Complete Opposite Calculations and Opinions - Using Loan to Invest - Paying Monthly Installments with Monthly Income
The advice you were given in the other question was don't do it. The math is not the issue. The interest structure is not the issue. But there is a significant chance that you could lose money on the deal. If you invested your money in a NASDAQ heavy position in January 2000, you are still waiting to break even in November of 2013; Invest in almost anything in August 2001 and you will be down for a long time. Invest just before the housing collapse in 2007 and only now returning back to where you were. If you take money on a monthly basis and invest it you will be better off.  If want to get the loan; then set up a stream of money into a bank account to make sure that when payments are due you have the cash to do so. When the two years are up you will have cash to repay the loan, and no need to sell the investments. Also if you are a bad judge of investments you won't have a problem repaying the loan. Using a loan to purchase stock reduces your gains and increases your losses. Use the power of Dollar cost averaging by making periodic purchases. "Sorry in advance, but this will be long.  Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this ""friend"" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math.  For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking.  Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest.  Your ""friend"" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money.  In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return.  The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return.  The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis.  Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest.  Not an interest only loan: your ""friend"" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months.  ""Returns"": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but ""returns"" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as ""The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.""  When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations.  How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!)  Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20  Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it.  Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets).  So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns.  Your total interest expense would be $272.79.  This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment.  Your other option  I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money.  Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win.  With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called ""dollar cost averaging"". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates.  Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains.  In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more.  At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would.  BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright.  But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month.  And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio."
First problem I see is you'd be getting that rent per month, so you get 12% a year before taxes and related expenses. Loans will allow you to leverage your capital, so you can cover the mortgage payments with rent and still have money left over. Do this a couple times, and you can make serious money.   Obviously, I don't know the specifics but this is just my viewpoint of RE in general. There could potentially be many downfalls. Here are my re-run figures.  Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan.  It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission.  It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount.    Ref. r, logarithmic return Easier to copy paste than type this out. Credit: www.financeformulas.net Note that the present value would be the initial loan amount, which is likely the sale price you noted minus a down payment.   The loan payment formula is used to calculate the payments on a loan.   The formula used to calculate loan payments is exactly the same as the   formula used to calculate payments on an ordinary annuity. A loan, by   definition, is an annuity, in that it consists of a series of future   periodic payments. The PV, or present value, portion of the loan payment formula uses the   original loan amount. The original loan amount is essentially the   present value of the future payments on the loan, much like the   present value of an annuity. It is important to keep the rate per period and number of periods   consistent with one another in the formula. If the loan payments are   made monthly, then the rate per period needs to be adjusted to the   monthly rate and the number of periods would be the number of months   on the loan. If payments are quarterly, the terms of the loan payment   formula would be adjusted accordingly. I like to let loan calculators do the heavy lifting for me. This particular calculator lets you choose a weekly pay back scheme. http://www.calculator.net/loan-calculator.html The way I usually make this decision is to answer the following question: Do I think that I can earn a better   return on my savings than the interest   rate I would get on the loan? Yes= Get a loan No= Use the savings If you have your savings in a fixed income investment like a CD or bond, then it is just simple math to answer the question, for more volatile investments like stocks you just have to make an educated guess based on the direction of the markets and past performance. "The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral.  There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker.  Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative.  Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan?  From what income will this be paid from?  What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment?    Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs?  Maybe.  Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this ""investment"", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself?  If you don't how will you be able to make payments?  For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials.  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental.  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K?  Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing.  Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money.  Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work.  You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal." With 10% return over three years, depositing $900 each month, in three years $34,039.30.  Re. downvote. I guess this is too brief and without explanation, but I was rushing.  If you want further explanation of how this is calculated check the link already posted by JoeTaxpayer, and have a look at the formula for continuously compounded return.  Also, try out the numbers in the simplified example below yourself.  E.g.  Addendum mhoran_psprep has pointed out that I didn't read the OP's post closely enough.  With rolling investments the total return will be:  Where n is the month number i.e. 36, 37, etc. "Now, my own answer:  If you join and receive equity, do the 1/3 split as a max. Truthfully, if it were my company, I would try to negotiate with you to only give you 15%--20% because as an advisor you're not going to be involved in executing the idea to turn it into a business.  If you contribute capital, do it as a loan. End of story.  You don't own more because you financed growth... you shouldn't. The growth will have come because of the collective performance of the whole team. You should get paid back at a ""fair"" rate for your investment... if the company can handle it, I would argue something like 10% interest is reflective of the risk you're taking with your money.  If the finances are so tight that the interest repayment isn't an option, do the math behind what you should be paid for the loan in interest, and convert that to shares or equity somehow, and get paid back for the invested capital.  If the company can't repay your loan, the business model may not be sound enough, or developed enough, to be investing in to begin with." What you want to do is figure out how much you're paying in interest, solely (ie, the interest part of each payment), add that up over 48 months, then figure out the net value of the cash inflow/outflow for the points over 48 months (ie, 3.5% annual return on the positive or negative value).  Sum those two.  Then you can see your P&L, and your total cash outflow (up to you if you add a % to your negative initial outflow, and how exactly you consider your $2k closing costs; I agree with JoeTaxpayer about adding at least closing costs to the loan amount.  If you have money to pay the points that would otherwise be earning money, you could alternately consider it a negative cash (ie, instead of accruing 3.5% it's a negative balance accruing that). In excel I'd do something like: Then track changes in H and I when you change columns B and C and G. This works even better when you have a good credit score when you want to arbitrarily inflate it for bragging rights or lowest interest rates, I'm only pointing this out because it has nothing to do with your current score and CK's recommendation. The presence of an installment loans is 10% of your credit score, according to some credit scoring models. So theoretically someone with a solid 720 score could gain 72 points, while someone with a 480 score would only gain 48 points. But the scores are weighted so you wouldn't get that kind out outcome regardless, it will have less of an impact. You can do this, amongst other things, but if that installment loan alters your utilization of credit it will more greatly lower your score, and the hard inquiry to apply for the loan will also temporarily hurt your score and you also might not be approved. These are the things to consider (but fortunately utilization has no history). Yes you can pay the loan off with a monthly payment. The loan's interest will cost slightly more than the monthly payments, by the end of the loan term. I've done this with a 5 year $500 installment loan at a credit union. As others pointed out, you don't have to spend money to raise your credit score (unnecessary interest, in this case), but you certainly can! The only way this suggestion works is if you can realize a higher rate of return on the investment than the payoff of the loan.  There's no guarantee of that, so it can be a risky strategy from the standpoint that you'll end up paying more for the car when all is said and done. "A) Yes, it does accomplish the goal of adding more money, but the money is in lieu of any return you can earn while the loan is outstanding. If you somehow knew exactly which periods where going to run negative, and you took a 401k loan during that time, you'd be in pretty good shape, but if you had that information you'd probably be ruling the world in short order and wouldn't care much about a measly 401k. B) It's a nice idea, but unfortunately you are not allowed to set your own interest rate. (If you could your idea would work perfectly.) The interest rate is bank specific, and is typically 1-2 points over prime. But if your plan was to leave your money sitting in cash or low interest bearing accounts anyway, the loan does actually achieve the goal of ""getting more money in there"". Though it's your money; you aren't ""earning"" it." "Assuming the numbers you gave are forecasted 2013 annual income, you should really use an average and give the lender 1 number, as long as you can provide documentation to back it up. Lenders aren't as sophisticated as considering your monthly income fluctuations into their underwriting algorithm.  If you're not tied down to your existing lender, I highly recommend you to shop around. There isn't an ""universal lending requirement"". You'll be surprised at how flexible they are. Not as a recommendation to get around the rules, but just finding a lender that'll work with your situation. Try personal finance forums such as FatWallet or Slickdeal to find low-cost lenders: http://goo.gl/vIojT" Generally loan goes against an asset, in your case though it appear that you don't have any fixed assets related to this loan. So it seems like you got a cash loan (current asset/checking account?) which you spent (expenses). Since you're doing it retroactively, you'll probably just put totals in the expenses without detailing them. Are there any laws against doing this?  so long as you are truthful in your application for the loan, none that I know of - technically you could use the loan to pay for school and the cash that you would have used instead to invest.   Are there other reasons why this is a very bad idea? I think you've already identified the biggest one, but here are my reasons: Will you go broke or go to jail? Likely not, but there is significant risk in investing with borrowed money. You might come out ahead, but you might also lose a bundle.  If you're willing to take that risk, that's your right, but I would not call it a good idea under any circumstances. "I got $3394.83 The first problem with this is that it is backwards.  The NPV (Net Present Value) of three future payments of $997 has to be less than the nominal value.  The nominal value is simple:  $2991.   First step, convert the 8% annual return from the stock market to a monthly return.  Everyone else assumed that the 8% is a monthly return, but that is clearly absurd.  The correct way to do this would be to solve for m in  But we often approximate this by dividing 8% by 12, which would be .67%.  Either way, you divide each payment by the number of months of compounding.   Sum those up using m equal to about .64% (I left the calculated value in memory and used that rather than the rounded value) and you get about $2952.92 which is smaller than $2991.   Obviously $2952.92 is much larger than $2495 and you should not do this.  If the three payments were $842.39 instead, then it would about break even.   Note that this neglects risk.  In a three month period, the stock market is as likely to fall short of an annualized 8% return as to beat it.  This would make more sense if your alternative was to pay off some of your mortgage immediately and take the payments or yp pay a lump sum now and increase future mortgage payments.  Then your return would be safer.   Someone noted in a comment that we would normally base the NPV on the interest rate of the payments.  That's for calculating the NPV to the one making the loan.  Here, we want to calculate the NPV for the borrower.  So the question is what the borrower would do with the money if making payments and not the lump sum.   The question assumes that the borrower would invest in the stock market, which is a risky option and not normally advisable.  I suggest a mortgage based alternative.  If the borrower is going to stuff the money under the mattress until needed, then the answer is simple.  The nominal value of $2991 is also the NPV, as mattresses don't pay interest.  Similarly, many banks don't pay interest on checking these days.  So for someone facing a real decision like this, I'd almost always recommend paying the lump sum and getting it over with.  Even if the payments are ""same as cash"" with no premium charged."