Sell home to buy another home for cash
The cleanest way to accomplish this is to make the purchase of your new house contingent on the sale of your old one.  Your offer should include that contingency and a date by which your house needs to sell to settle the contract.   There will also likely be a clause that lets the seller cancel the contract within a period of time (like 24-48 hours) if another offer is received.  This gives you (the buyer) at least an opportunity to either sell the house or come up with financing to complete the deal. For example, suppose you make an offer to buy a house for $300,000 contingent on the sale of your house, which the seller accepts.  In the meantime, the seller gets an offer of $275,000 in cash (no contingency).  The seller has to notify you of the offer and give you some time to make good on your offer, either by selling your house or obtaining $300,000 in financing.  If you cannot, the seller can accept the cash offer. This is just a hypothetical example; the offer can have whatever clauses you agree to, but since sale contingencies benefit the buyer, the seller will generally want some compensation for that benefit, e.g. a larger offer or some other clause that benefits them. Or do I find a house to buy first, set a closing date far out and then use that time to sell my current one? Most sellers will not want to set a closing date very far out.  Contingency clauses are far more common. In short, yes it's possible, and any competent realtor should be able to handle it.  It also may mean that you have to either make a higher offer to compensate for the contingency and to dissuade the seller from entertaining other offers, or sell your home for less than you'd like to get the cash sooner.  You can weigh those costs against the cost of financing the new house until yours sells.
"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." You didn't answer my questions above, but the biggest factor if the two interest rates are similar is what it will cost you for mortgage insurance if you do not include a 20% down-payment on your next house purchase. I would take the extra money from the proceeds of the other sale to get to a 15-year loan on your next house, then put all of your extra money into paying down the student loans ahead of the 7 year schedule. Presumably this house is a great deal for you for some reason if you are willing to go to great lengths such as these to acquire it. I suggest you have your father purchase the house with cash, then you purchase the house from him. You might want to discuss this with the title company, it's possible that there are some fees that they will waive if you close both sales through them in a short period of time. If the home will appraise for a higher amount than purchase, then you may be able to get a mortgage without a significant down-payment. If not, then you will need to owe your father at least the amount of the down-payment at closing time. "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." I'd pile up as much cash as you can in a savings account - you will need money for the move (even if it's just gas money) and it's going to be hard to predict where house prices are going so you might or might not be underwater when it comes time to sell the house. Or you might be so deep underwater by then that the extra money doesn't make much of a difference anymore anyway. Once you're actually in the process of selling the house, you can figure out if you can (or need to) use the savings to cover the shortfall, closing costs or if you just built up a little wealth during the time you put the money aside. You're correct in your implied point: Selling a cash secured put has less risk (in terms of both volatility and maximum loss) than buying the security outright. However, many brokerages don't allow cash-secured put writing in IRA accounts.   There are three reasons this tends to be the case: So let's assume some values to better explain this.  For simplicity, all of these are in thousands: So in this example, you're going to destroy $250 in value, pay off the existing $150 loan and have to invest $300 in to build the new house and this example doesn't have enough equity to cover it.  You typically can't get a loan for much more than the (anticipated) property value. Basically, you need to get a construction loan to cover paying off the existing loan plus whatever you want to spend to pay for the new house minus whatever you're planning to contribute from savings.  This new loan will need to be for less than the new total market value.  The only way this will work out this way is if you bring significant cash to closing, or you owe less than the lot value on the current property. Note, that this is in effect a simplification.  You can spend less building a house than it's worth when you're done with it, etc., but this is the basic way it would work - or NOT work in most cases. Using cash to purchase a home allows you access to certain deals that mortgage buyers cannot take advantage of.  These are typically distressed properties and need to be moved off the books quickly.  Think of things like foreclosures and auctions. This does not mean that it gives you an advantage with every house on the market.  While you may be able to close quickly, with cash, some buyers may choose to wait for the (presumably) higher offers of mortgage buyers.   There are complications to purchasing in cash then mortgaging to replace that cash.  Namely, how was that cash invested?  If one were in mutual funds or stocks, with the money, one will have to pay capital gains tax on any profit.  If those investments increase in value, during the time the money is tied up, what do you do then?  Do you buy at the higher value or hold it back and dollar cost average it in? "First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a ""friend"" or ""roommate"". ""Spouses"", ""business partners"", ""domestic partners"" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not ""roommates"". Going ""halvsies"" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two ""friends"" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't ""own"" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a ""buyer's option"". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts ""first-time homebuyers"", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation." Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability. It may be possible to get more cash than you currently have. For example, If you have $200,000, you could buy a distressed property for $150,000, spend $50,000 on renovations, get it appraised for $300,000 and then cash out refi $240,000 (keeping 20% equity to avoid MIPs) to invest. This would be analogous to flipping a house for yourself. Normally flippers buy a house for cheap, then sell it to someone else for way more than their total outlay in purchase + improvements. The only difference here is there's no 3rd party - you stay in the house and essentially buy it from yourself with the mortgage. I'm not sure about your first two options.  But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible.   That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs.   You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term.  You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done.  The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan.   Note that you might be better off without the loan.  You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape.   I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property.   I don't understand this.  With a loan, you are even more tied up.  Anything you do, you have to work with the bank.  Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it.  With the loan, the bank makes the profit.  If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan.  In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent.   A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money.  The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor.  You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan.  This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option.   You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option.  Call a different bank and ask.  If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not.  Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal.  That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks.   It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties.  Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties.  It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase.  A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase. "That is called ""substitution of collateral."" And yes, it can be done, but only with consent of the lender. The ""best case"" for this kind of maneuver is if the second house is larger and more valuable than the first. Another possibility is that you have two mortgages on the first house and none on the second, and you want to move the second mortgage on the first house to the second one, effectively making it a ""first"" mortgage. In these instances, the lender has a clear incentive to allow a substitution of collateral, because the second one is actually better than the first one. The potential problem in your case, is if the second house were more expensive than the first house, you could not use the sale proceeds of the first house as to buy the second house without borrowing additional money. In that case, a possible solution would be to go back to the lender on your first house for a larger mortgage, with the proceeds of that mortgage being used to retire the earlier mortgage. Depending on your credit, payment record, etc. they might be willing to do this." "Short Answer: You're going to end up paying taxes on it. Despite the home being your primary residence, you don't meet the ownership test, and it isn't noted that you have had a change in employment, health, or other unforeseen circumstances that are ""forcing"" you to sell. Otherwise, you could qualify for a reduced maximum exclusion that might allow you to walk away without owing taxes, or with a reduced tax bill. You can't even do a 1031 exchange to re-invest into a new primary residence. You should check with a tax professional to see what adjustments you can make to the cost basis of the property to minimize your reported net profits. During the 5-year period prior to the sale, you must have: These periods do not necessarily have to coincide (You don't to live in it as your main house for 2 consecutive years, just 2 years worth of time of the last 5)." I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property.  Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.