhaps into something much smaller.  What happens if the rates at that time are 9% and even an ARM is only 6%? Could you make the payments or would you be forced to sell?   Potentially you could end up paying out more in interest than if you had just gotten a simple fixed loan. Myself, I'd not take the risk.  For much of the last 40 years people would have sold off their children or body parts to get rates like we have today on a standard fixed loan.  I'd go for a standard fixed loan between 15 and 30 years duration.  If you want to pay extra principle to get it paid off earlier in order to feel more secure or just get out from under the debt, then do so (personally, I wouldn't bother, not at today's rates) Generally, interest-only mortgages are a bad idea, because a lot of people get them so that they can buy more house than they could otherwise afford (lower payment = affordable, in their minds).  If the house continues to go up in value, they probably get away with it, because when the balance becomes due, they can refinance.  However, the last few years has shown how risky that strategy can be, and this kind of things is what cost a lot of people their houses. In your case, if the house is something you could afford on a regular 15 or 30-year mortgage, and you really are as disciplined as you say you are, you might get away with it.  But you have to take into account the risk, and consider what happens if there is a job loss or similar difficulty in the future. Another thing to consider is the term of the mortgage.  How many years will you get this lower interest rate?  Interest rates are at historic lows right now, and pretty much everyone thinks they're going up soon.  You might be better off locking in a higher rate for 15 years. If you took a fixed loan, but paid it off at the accelerated rate, you would ultimately pay less total dollars in interest. So compare the actual amount paid in interest over the course of the loan rather than the interest rate itself.  That should be your answer. Also, plan on failing in your plan to pay it off and see how that will affect you. Normally interest only mortgages are taken incase one planning to sell off the property after a few years and purchase of the property is for investment. In such a case instead of burdening oneself with a huge EMI, one opts for an interest only mortgage, and towards the end of the term, sell off the house at profit and repay back the entire principal.  I am not to sure if interest only mortgages are encouraged for properties you plan to live in. Although I do not know about the ING scheme, normally there is no prepayment option on interest only mortgages, its Bank way of earning a fixed income for the contracted period and thats the reason why the interest rates are lower than a regular mortgage. If you do the math, you may be paying more in total interest than on a regular mortgage. It's an interesting question, and one that has a few tentacles. A few thoughts come to mind: There's nothing wrong per se with these arrangements. I think it's a matter of doing what feels comfortable. Hopefully someone on here will have a personal experience to share. It seems you understand the risks, it seems like a fine enough idea.  Hopefully it works out for you. However, you may want to talk to a few local banks about getting a short term home equity loan.  I know someone who was able to do this getting a very low rate for 7 years.  At the time of the loan, the prevailing rate for a 15 year was 3.25, but they were able to get the HEL at 2.6 fixed.  There was no closing costs. The best part about it was the payment was not that much more.  While going from ~1200 to ~1800 is a 50% increase it was not that much in dollars in relationship to his household income.   Note that I did not say Home Equity Line of Credit, which are vairable rates and amount borrowed.
Paying interest on a loan costs you money. The tax deduction just reduces that cost, but it's still there. So the only possible reason to borrow more than you have to, e.g. with the interest-only loan, is that you can invest the excess elsewhere and make more money. Can you invest money and make more than 4.5% expected return before tax with a risk level you're comfortable with? If you can invest tax free then the hurdle is (4.5%-the tax deduction instead), e.g. 3.6% if your marginal tax rate is 20%.  One possible such investment would be paying down any mortgage on your own home - as you don't get a tax deduction for such a mortgage, overpayments are effectively tax free so 3.6% or whatever is the appropriate hurdle. If you can't do that, then even switching to a principal and interest mortgage at 4.5% would be worthwhile; the principal payments would effectively be an investment in reducing your future interest bill, and that investment is better than anything else you have available. Given that what you actually have on offer is a mortgage with a lower rate of interest, the hurdle for an alternative investment is quite a bit higher than 4.5%; with the interest-only mortgage, you can invest some of the money that would otherwise go to principal elsewhere, but in exchange you are paying a higher interest rate on the rest of your loan balance. You'd need to look at the exact numbers to work out the right hurdle, which would vary depending on your marginal tax rate, the term of the mortgage, and your guess as to where interest rates would go after the 2 year fixed term. "Would the net effect *really* be worse, though?  If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means.  Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives.  As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public).  A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse?  As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite.  There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back!  The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as ""morally wrong"" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag.  In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation.  There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already.  The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting." "Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property.  Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of ""If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]"". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing." "As an investment opportunity: NO. As a friendly assist with money you don't mind ever getting back, legal depending on amount. A few years back I was in the housing market myself and researching interest rates and mortgages.  For one property I was very interested in, I would need about $4K extra in liquid cash to complete the down-payment.  A pair of options I saw were a ""combo loan"" 15yr 4% interest for the house, 1yr 8% interest for the $4K.  Alternately, the ""bank of mom and dad"" could offer the 4K loan for a much lower rate. The giftable limit where reporting is not required was $12,000 at the time I did the review.  IRS requires personal loans to be counted as having interest at the commercial rate.  Thus an interest free loan of $10K with commercial interest rate of 1% (for easy math) would be counted as a gift of $10,100 for that calendar year. Disclaimer: Ultimately, I did not use this approach and did not have it subjected to a legal review." Interest is a fee that you pay in order to use someone else's money. Once you've made the deal, pretty much anything you do that reduces the total interest that you pay does so by reducing the time for which you get to use their money. As an extreme example, consider a thirty-year interest-only loan, with a balloon payment at the end. If you pay it off after fifteen years you pay half as much interest because you had the use of the money for half as long. The same thing happens when you make biweekly payments: you reduce the total interest that you pay by giving up the use of some of the borrowed money sooner. That's not necessarily bad, but it's also not automatically good. From a pure monetary point of view, paying 5% to earn 1%  doesn't make sense... Though there is also the question of retaining enough immediately available emergency funds, which may make the loan worth considering anyway. On the other hand, if you consider putting the funds into the stock market rather than a bank account, you have quite  decent odds of earning more than 5%. In that case, this becomes an opportunity for leveraged investment. I'm doing exactly that with my mortgage. Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan. This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due. The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question:  Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account. "BEFORE you invest in a house, make sure you account for all the returns, risks and costs, and compare them to returns, risks and costs of other investments. If you invest 20% of a house's value in another investment, you would also expect a return. You also probably will not have the cost interest for the balance (80% of ???). I have heard people say ""If I have a rental property, I'm just throwing away money - I'll have nothing at the end"" - if you get an interest-only loan, the same will apply, if you pay off your mortgage, you're paying a lot more - you could save/invest the extra, and then you WILL have something at the end (+interest). If you want to compare renting and owning, count the interest against the rental incoming against lost revenue (for however much actual money you've invested so far) + interest.  I've done the sums here (renting vs. owning, which IS slightly different - e.g. my house will never be empty, I pay extra if I want a different house/location). Not counting for the up-front costs (real estate, mortgage establishment etc), and not accounting for house price fluctuations, I get about the same ""return"" on buying as investing at the bank. Houses do, of course, fluctuate, both up and down (risk!), usually up in the long term. On the other hand, many people do lose out big time - some friends of mine invested when the market was high (everyone was investing in houses), they paid off as much as they could, then the price dropped, and they panicked and sold for even less than they bought for. The same applies if, in your example, house prices drop too much, so you owe more than the house is worth - the bank may force you to sell (or offer your own house as collateral). Don't forget about the hidden costs - lawn mowing and snow shoveling were mentioned, insurance, maintenance, etc - and risks like fluctuating rental prices, bad tenants, tenants moving on (loss of incoming, cleaning expenses, tidying up the place etc)...." Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow. Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low.  Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account.  The bank must maintain branches with tellers.  The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities).  The bank has to pay salaries.  The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change.  And pay for insurance against robbery.  All of that costs money.   At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money.  Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out.  At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin.  They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts.   An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees.  But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable.  So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead.  UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed. so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low) "It's legal. That's what a home equity loan is, for example. More generally, what you're talking about is a ""second mortgage"". It has no effect on the primary mortgage that you've already made to your bank; they're still secured, and if you get foreclosed, they get paid, and only if there's something left over does the second mortgage holder get anything. That's why second mortgages are more risky than first mortgages, and why you might have trouble finding someone willing to do it." "Do you now own your new home, or are you renting?  This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote ""shoot up considerably."" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have.  There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out.  (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original ""interest only"" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)"