Does a larger down payment make an offer stronger?
There is some element of truth to what your realtor said.  The seller takes the house off the market after the offer is accepted but the contract is contingent upon, among other things, buyer securing the financing. A lower down payment can mean a higher chance of failing that. The buyer might be going through FHA, VA or other programs that have additional restrictions. If the buyer fails to secure a financing, that's weeks and months lost to the seller. In a seller's market, this can be an important factor in how your bid is perceived by the seller. Sometimes it even helps to disclose your credit score, for the same reason. Of course for your situation you will have to assess whether this is the case. Certainly do not let your realtor push you around to do things you are not comfortable with. Edit:  A higher down payment also helps in the situation where the house appraisal does not fare well.  As @Dilip Sarwate has pointed out, the particular area you are interested in is probably a seller's market, thus giving sellers more leverage in picking bids. All else equal, if you are the seller with multiple offers coming in at similar price level, would you pick the one with 20% down or 5% down? While it is true that realtors have their own motives to push through a deal as quickly as possible, the sellers can also be in the same boat. One less mortgage payment is not trivial to many. It's a complicated issue, as every party involved have different interests. Again, do your own due diligence, be educated, and make informed decisions. First, let me say that you have to take everything your agent says with a grain of salt. Freakonomics had a great article that discussed the math behind the motivation of the real estate agent.  It described the home seller, trying to get, say $400K. On a 6% commission, the $24K is destined to be split between seller realtor office and buyer's realtor's office. The selling agent gets $6,000 (or so) in the end. As a seller, if I settle for $380K, my realtor is only out $300, netting $5700. But $20K lower sale price, and I just lost nearly $19K after commission is paid.  The agent would have the natural goal of volume, not extracting the last dollar from the buyer. Gaining back the last $20K to the seller will cost the realtor far more than $300 in her time, keeping the house on the market and waiting for the better offer.  Sellers might use down payment as one way to estimate the probability of the financing falling through, but it's a rough estimate at best because, in the case of bank financing, the bank needs the same time to run through the paperwork for a 3% down or a 20% down. It's just as easy for the buyer to qualify or not qualify for one loan or the other. There are young couples with great incomes and no debt, who blow away the required ratios for proposed debt to income, but haven't saved up the otherwise huge 20% downpayment. Then there are those who have saved for years, even having 30% to put down, but their income is still not going to qualify them. The offer will be contingent on the financing, regardless. It will show that you are putting $XX dollars as a downpayment, and the final transaction is contingent on your bank approving you. "There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a ""hot"" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K).  If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow  $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark.  Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the  higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford.  If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K,  and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!)  really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision.  What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations." There is a lot of your financial information that the selling agent handles in the course of a real estate transaction, including but not limited to your pre-approval letter which states what maximum purchase price might be. Closing costs and interest rate are not details they would know unless you shared that with them, given that that is done after you go binding.  I agree with xiaomy in that, while in absolute monetary terms the higher amount should always be more attractive, the selling agent wants to ensure the transaction goes as smoothly as possible. With contracts falling through due to first-time buyers not making it through mortgage underwriting, it is in the seller's interest - and thus the seller's agent's concern - that the buyer not present such hurdles. Insofar as a higher down payment is a signal for that, then I can understand why it would be more attractive.
Sorry, I don't think a bounty is the issue here. You seem to understand LTV means the bank you are talking to will lend you 60% of the value of the home you wish to purchase. You can't take the dollars calculated and simply buy a smaller house.  To keep the numbers simple, you can get a $600K mortgage on a $1M house. That's it. You can get a $540K mortgage on a $900K house, etc.  Now, 60% LTV is pretty low. It might be what I'd expect for rental property or for someone with bad or very young credit history. The question and path you're on need to change. You should understand that the 'normal' LTV is 80%, and for extra cost, in the form of PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) you can even go higher. As an agent, I just sold a home to a buyer who paid 3% down.  The way you originally asked the question has a simple answer. You can't do what you're asking. 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. In most cases an rent with option to buy is structured as follows: The renter/buyer will place a deposit/premium (not the same as a security deposit) that purchases the option( the right ) to buy the home at a future date at a specific price. The renter / buyer will often pay extra rent in addition to market rent.  Many times this additional rent is contracted to be applied to the purchase price of the home. The risks to the renter/buyer are as follows: Also, something to note: Many people will recommend that you use the additional rents to be applied specifically towards the downpayment.  Be wary of this.  There are no institutional lenders available today that will allow the additional rent money to be applied towards your downpayment.  That means you must come up with the downpayment in cash before closing.  The additional rent payments can  be used towards the price.   Hope that helps.  Good luck! No offer is too low. You can always offer more but you can't offer less once you have made your first offer. And there is always another great deal just around the corner. The more enthusiastic you are about buying this property the less your negotiating power will be. The pproperty has already been on the market for a long while, so the vendor may be getting desperate to sell, so their negotiating power is already lessened. Know what the market is in the the area and offer at least 10% below the market. If it is a weak market then offer at least 20% below market. (Note: the list price is usually more than the market price). So offer as low as possible and you can always offer more if you think it is still a good price. Treat it like a game and have some fun, don't stress out if you miss out, there will always be a better deal just around the corner. 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. "If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a ""cash out"" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved." That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors -  On the one hand  mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time. This is almost exactally what the BK attorneys I work with have always said.  If you have trouble offer a larger down payment. . . . that is the point of the down payment after all.  You do sometimes have better luck with renting from individual people rather than larger corporately owned rentals.    There are options out there. Watch pawn stars. Whatever someone offers offer 1/3 or less then go up from there. At least that's how to get the number. The rest is having the tact to make someone believe what you are offering is a good deal as that gentlemen clearly demonstrated. "Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one.  As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice.  Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart.  I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself.  ""Buy the biggest house you can""? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit." If you are the only one who puts in a large market buy order, then it would definitely push the price up. How much up would depend on how many would be willing to sell at what price point. It would also be possible that your trade will not get executed as there are no sellers. The same would be true if you put in a large sell order, with no buyers. The price would go down or trade not get executed as there aren't enough buyers. Yes, in 2 ways: As you mention, the price of a home generally grows with inflation - along with other factors (supply and demand in local markets, etc.). Through financing. If you finance 80% of your purchase today, in 2014 dollars, you will pay back in future dollars. Those future dollars are worth less, because of inflation. "The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion).  For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called ""Private Mortgage Insurance"", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money.  Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month.  Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it." Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses). The seller has a legitimate desire to know of your preapproval. I have two current anecdotes on this issue. As a realtor helping a client buy a home, I worked closely with buyer's bank, and got a pre-approval for the amount we were offering. When there was a counteroffer, and we were going to raise the price, the bank upped the numbers on the pre-approval letter.  I have a property of my own I am trying to sell. I had a negotiated price, P&S, but no pre-approval from the buyer. The buyer of his home couldn't get a mortgage, and so far, the deal has fallen through.  I agree with you, you don't want to signal you can afford more, nor show any emotion about how great that house is. That's just giving the seller a bargaining chip.