Does home equity grow with the investment put into the house?
The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there. "If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater.   Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just ""renovate"" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K.  Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood.  If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value.  People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount.   If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan.  The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value.  It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost.  Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow.  It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for." In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors.  So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it.  So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe.  A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable.     If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase.  However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value.  Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost.  If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k.  Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio.  So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property.  After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%.  Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k.  Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value.  Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern.  Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing.  Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default.  In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back.  Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you.  Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line. Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans.   One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan.  There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest.  This would help the buyer avoid PMI.  Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment.  They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better.  However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments.  Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too.  So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI.   However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.
Unless you plan to sell your home and live in a box during your retirement I wouldn't consider it an investment that is a viable replacement for a retirement account. Consider this: Even if housing prices DO go way up, you still need a place to live. When you sell that house and try to buy another one to live in, you will find that the other houses went up in price too, negating your gain. The only way this might work is if you buy a much bigger house than you will need later and trade down to pull out some equity, or consider a reverse-mortgage for retirement income. As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate.   An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account).  As you approach retirement, that number should increase.  At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses.  At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses.  You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund.  You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement.   The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share.  For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate.   That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment.  Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy.  Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now.   Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate.  Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership.  If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds.  50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified.   If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match.   I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages.  This matches the overall market diversification.  Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security.  Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities.  So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work.   Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate.  This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties.   If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses.  These include:   Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change.  Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero.  What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack?   Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants.  Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants.  So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent.  You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time.   Don't forget the sales value of your current house.  Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper.  Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage.  Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it.  Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house?   I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k.  Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me.  What will you do if there is another housing crash?  With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.  Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either.   All that said, maybe it's a good deal.  You have more information about it than we do.  Just...be careful. As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan.  If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties.  For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties).  If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh. "No magic answers here. Housing is a market, and the conditions in each local market vary. I think impact on cash flow is the best way to evaluate housing prices. In general, I consider a ""cheap"" home to cost 20% or less of your income, ""affordable"" between 20-30% and ""not affordable"" over 30%. When you start comparing rent vs. buy, there are other factors that you need to think about: Renting is an easy transaction. You're comparing prices in  a market that is usually pretty stable, and your risk and liability is low. The ""cost"" of the low risk is that you have virtually no prospects of recouping any value out of the cash that you are laying out for your home. Buying is more complex. You're buying a house, building equity and probably making money due to appreciation. You need to be vigilant about expenses and circumstances that affect the value of your home as an investment. If you live in a high-tax state like New York, an extra $1,200 in property taxes saps over $16,000 of buying (borrowing) power from a future purchaser of your home. If your HOA or condo association is run by a pack of idiots, you're going to end up paying through the nose for their mistakes. Another consideration is your tastes. If you tend to live above your means, you're not going to be able to afford necessary maintenance on the house that you paid too much for." I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion.  Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation.   Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it. "Home ownership is thought to be a lifetime investment and is touted as a big part of the ""American Dream.""  That's changing now, as a lot of younger people have seen their parents' lifetime investments become worthless thanks to a lot of shoddy book keeping and lending practices. The 15-year mortgage is becoming more common these days, but that's still three times longer than what Canadians are achieving." I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases.      Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon.  Source Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.