Should I wait to save up 20% downpayment on a 500k condo?
I'm of the belief that you should always put 20% down.  The lower interest rate will save you thousands over the life of the loan.  Also PMI is no different then burning that much cash in the fireplace every month. From Wikipedia Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), also known as Private mortgage insurance (PMI) in the US, is insurance payable to a lender or trustee for a pool of securities that may be required when taking out a mortgage loan. It is insurance to offset losses in the case where a mortgagor is not able to repay the loan and the lender is not able to recover its costs after foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property. You are basically paying money each month for the bank to be insured against you not paying your mortgage.  But in actuality the asset of the condo should be that insurance. Only you can decide if you are comfortable with having $50k in liquidity or not.  It sounds like a good cushion to me but I don't know the rest of your expenses. As I've crunched numbers towards what my family could afford for a down payment (in an area with similar housing costs - don't you hate that high cost of living?), I've come up with the following numbers: We may be missing some area of expenses, but in general I think we are being fairly conservative.  You should consider making a similar list to determine your comfort level. Spend some time with an interest calculator to know the serious pain of each dollar you are paying interest on to a lender. Also know that the bigger your down payment, the more likely the seller is to accept your offer.  It shows you are serious. The simple answer is yes - put 20% (or more) down. In the past I have paid PMI and used a combination first and second mortgage to get around it. I recommend avoiding both of those situations. I am much more comfortable now with just a regular mortgage payment. The more equity you have in your home the more options you will have in the future. If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI.
I doubt it. I researched it a bit when I was shopping for a HELOC, and found no bank giving HELOC for more than 80% LTV. In fact, most required less than 80%. Banks are more cautious now. If the bank is not willing to compromise on the LTV for the first mortgage - either look for another bank, or another place to buy. I personally would not consider buying something I cannot put at least 20% downpayment on. It means that such a purchase is beyond means. The primary reason to put 20% down on your home is to avoid paying PMI (private mortgage insurance).  Anyone who buys a house with a down-payment of under 20% is required to pay for this insurance (which protects the lender in case you default on your loan). PMI is what enables people to buy homes with as little as 3-5% down. I would recommend against paying more than 20%, because having liquidity for emergency funds, or other investments will give you the sort of flexibility that's good to have when the economy isn't so great.  Depending on whether the house you purchase is move-in ready or a fixer-upper, having funds set aside for repairs is a good idea as well. "The advice to pay off near-7% debt is tough to argue against. That said, I'd project out a few years to understand the home purchase. Will you plan for the 20% down John recommends? The Crazy Truth about PMI can't be ignored. The way the math works, if you put 15% down, the PMI costs you so much, it's nearly like paying 20% interest on that missing 5%.  If your answer is that you intend to save for the full downpayment, 20%, and can still knock off the student loan, by all means, go for it. I have to question the validity of ""we will definitely be in a higher tax bracket when we retire."" By definition, pretax deposits save tax at the marginal rate. i.e. If you are in the 25% bracket, a $1000 deposit saves you $250 in tax that year. But, withdrawals come at your average rate, i.e. your tax bill divided by gross income. There's the deductions for itemized deductions or the standard. Then 2 exemptions if you are married. Then the 10% bracket, etc.  Today, a couple grossing $100K may be in the 25% bracket, but their average rate is 12%.  I read this Q&A again and would add one more observation - Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote in response to a friend's similar question. With the OP having plan to buy a house, paying off the loan may be more costly in the long run. It may keep him from qualifying for the size mortgage he needs, or from having enough money to put 20% down, as I noted earlier.  With finance, there are very few issues that are simply black and white. It's important to understand all aspects of one's finances to make any decision. Even if thee faster payoff is the right thing, it's not a slam-dunk, the other points should be considered." "I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5%   I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true ""drag"" credit card debt payments really have on your life.   I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either." "In your particular condition could buy the condo with cash, then get your mortgage on your next house with ""less than 20%"" down (i.e. with mortgage insurance) but it would still be an owner occupied loan.  If you hate the mortgage insurance, you could save up and refi it when you have 20% available, including the initial down payment you made (i.e. 80% LTV ratio total).  Or perhaps during the time you live in the condo, you can save up to reach the 20% down for the new house (?).  Or perhaps you can just rent somewhere, then get into the house for 20% down, and while there save up and eventually buy a condo ""in cash"" later.  Or perhaps buy the condo for 50% down non owner occupied mortgage... IANAL, but some things that may come in handy: you don't have to occupy your second residence (owner occupied mortgage) for 60 days after closing on it.  So could purchase it at month 10 I suppose.  In terms of locking down mortgage rates, you could do that up to 3 months before that even, so I've heard.   It's not immediately clear if ""rent backs"" could extend the 60 day intent to occupy, or if so by how long (1 month might be ok, but 2? dunno) Also you could just buy one (or the other, or both) of your mortgages as a 20% down conventional ""non owner occupied"" mortgage and generate leeway there (ex: buy the home as non owner occupied, and rent it out until your year is up, though non owner occupied mortgage have worse interest rates so that's not as appealing).  Or buy one as a ""secondary residency"" mortgage?  Consult your loan officer there, they like to see like ""geographic distance"" between primary and secondary residences I've heard. If it's HUD (FHA) mortgage, the owner occupancy agreement you will sign is that you ""will continue to occupy the property as my primary residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy, unless extenuating circumstances arise which are beyond my control"" (ref), i.e. you plan on living in it for a year, so you're kind of stuck in your case.  Maybe you'd want to occupy it as quickly as possible initially to make the year up more quickly :) Apparently you can also request the lender to agree to arbitrarily rescind the owner occupancy aspect of the mortgage, half way through, though I'd imagine you need some sort of excuse to convince them.  Might not hurt to ask." Something else is going on here. Rates are high for a specific reason, possible due to the house being non-conforming (ie, trailer/pre fab housing?)  Higher downpayment won't help.  Go to LendingTree.com and have a ton of offers spammed at you. With 20% down + conforming you should be around 4.5%. "Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the ""Pro"" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own." Matthew -  I'll start with the premise you put enough down that you won't default on an upsidedown mortgage.  There's an order I recommend when considering prepayment: Prepaying a mortgage is a guaranteed return for a fixed investment for the life of the mortgage or ownership of the house. If you have a rate of 5%, and that rate is good for you to invest at, then prepaying is fine. The presumed long term market gain is 8% or higher (12% if you are a disciple of Dave Ramsey, but I digress) and at the 15% cap gain rate, a 6.8% post tax return. Your 5% rate after tax (if it's all taken on Sch A) is about 3.75% if you are in the 25% bracket.  This difference of 3% or so is not guaranteed year to year, not even for the long term. For some, the desire to pay off the mortgage is enough to focus on it. Others see the 3% compounding over time, and likely to occur over the coming decades. Consider not buying the house? Consider a cheaper property? What are your actual goals? Owning vs renting? Perhaps an actual investment goal? What is your rent now vs the mortgage on the house? What is the time frame for the mortgage you are considering?  Those are the real questions you need to ask yourself. It does sound like you can become overleveraged with this property, although your down payment is quite substantial, but one single thing goes wrong and your cash flow is irreparably constricted. I personally wouldn't take that risk if I had the same forecast of expenditures, but this could be altered if there were particular investment goals I had in mind. Save up a bigger downpayment.  The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house. "Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free.  This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work." "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." The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV.  Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%). "If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses   value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing   the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis.  It all depends on the numbers you plug in.  Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k.  Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k.  You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc.  Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k.  It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo.  In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it.  It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years.  That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger   property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is:  if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value.   However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would   gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have   increased in price. But it may not scale.  When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses.  That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low.   Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either   market? I don't think so.  I think, in general, buying ""more house"" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable.  Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles.   The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes.  You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was.   In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point:  let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!" Paying extra principal is not a complicated decision. You have a rate, say 5%. And you have an after tax rate, say, 3.75% (if you are in the 25% bracket and it's all deductible)  Are you happy to get a 3.75% after tax return?  If you have a retirement plan, and are not getting the full company match, that would be the first priority.  If you have other debt, say a 10% credit card, that's the next priority.  Is the sale soon? If so, I'd imagine you'd prefer to stay liquid, to have the next down payment ready without needing to rent in between.