What is the preferred way to finance home improvements when preparing to sell your house?
You should look into a home equity line of credit: A home equity line of credit (often called HELOC and pronounced HEE-lock) is a loan in which the lender agrees to lend a maximum amount within an agreed period (called a term), where the collateral is the borrower's equity in his/her house. Because a home often is a consumer's most valuable asset, many homeowners use home equity credit lines only for major items, such as education, home improvements, or medical bills, and choose not to use them for day-to-day expenses. I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions: sheegaon's reply looks fine to me, a HELOC can usually be set up for a minimal ($50?) fee, and is currently a pretty low rate, mine is 2.5%.  If this doesn't appeal to you, my other suggestion is a 401(k) loan. While this is usually a last resort and 'not' recommended, a short term use may make sense. The rate is low, and you can pay in back in full after moving into the new house. In planning to buy a house, and sort out how to handle the costs of some initial renovations, I've been considering using Lowes and Home Depot credit cards (hopefully this will count differently than the typical credit cards I think you're referring to): http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?pn=Credit_Center&langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053 http://www.lowes.com/cd_Credit+Card+Accounts+from+Lowes_781778798_ You should definitely read the fine print first, as the interest rates can shoot up after the first 6 months if you don't pay the balance in full on some of them. Also, Lowes has a project card that gives you the 6 month no interest (only a minimum payment), and you don't have to pay off the full balance at the end.  This one even has more reasonable rates, so this could be a good way to go. You could take on more work. Pizza delivery, lawn work, babysitting, housecleaning, etc. None of those are much fun, but all are better than opening a credit card bill.
"https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development  https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/  https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/  https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant  https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/  Legit after 5 minutes of googling...and using the search bar in reddit for these jobs...  Actually, since you edited your response, here's why I found it kinda naive. You have a pretty good gig as a petroleum engineer in a F500 company. The only thing in your description that you're interested in a job is a corporate job. Which is for the most part all professional jobs. Its ok to be curious, but saying ""I don't like engineering but I like corporate jobs so tell me about corporate sounding jobs even though google has tons of articles on it"" sounds entitled and naive.    Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&amp;A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group.    Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company.    Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand.   I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance." An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home.   A mortgage   secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt,   even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or   substantially improve the home. This applies in the following   situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's   cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit   described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the   amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of   the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited   to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24   months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the   mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the   home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you   took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used   the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken   out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before   you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home   acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct. "I've been prompted to turn my comments into an answer -  Disclosure - I am a Realtor. I work for an investor for whom an offer on a house he will buy describes him as a ""cash buyer."" This phrase most often means one of two things -  The buyer has funds that are liquid enough to either wire the cash or produce a cashier's check in some number of days, a week or two would be common. (And not wait for another house to sell) The other point of this is that the seller is not willing to finance the property. The flip side being that the seller will take a down payment and let the buyer pay over time.  I am nearly 54, and I'm open to the fact that language changes. Definition follows usage. In personal finance, we refer to a stock/bond/cash mix. Here, the word ""cash"" simply means money such as money market or short term T-bills. A 60/30/10 mix doesn't mean I have a briefcase of cash under my bed for that 10%.  To answer the OP, I'd ask the seller does ""cash"" mean - Keep in mind, when a seller has a buyer who needs to sell their home first, there can be a chain going a few levels. When it's ""turtles all the way down"" it becomes too risky to the seller.  No, you are not out of luck. I'd open a dialog with the seller or their agent if any. Sales is all about understanding what each person's goal is." 1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money. You can increase your monthly cash flow in two ways: It's really that simple. I'd even argue that to a certain extent, decreasing expenses can be more cash-positive than increasing income by the same amount if you're spending post-tax money because increasing income generally increases your taxes. So if you have a chunk of cash and you want to increase your cash flow, you could decrease debt (like Chris suggested) and it would have the same effect on your monthly cash flow. Or you could invest in something that pays a dividend or pays interest. There are many options other than real estate, including dividend-paying stocks or funds, CDs, bonds, etc. To get started you could open an account with any of the major brokerage firms and get suggestions from their financial professionals, usually for free. They'll help you look at the risk/reward aspects of various investments. If you're looking for some formula, I don't think one exists. People talk about this all the time and give conflicting advice. If there was a proven-accurate formula, they wouldn't be debating it. There are basically 3 reasons to do a home improvement project: (a) Correct a problem so that you prevent on-going damage to your home. For example, have a leaking roof patched or replaced, or exterminate termites. Such a job is worthwhile if the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of future damage. In the case of my termite and leaking roof examples, this is almost always worth doing. Lesser maintenance problems might be more debatable. Similarly, some improvements may reduce expenses. Like replacing an old furnace with a newer model may cut your heating bills. Here the question is: how long does it take to repay the investment, compared to other things you might invest your money in. Just to make up numbers: Suppose you find that a new furnace will save you $500 per year. If the new furnace costs $2000, then it will take 4 years to pay for itself. I'd consider that a good investment. If that same $2000 furnace will only cut your heating bills by $100 per year, then it will take 20 years to pay for itself. You'd probably be better off putting the $2000 into the stock market and using the gains to help pay your heating bill. (b) Increase the resale value of your home. If you are paying someone else to do the work, the harsh reality here is: Almost no job will increase the resale value by more than the cost of getting the job done. I've seen many articles over the years citing studies on this. I think most conclude that kitchen remodeling comes closet to paying for itself, and bathrooms come next. New windows are also up there. I don't have studies to prove this, but my guesses would be: Replacing something that is basically nice with a different style will rarely pay for itself. Like, replacing oak cabinets with cherry cabinets. Replacing something that is in terrible shape with something decent is more likely to pay back than replacing something decent with something beautiful. Like if you have an old iron bathtub that's rusting and falling apart, replacing it may pay off. If you have a 5-year-old bathtub that's in good shape but is not premium, top of the line, replacing it with a premium bathtub will probably do very little for resale value. If you can do a lot of the work yourself, the story changes. Many home improvement jobs don't require a lot of materials, but do require a lot of work. If you do the labor, you can often get the job done very cheaply, and it's likely that the increase in resale value will be more than what you spend. For example, most of my house has hardwood floors. Lots of people like pretty hardwood floors. I just restained the floors in two rooms. It cost me, I don't know, maybe $20 or $30 for stain and some brushes. I'm sure if I tried to sell the house tomorrow I'd get my twenty bucks back in higher sale value. Realtors often advise sellers to paint. Again, if you do it yourself, the cost of paint may be a hundred dollars, and it can increase the sale price of the house by thousands. Of course if you do the work yourself, you have to consider the value of your time. (c) To make your home more pleasant to live in. This is totally subjective. You have to make the decision on the same basis that you decide whether anything that is not essential to survival is worth buying. To some people, a bottle of fancy imported wine is worth thousands, even millions, of dollars. Others can't tell the difference between a $10,000 wine and a $15 wine.  The thing to ask yourself is, How important is this home improvement to me, compared to other things I could do with the money? Like, suppose you're considering spending $20,000 remodeling your kitchen. What else could you do with $20,000? You could buy a car, go on an elaborate vacation, eat out several times a week for years, retire a little earlier, etc. No one can tell you how much something is worth to you. Any given home improvement may involve a combination of these factors. Like say you're considering that $20,000 kitchen remodeling. Say you somehow find out that this will increase the resale value by $15,000. If the only reason you were considering it was to increase resale value, then it's not worth it -- you'd lose $5,000. But if you also want the nicer kitchen, then it is fair to say, Okay, it will cost me $20,000, but ultimately I'll get $15,000 of that back. So in the long run it will only cost me $5,000. Is having a nicer kitchen worth $5,000 to me? Note, by the way, that resale value only matters if and when you sell the house. If you expect to stay in this house for 20 years, any improvements done are VERY long-term investments. If you live in it until you die, the resale value may matter to your heirs. 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. "From the HLSS 1st quarter 10Q: ""Match funded advances on loans serviced for others result from our transfers of residential loan servicing advances to SPEs in exchange for cash. The SPEs issue debt supported by collections on the transferred advances. We made these transfers under the terms of our advance facility agreements. These transfers do not qualify for sale accounting because we retain control over the transferred assets. As a result, we account for these transfers as financings and classify the transferred advances on our Interim Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as Match funded advances and the related liabilities as Match funded liabilities. We use collections on the Match funded advances pledged to the SPEs to repay principal and to pay interest and the expenses of the entity. Holders of the debt issued by this entity can look only to the assets of the entity itself for satisfaction of the debt and have no recourse against HLSS.""   I'm not an expert in the accounting of these things but I'll take a stab from the view of a bond investor.  Let's assume the mortgage(s) in question have been pooled together and sold into the bond market in the form of a mortgage-backed security (MBS).    When a homeowner falls behind on their payment, scheduled principal and interest (their monthly mortgage payment amount, or ""P&amp;I"") is advanced as if the borrower is still current to the person who holds the MBS.  This is typically done from the time they first fall behind until either they 1) catch up on their payments or, 2) are foreclosed upon and the home is sold to repay the mortgage balance.  In either instance the advanced monthly payments are recaptured by the servicer before the holder of the MBS is paid.  In this sense, the servicer develops a sort of prepaid asset over time by advancing money they are almost certain to recover at a future date (usually via foreclosure and liquidation).    Due to a high number of borrowers falling behind on their payments since the housing crisis and the resulting time it takes to foreclose on a property, the servicers (OCN, HLSS, etc.) have built a large balance of advances on the asset side of their balance sheet.  To free up this cash prior to liquidation of the home, they have sold short term bonds against this asset (via an SPE), thereby creating the liability you reference.  So in essence they have, say, a home they expect to be liquidated in twelve months that they have advanced P&amp;I on.  The short term bonds sold via the SPE offset this asset at an equivalent term, thereby making the asset and liability ""match funded""."