Can I be building a house with the bank forever?
No, you can't do this indefinitely. For one, you can't just take money out as home equity with no strings attached. The cash out is done as a loan (often a HELOC) or second mortgage and you have to make payments. The lender will always make sure you are able to afford the payments. At some point, you won't qualify for the loan because of insufficient income or too many previous liens on the property. While home values often go up, there's no guarantee. And your examples are more than a bit optimistic. "Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's ""that ridiculous castle"" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes.  And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default."
Why should a bank get into construction specifically? Lots of business opportunities require capital. Conceivably banks could build factories, develop consumer electronics, complete with SpaceX, etc. It's all capital in, profits out, with varying levels of risk and returns. There's nothing special about constructing apartments. The reason banks don't run businesses is because there are plenty of private firms that compete with each other for business. What's the chance that a bank, with all its bureaucracy, can deliver cheaper apartments than an apartment developer? Pretty low in fact, and that's why they would rather lend to an apartment developer rather than building the apartments themselves. Banks are in the business of competing with other banks. The main work they do is to sort out good investments from poor ones. And if they can do that just a bit more efficiently than their competitors, they make big bucks. For example, it might only take a few additional hours to better vet a deal worth millions. Whereas with an apartment building, you wouldn't be able to make that amount of money per hour even if the materials and labor cost you nothing. First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.) "A bank is a technology that allows society to consume now at the expense of later.  Think about it this way: to consume later at the expense of now, all you have to do is save your stuff. If you want to eat pizza in a year, you can buy a bunch of pizza now, freeze it, then eat it a year later.  Or you can hide money under your mattress now, and buy pizza a year later from now.  But what if you want to eat pizza now, but you don't have the money to buy it? Well, you're stuck. There's no time travel: you can't go into the future and get resources from your future self to buy the pizza now with!  Well, you could go to your wealthy friend who has a lot of pizza, and say, hey, if you give me pizza/money now, I will pay you back with more later! Except then your ability to get pizza/money depends on the whims of some really wealthy people who may not like you. And what if your wealthy friend really wants to keep all of his pizza? There is nothing you can do to get it now.  A bank is an entity that can provide the resources/purchasing power for you to get your pizza now *without anyone in the economy eating less now as a result*.   It does this via what is known as ""Fractional Reserve Banking,"" which is pretty simple. I borrow $100 from person A, keep $10 in reserve, then lend the remaining $90 to person B, who deposits it back into his bank. I keep $9 of person B's deposit in reserve, then lend $89 to person C, who deposits it in the bank, and so on and so forth. The total amount of purchasing power I can create is $1000 out of the initial $100 I borrowed from person A. As long as all my depositors don't all try to get their money out at once, society can essentially ""cheat time"" by pretending there is $1000 in existence when in reality there is only $100. Thus I have increased the purchasing power of the economy now at the expense of later (when the loans have to be repaid), and no one has to stop consuming now for me to do it!  Note that this is not the typical academic answer. Neoclassical economists will say that banks are ""mere intermediaries"" between savers and borrowers.   They are wrong. Banks provide the ability to consume now at the expense of later *even if no one in society is saving now*. That means when there is lots of lending going on, that we have an economic boom. But when there is little to no lending going on, and people are paying back their debts, we don't have as much (if any) growth." "The most succinct answer is ""Banks are in the Money business"". Not construction, not real estate, not any of the other things they may find find themselves sometimes being dragged (foreclosure) or tempted (construction) into. ""Money"" is their core competence, and as good business people they recognize that straying outside that just dilutes their focus." The reason I don't know of any banks who would offer this to you (even if you held the investment account with their bank) is that there is no upside to the bank. It is a good idea for you, but what would they have to gain from this arrangement?  The reason banks require a down payment is underwriting quality. If you can afford a significant down payment, they know that there is a significantly lower chance that you will default. However, if you were to provide an investment account as collateral, you would receive all the upside, and any downside would reduce their collateral as a percent of the amount loaned. This sort of idea could potentially work along the lines of a margin call (ie you have to provide additional capital if your asset value drops), but this would have the effective of leveraging the bank's risk, when their objective is to lower their risk through requiring a down payment. I don't see a reason why the bank would take on the risk that you would need to provide additional capital down the road with no upside for them. Additionally, many banks have backed away from the kinds of zero-down-payment and negative-amortization-ARM loans that got them (or the people they sold them to) in trouble over the last few years in an effort to reduce how much risk they take on. I think that in theory, you'd have to offer a lot more benefit to the bank, and that in practice it's probably a non-starter right now. "I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house.  Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your ""balance"" will go down as ""payments"" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings.  It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy.  Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings." Banks buy up, because they get free money at 0.1% interest or so. It does not mean that anybody will afford the houses at those prices in the future. The price will not go up to infinity, unless there is a major inflation round, in which case you will have to wait a decade to sell the house at nominal price after the central bankers let you to do so.   But then again. it is better to own a house in that case, than not having one. "Here are some important things to think about.  Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work.  Where do you want to live?  Are there suitable jobs nearby?  How much do they pay? Emergency fund.  Banks care that you have ""reserves"" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck.  This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for?  If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder.  If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder.  If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices.  If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married?  Will you sell?  expand?  build another house on the same lot?  rent the home out? Total budget.  How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to?  Talk with a banker about how much you can afford.  Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget.  Consider a new mobile or manufactured home.  But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms.  Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment.  It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting.  Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are.  Ask about the ""front-end"" and ""back-end"" Debt-To-Income ratios.  In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans.  They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves.  They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction.  Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area.  (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.)  Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan.  In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit.  The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house.  If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans.  Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent.  How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute.  How much time will it take to get from your new home to work?  How much will it cost?  (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel?  If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability.  How many are there to choose from?  Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land?  Can you homestead government land?  How much does a lot cost?  Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid?  Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that?  (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage)  If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems?  (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights.  Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need.  Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need.  Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build?  (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.)  How can the home be used?  (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.)  What setbacks are required?  How tall can the building(s) be?  Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder.  For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion.  If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits.  The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete.  A good bank will back you up.  Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction.  Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less.  Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction.  Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance.  Avoid properties that need flood insurance.  Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic.  Strongly consider earthquake insurance.  Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs.  Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need.  Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump.  (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.)  You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of ""heating degree days"" and ""cooling degree days"" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills.  If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design.  Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander.  Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka.  This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect.  The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems.  Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too.  (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house.  For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, ""the builder's engineer"".  Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code." The advantage of having a mortgage rather than borrowing money in other ways is that it is cheaper because the loan is secured against the value of the property.  If you stop paying then the bank take the house and can sell it keeping what they are owed and returning any excess. If you have enough money to pay it off then you do not need the mortgage.  They normally run for 25 years.  It is a lovely day when finally you realise that you own the whole house and no longer owe anything to the bank and the charge against the house is removed and the record of it removed from the land registry.   When you sell a house with a mortgage the buyer has to check that the bank has been paid off before they accept the property. "What you're looking at is something called ""Bridge-Financing"".  Essentially, it allows you to borrow your down-payment from the bank, using your old home as collateral.  The interest rate varies, but if you get the bridge from the same institution as your new mortgage, they will often be a bit flexible.   You take possession of the new home, and begin mortgage payments on it normally.  When the old home is sold, the bridge is paid off.   Note that the deposit on signing for the new house will still have to be cash.  All bets are off if you are talking about a NEW new home, as builders usually require advance payments during the build." This is how its done  I am a certain french bank, aka sg  I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88.  I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS.  So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years.  remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits.  Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense.  Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on.  You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on. "So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are ""bullet bonds"" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration.  What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment).  Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is ""5 non-call 3,"" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!" Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally:  1. Depositers *add* cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on *reserve* per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an *asset* (cash) *and a liability* (demand deposits).   2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan).  3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up.  4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can *securitize* the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement.   If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back. There should be no problem getting a mortgage from a bank with 3 years in business. They are going to use the average of the last 2 years of taxable profits to determine your income though. I think the key words here are taxable profits and this is where the problem typically comes in for most self employed folks. Many times self employed people will have soft losses and deductions that make their income seem lower than it really is (or unreported income).  It has nothing to do with your business plan, or your relationship with the bank unless it is a small community bank or credit union. "For most people ""home ownership"" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be ""swapped"" for a different one.  In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating ""permanent"" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms.  That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are ""investing in a vintage car"" rather than ""buying a means of personal transportation"", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc).  The ""scariness"" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that ""being underwater"" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one."