Homeowners: How can you protect yourself from a financial worst-case scenario?
Think about your priorities in life.  Everybody is a little different.  In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house.  I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal.  At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater).  If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank.  Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder. Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit.  Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck.  The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income. "I am lucky enough to have chosen a flexible mortgage that allows me to change payment amounts at certain, very lenient intervals (to a minimum amount).  So when I was laid off, the first thing I did was call my bank to lower my payments to a level that allowed me some breathing room, at my new, lower income.  If and when my family's income increases, I'll re-adjust my payments to a higher amount.   But if you're concerned about the ""what if""s in this economy, I'd definitely choose a mortgage that allows for flexibility so that you don't lose your house if you don't have to, particularly if your situation is temporary." If you have doubts about the long term prospects at your employer or jobs in your area, you may want to keep the option of moving to find a new job open while you save up for a larger down payment on a house.  While there are insurance products out there that claim to cover your mortgage, they often have loopholes which make them difficult to collect on. Insurance companies are in business to make money and premiums are high when it's likely that people will try to collect. Splitting those premiums into your mortgage and your own self-insured unemployment fund (i.e. an emergency fund in a money market bank account) will usually be a better deal. As always, make sure you have term life insurance for a family and long term disability insurance just in case something really bad happens in the near term. Buying a home is a better financial decision when you know you'll be in an area for at least 5 years. Saving until you have 20% down on place that you can afford to pay off in 15 years (even if you take a 30 year loan) will be a lot cheaper and less stressful.
Mostly ditto Pete B's answer. There's little you can do about closing costs. Some closing costs are government fees. There's nothing you can do about this. Sad and unfair as it is, taxes are not optional and not generally negotiable. Title insurance and fire insurance are required by the lender. Even if you're paying cash, you don't really want to skip on these. If your house burns down and you have no insurance ... well, if you're worried about saving a few hundred on your closing costs, I assume that losing $200,000 because your house burned down and you have no insurance would be a pretty bad thing. Title insurance protects you against the possibility that the seller doesn't really legally own the property, maybe a scam, more likely a mistake or a technicality. You can, and certainly should, shop around for a better deal on insurance. Last couple of housing transactions I made, title insurance was a one-time fee of around $200. (I'm sure this depends on the cost of the house, where you live, maybe other factors.) Maybe by shopping around I could have saved $10 or $20, but I doubt there's someone out there charging $50 when everyone else is charging $200. Fire insurance you're probably paying a couple of thousand a year, more opportunity for savings. Typically the buyer and the seller each have a realtor and they split the fee. If you go without a realtor but the seller hires one, she'll keep the entire fee. So the only way to avoid this expense is if neither of you has a realtor. I've never done that. Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee. Timing closing for a certain day of the month can reduce what you owe at closing time -- by reducing the amount of interest you pay on the first month's loan payment -- but it doesn't save you any money. You'll make it up over the course of the loan. You might possibly save some money by timing closing around when property taxes are due. Theoretically this shouldn't matter: the theory is that they pro-rate property taxes between buyer and seller so each pays the taxes for the time when they own the house. So again, you might need less cash at closing but you'll make it up the next time property taxes are due. But the formulas the banks use on this are often goofy. Maybe if you live some place with high property taxes this is worth investigating. You could skip the inspection. But inspections I've had done generally cost about $500. If they found something that was a major issue, they might save you from buying a house that would cost tens of thousands in repairs. Or less dramatically, you can use the inspection report for leverage with the seller to get repairs done at the seller's expense. I once had an inspector report problems with the roof and so I negotiated with the seller that they would pay for a percentage of roof repair. I suppose if you're buying a house that you know is run down and will require major work, an inspection might be superfluous. Or if you know enough about construction that you can do an inspection yourself. Otherwise, it's like not buying insurance: sure, you save a little up front, but you're taking a huge risk. So what can you control? (a) Shop around for fire insurance. Maybe save hundreds of dollars. (b) Find a seller who's not using a realtor and then you don't use a realtor either. Save big bucks, 6 to 7% in my area, but you then have to figure out how to do all the paperwork yourself and you severely limit your buying options as most sellers DO use a realtor. Besides that, there's not much you can do. "As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates ""unwise"" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms.  But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do.  You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets.   To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one.  When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to.  Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash.  DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on.  I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable.  And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime." To protect yourself from an increase in interest rates get a fixed rate loan. The loan terms: interest rate, number of payments, monthly payments will be fixed for the loan. Of course if rate for the rest of the market drops during the period of the loan, you may be able to refinance the loan. But if you can't refinance, or won't refinance, the drop in rates for the rest of the market doesn't help you. If you want to be able to have your rate float you can get a variable rate loan. Of course it can float up, or it can float down. So you take that risk. Because of that risk adjustable rate loans start at a lower rate. If the market interest rate drops far enough many people will refinance into a fixed rate loan at a lower rate than they could have gotten at the start. For adjustable rate loans the lender, during the application process, details how the rate is determined. It is pegged to be x% above some national or international interest rate that they don't have any control over. If that base rate moves then your loan rate may move. They also specify how often it will adjust, and the maximum it can adjust between each adjustments and over the entire life of the loan.  That rate that starts initially lower than the fixed rate loan is the enticement that many people have to pick an adjustable rate loan. Some do it because they believe they will payoff the loan before the rates get too high, or they will see enough increase in income so they can afford the higher monthly payment if rates rise. If they are wrong about these things they may find themselves in trouble. The terms of the adjustable rate loan still have to follow the terms of the contract: the lender can't change the % offset or the source used to used to set interest rate. First consider the basic case of what you are asking: you expect to have a future obligation to pay interest, and you are concerned that the rate when you pay it, will be higher than the rate today. In the simplest case, you could theoretically hedge that risk by buying an asset which pays the market interest rate. As the interest rate rises, increasing your costs, your return on this asset would also increase. This would minimize your exposure to interest rate fluctuations. There are of course two problems with this simplified solution:  (1) The reason you expect to pay interest, is because you need/want to take on debt to purchase your house. To fully offset this risk by putting all your money in an asset which bears the market interest rate, would effectively be the same as just buying your house in cash. (2) The timing of the future outflow is a bit unique: you will be locking in a rate, in 5 years, which will determine the payments for the 5 years after that. So unless you own this interest-paying asset for that whole future duration, you won't immediately benefit. You also won't need / want to buy that asset today, because the rates from today to 2022 are largely irrelevant to you - you want something that directly goes against the prevailing mortgage interest rate in 2022 precisely. So in your specific case, you could in theory consider the following solution: You could short a coupon bond, likely one with a 10 year maturity date from today. As interest rates rise, the value of the coupon bond [for it's remaining life of 5 years], which has an implied interest rate set today, will drop. Because you will have shorted an asset dropping in value, you will have a gain. You could then close your short position when you buy your house in 5 years. In theory, your gain at that moment in time, would equal the present value of the rate differential between today's low mortgage rates and tomorrow's high interest rates. There are different ways mechanically to achieve what I mention above (such as buying forward derivative contracts based on interest rates, etc.), but all methods will have a few important caveats: (1) These will not be perfect hedges against your mortgage rates, unless the product directly relates to mortgage rates. General interest rates will only be a proxy for mortgage rates. (2) There is additional risk in taking this type of position. Taking a short position / trading on a margin requires you to make ongoing payments to the broker in the event that your position loses money. Theoretically those losses would be offset by inherent gains in the future, if mortgage rates stay low / go lower, but that offset isn't in your plan for 5 years. (3) 5 years may be too long of a timeline for you to accurately time the maturity of your 'hedge' position. If you end up moving in 7 years, then changes in rates between 2022-2024 might mean you lose on both your 'hedge' position and your mortgage rates. (4) Taking on a position like this will tie up your capital - either because you are directly buying an asset you believe will offset growing interest rates, or because you are taking on a margin account for a short position (preventing you from using a margin account for other investments, to the extent you 'max out' your margin limit). I doubt any of these solutions will be desirable to an individual looking to mitigate interest rate risk, because of the additional risks it creates, but it may help you see this idea in another light. A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures.  (My personal bugbear:  house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.)  May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money. "A home is an investment, but the value it returns isn't primarily financial ($$) - they are consumption (a place to live). This gives it different characteristics than other investments (e.g. increasing the amount invested by buying a more expensive home doesn't do much to assist your financial well-being and future income, and isn't necessarily the ""responsible"" thing to do). You may get some capital gains, typically in line with inflation, sometimes less, sometimes more, but those aren't the most reliable, and it's difficult to realize them (it involves selling your house and moving). Its main value as a hedge is a hedge against rising rent. But if you're still working full-time and can expect cost-of-living increases, that hedge may not be as valuable to you as it would to, say, someone living on a fixed income. But as for treating it as a ""low-risk investment""? That's very problematic. Real low-risk investments are things like government bonds, where you can't lose principal. Unless you're going to live into your house until the day you die, the real estate crash should have disabused you of any notion that housing values never go down. Rather, your house is a single, indivisible, undiversified, illiquid investment. Imagine, if you will, going to your brokerage and borrowing a hundred thousand dollars or more on margin to invest in a single real estate investment trust... then take away whatever diversification the trust offered by holding multiple properties. Also, you can't sell any of it until you move away, and the transaction fee will take something like 3%. Still sound ""safe""? Moreover, it's exactly the wrong kind of risk. Your house's value is tied to what people are willing to pay for housing where your house is, which is usually subject to the whims of the local economy. This means that in a recession and housing bust in the local economy, you can lose your job and have your mortgage go underwater at the same time. It totally makes sense to treat your house as an investment to some extent, and it makes double sense for a financial adviser to consider it as part of your investment recommendations. ""Safety"" is not the way you should be thinking of it, though." In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king.  Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash.  Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key.  Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector.   Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy.  The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved.  Build up the rainy day fund. Find out whether your state has a homestead law or something similar, which might protect your primary residence during bankruptcy. You may have to explicitly register to receive that protection; details differ. Frankly, you'll get better answers to this sort of question from an agency in your area which deals with folks at risk of of bankruptcy/foreclosure/etc. They should know all the tricks which actually work in your area. Hiring a lawyer may also be advisable/necessary "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." "So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the ""normal"" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years?  Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less?   If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property.  The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses.   Another way to think about it:  If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?" I believe your statement is mostly correct:  ...all the expert recommendations are based on an inflexible conventional wisdom that presumes that all renters are relatively resource-poor. When you purchase a $50 electronic item at the store and are offered an extended warranty for $3, most people turn it down, not only because they don't think it's worth it, but also because in the event that the item fails between say years 1 and 3, they don't worry enough about that $50 to care if they have to buy a new one, or live without it. The percentage of your net worth also matters. For example, if you had an entire loss tomorrow, you'd be out $20K if you needed to re-purchase your possessions. (30K minus 10K in current coverage.) $20K is approximately 1/44 or 2.3% of your net worth. If a catastrophe occurs and you only lose 2.3% of your net worth, some might consider that lucky, so from that point of view it isn't really a big deal. But on the flip side, if the extra insurance only costs you $50 more per year, you may not even notice that dent in your net worth either. I think for most people, the value of items in their home may be their net worth, or at least a much larger percentage of it, in which case the insurance makes more sense. For someone in your position, it probably doesn't make much difference either way. If you had $300K in valuables in your house, perhaps your point of view would be different. "Pay off the credit cards.  From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly.  Under no circumstances should you borrow money.  You have net worth but no external income.  Borrowing is useless to you.   $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee.  Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings.  The remainder put into CDs.  Don't expect interest income beyond inflation.  Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative.   People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds.  The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up.  The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either.  It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover.  You don't want to be withdrawing from losses.   Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks.  But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds.  Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks.  Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture.  That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips.  And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40.   $700,000 in stock mutual funds.  $300,000 in bond mutual funds.  Look for broad indexes rather than high returns.  You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even.  That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year.  Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25.  You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts.  That's the money you have to spend each year.  Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation.   Don't try to time the market.  Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing.  Play the odds instead.  Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you.  If you chase it, you are likely to lose money.   If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year.  Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending.  In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000.  Be careful.  It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it.   I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments.   I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?).   These are contradictory goals, as stated.  A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a ""stable investment"".  A franchise is something that you actively manage.  At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise.  And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise.   How do you pick a good manager?  How will you tell if they know how the business works?  Particularly if you don't know.  How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money?  Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable?  Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue?   Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise.  If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs.  I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies.  McDonald's pays its workers too little.  Google invades privacy.  Exxon is bad for the environment.  Chase collects fees from people desperate for money.  Tesla relies on government subsidies.  Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered ""evil"".  And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch.   Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks.  If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing.  It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained.   In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first.  Rent a small place for a few months.  Find out how much it costs to live there.  Remember to leave money for bigger expenses.  You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now.  Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month).  Make sure that you have health insurance arranged.   Eventually you may buy a place.  If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000.  Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US.  Think rural, like the South or Midwest.  And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia.  Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible.  You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property.  In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast.  They may use different terms elsewhere.   Given your health, do you need a maid/cook?  That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests.  Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more).  Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases.  Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it.   Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't.  You aren't rich.  This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries.  You can't live like a tourist.   It's true that many places overseas are cheaper.  But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.).  And the ones that aren't may surprise you.  And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere.  Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first.  Include rarer things like travel in your expenses.   Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas.  If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back).  And move your investments as well.  Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation.  A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return.   Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent.  If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing.  That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time.  If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason.  Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you.   I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health.  If you can work, you probably should.  Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely.  As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash.  You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover." Houses burn down a lot more frequently than banks fail. Also, I'll bet the odds that FDIC will insure the loss of money in a bank is much higher than the odds of a homeowner's policy believing a huge pile of cash burned up in your house AND even then your policy probably wouldn't have coverage limits high enough to reimburse you for substantial cash losses. Oh yeah, then there is theft, floods,etc. The biggest danger is that routine inflation will eat up that money faster than the rats in the basement. Now, having some cash for a small emergency on hand isn't a terrible idea, but using your closet as a personal bank doesn't seem very smart. "If the default happens through mass monetary inflation rather than openly (""We're not paying interest on our bonds"") then make sure you pay off your house.  There may not be a very long window to do so. If the currency becomes worthless, then it depends on what you have of value that would be accepted by the lender as payment.  If you don't have anything, the lender will take it back, as they're probably entitled to on the notes." "Insurance is a financial product to control risk. The fact that a loss would not be catastrophic simply makes the decision to carry insurance less critical. It is perfectly reasonable to be ""self-insured"" in this case. This is assuming we are discussing replacement of your property vs liability (which you have made clear). Like many other products one buys, a fine reason to purchase insurance is simply because one wants to. Just because you can absorb the loss, does not mean that you want to take on the full risk. I would be careful of your analysis here: Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which means you lose money on average by dealing with them Insurance companies make money based on the cumulative probability that they will have to pay on multiple policies. To make money, they analyze the risk that in a given period they will only pay on a portion of their hundreds of thousands or millions of policies. This is a different analysis than the probability that you will have a loss on your specific asset.  Your risk of a loss is not equivalent to their risk of loss here. The argument that they only 'win' if you individually 'lose' is not a good one."