Was this a good deal on a mortgage?
That seems a very bad offer, it borders on fraud. In the current US economy, you should be able to get between 3 and 4 % APR (and that number is what you should look at). That means that for $300,000 over 30 years, you'd pay $1,265 to $1,432 per month. If you are able to pay more than that monthly rate, you should go for less than 30 years - 20, 15, 10, whatever you can afford - but don't overextend yourself. Google 'mortgage calculator' to do your own calculations. I'm calculating that to about a 7% apr, which given loan rates available today seems a bit high.   I wouldn't get too caught up on what that equates to over the life of the loan.  There are a lot of forces in play over a 30 year period, namely the time value of money.  30 years from now a dollar will be less valuable in real terms due to the forces of inflation.  At 2% per year in inflation today's $1 will be worth about $0.55 in 30 years. Some part of the payment is probably also going for tax escrow, insurance payments, probably PMI if you aren't  putting at least 20% down. Get a complete breakdown of the costs. Remember to budget for upkeep. And please see past discussion of why buying a home at this point in your career/life may be very, very premature. The key question is whether this number includes taxes and insurance. When you get a mortgage in the U.S., the bank wants to be sure that you are paying your property taxes and that you have homeowners insurance. The mortgage is guaranteed by a lien on the house -- if you don't pay, the bank can take your house -- and the bank doesn't want to find out that your house burned down and you didn't bother to get insurance so now they have nothing. So for most mortgages, the bank collects money from the borrower for the taxes and insurance, and then they pay these things. This can also be convenient for the borrower as you are then paying a fixed amount every month rather than being hit with sizeable tax and insurance bills two or three times a year. So to run the numbers: As others point out, mortgage rates in the US today are running 3% to 4%. I just found something that said the average rate today is 3.6%. At that rate, your actual mortgage payment should be about $1,364. Say $1,400 as we're taking approximate numbers. So if the $2,000 per month does NOT include taxes and insurance, it's a bad deal. If it does, then not so bad. You don't say where you live. But in my home town, property taxes on a $300,000 house would be about $4,500 per year. Insurance is probably another $1000 a year. And if you have to get PMI, add another 1/2% to 3/4%, or $1500 to $2250 per year. Add those up and divide by 12 and you get about $600. Note my numbers here are all highly approximate, will vary widely depending on where the house is, so this is just a general ballpark. $1400 + $600 = $2000, just what you were quoted. So if the number is PITI -- principle, interest, taxes, and insurance -- it's about what I'd expect. The price of the loan may be justified if you're considered a high-risk applicant for some reason (e.g. you're putting very little money in initial payment), and if it includes all the associated expenses. What is more relevant to your situation is that you're probably better off renting. Think about it: your $300'000 house will require some repairs in those 30 years (let's estimate those at $100'000). That means in 30 years you'll build $200'000 of equity spending $720'000 on it. Of course this assumes that the value of the house will remain constant. You're effectively be throwing away $520'000, or more than $1'400 a month. If you can rent a place for $1'400 a month or less, you'll build more equity by renting that place for 30 years and saving the excess money in a bank account. If you consider the interest that money in your bank account will earn you (e.g. 3% annually), you'll build more than $200'000 equity in 30 years even if you spend as much as $1'650 on your rent and save only $350 a month. "I'm a visual person so the idea of a 30 year mortgage didn't make much sense to me until I could see it  This isn't exact but it's pretty close. The green Interest lines represent the money you're giving to the bank as a ""thank you"" for lending you a large amount of cash up front. As you've already figured out, that's at least the same amount as the price of the home! As much down-payment as is reasonable. Keep one eye on beating the interest Best of luck!"
"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The ""really good"" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk." There's nothing wrong with it. Living in a two-family house and renting the downstairs was a fairly standard path to the middle class and home ownership in the 20th century. Basically, if market conditions are good, you'll have someone else paying your mortgage. The disadvantage of the situation is that you're a landlord. So you have to deal with your tenant, who is also a neighbor. Most tenants are fine, but the occasional difficult person may come out of the woodwork. That model of achieving home ownership became less popular in the late 60's-early 70's when the law allowed two incomes to be used for mortgage underwriting. Also, as suburbanization became a national trend, absentee landlords became more common Sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, and have stumbled into a good deal. No, they certainly are not compensated the same way.  Some are paid by commission that they earn from the products they sell (ie, certain mutual funds, insurance, etc.)  Others are paid for their advice based on an hourly fee, or a percentage of the portfolio you have to invest. This is a great question, because too many of us just assume that if someone is in the business, they will give trustworthy advice.  This may certainly be the case, but think about it, the financial planner at your bank (who also is a mutual fund specialist - just flip that handy business card over) is employed by Bank X.  Bank X sells mutual funds, GIC's, insurance, all kinds of great products.  That Bank X employee is not likely to tell you about products from Bank Z down the street that might be a better fit for you. Find a fee based planner, someone you can pay by the hour for advice, and let them help you review products across the industry.  It's like asking your bank for mortgage advice...they will discuss the options THEY offer, but may not tell you about a deal down the street.  Using a mortgage broker helps you find the best deal across the board. I believe the current issue of Moneysense magazine has an insert discussing planners.  Their magazine and website (www.moneysense.ca) are good sources of reliable, Canadian financial advice. "Banks are currently a lot less open to 'creative financing' than they were a few years ago, but you may still be able to take advantage of the tactic of splitting the loan into two parts, a smaller 'second mortgage' sometimes called a 'purchase money second' at a slightly higher interest rate for around 15-20% of the value, and the remaining in a conventional mortgage.  Since this tactic has been around for a long time, it's not quite in the category of the shenanegans they were pulling a few years back, so has a lot more potential to still be an option.  I did this in for my first house in '93 and again in '99 when I moved to a larger home after getting married.  It allowed me to get into both houses with less than 20% down and not pay PMI. This way neither loan is above 80% so you don't have to pay PMI.  The interest on the second loan will be higher, but usually only a few percent, and is thus usually a fraction of what you were paying for the PMI. (and it's deductible from your taxes) If you've been making your payments on time and have a good credit rating, then you might be able to find someone who would offer you such a deal.  You might even be able to get a rate for your primary that is down in the low 4's depending on where rates are today and what your credit rating is like.   If you can get the main loan low enough, even if the other is like say 7%, your blended rate may still be right around 5% If you can find a deal like this, it's also great material to use to negotiate with your current lender ""either help me get the PMI off this loan or I'm going to refinance.""  Then you can compare what they will offer you with what you can get in a refinance and decide what makes the most sense for you.  On word of warning, when refinancing, do NOT get sucked into an adjustable rate mortgage.  If you are finding life 'tight' right now with house payments and all, the an ARM could be highly seductive since they often offer a very low initial rate.. however then invariably adjust upwards, and you could suddenly find yourself with a monster payment far larger than what you have now.  With low rates where they are, getting a conventional fixed rate loan (or loans in the case of the tactic being discussed here) is the way to go." The monthly payment difference isn't that great On a $300K loan, the 30 year monthly payment (at 4%) is $1432, the 15 year (at 3.5%) is $2145, that $712 per month, or 50% higher payment. $712 is the total utility or food bill for a couple. If that $1432 represents 25% of income (a reasonable number) then $2145 is over 35%. I'd rather use that money for something else and not obligate myself at the start of the mortgage.  Given how little we save as a country, the $712 is best put into a matched 401(k) in the US or other retirement account if elsewhere. I know this question has a lot of answers already, but I feel the answers are phrased either strongly against, or mildly for, co-signing. What it amounts down to is that this is a personal choice. You cannot receive reliable information as to whether or not co-signing this loan is a good move due to lack of information. The person involved is going to know the person they would be co-signing for, and the people on this site will only have their own personal preferences of experiences to draw from. You know if they are reliable, if they will be able to pay off the loan without need for the banks to come after you.  This site can offer general theories, but I think it should be kept in mind that this is wholly a personal decision for the person involved, and them alone to make based on the facts that they know and we do not. "As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad.  The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase.  I am on the side of ""don't do it"" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more.  Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA." "When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have ""more skin in the game"" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI."