When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more?
You put 20% down and already owe the 80% or $80k, so you don't have the ability to borrow $100k or even $20k for that matter. As LittleAdv stated, the banks have really tightened their lending criteria. Borrowing out more than 80% carries a high premium if you can get it at all.  In your example, you want the property to increase in value by at least 10% to borrow $10K. "Generally, when you own something - you can give it as a collateral for a secured loan. That's how car loans work and that's how mortgages work. Your ""equity"" in the asset is the current fair value of the asset minus all your obligations secured by it. So if you own a property free and clear, you have 100% of its fair market value as your equity. When you mortgage your property, banks will usually use some percentage loan-to-value to ensure they're not giving you more than your equity now or in a foreseeable future. Depending on the type and length of the loan, the LTV percentage varies between 65% and 95%. Before the market crash in 2008 you could even get more than 100% LTV, but not anymore. For investment the LTV will typically be lower than for primary residence, and the rates higher. I don't want to confuse you with down-payments and deposits as it doesn't matter (unless you're in Australia, apparently). So, as an example, assume you have an apartment you rent out, which you own free and clear. Lets assume its current FMV is $100K. You go to a bank and mortgage the apartment for a loan (get a loan secured by that apartment) at 65% LTV (typical for condos for investment). You got yourself $65K to buy another unit free and clear. You now have 2 apartments with FMV $165K, your equity $100K and your liability $65K. Mortgaging the new unit at the same 65% LTV will yield you another $42K loan - you may buy a third unit with this money. Your equity remains constant when you take the loan and invest it in the new purchase, but the FMV of your assets grows, as does the liability secured by them. But while the mortgage has fixed interest rate (usually, not always), the assets appreciate at different rates. Now, lets be optimistic and assume, for the sake of simplicity of the example, that in 2 years, your $100K condo is worth $200K. Voila, you can take another $65K loan on it. The cycle goes on. That's how your grandfather did it." It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%. @victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done.  The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth.  By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked.  Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression.  People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment.
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. "I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property.  This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate.  Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting.  But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science.  Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so).  It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them.   Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work.  With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss).  With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment.  You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions).  Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things.  As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point.  If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in.  So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for.  This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future?  There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord).  If the property is in an ""up-and-coming"" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund.  If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for).  Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation." The finance sector is comprised of such enterprises as banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate. It is traditionally contrasted with what has been called the 'real economy' because funds created and utilized in this sector produce neither goods, services or fixed capital. The unproductive nature of transactions can easily be seen in such things as real estate. When a company undertakes to build a house or whatever its input goes directly to the labor and goods necessary for such a project. At its worst the financial sector mobilizes funds not just for production but for simple acquisition. Should a company raise the funds to buy an already existing building or the mortgage on same quite obviously nothing is produced. Same building on day one as when it was owned by another.   That, of course, is an extreme example as are corporate takeovers via private equity. In that case the efforts of the financial sector are not just non-productive but are often in fact ''anti-productive'' as they destroy or prevent the use of real factors of production. This 'anti-productive' action was demonstrated on a massive global scale during the last financial crisis.   The basically parasitic nature of the financial sector isn't always so blatant. There are some that argue that its 'services' can be valuable to the real economy. Perhaps, but that has to be determined on a case by case examination **and** while keeping the idea ''is there a better way to do this** in one's mind. "Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go." It sounds as though you were able to purchase your properties through fortuitous circumstances.   Not everyone is going to have spare cash lying around, especially considering [ 71% of  US college grads have loan debt, averaging ~$30,000.](http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-data.php) It is easier to get a loan on a rental than a flip, which is a huge advantage to rental properties. Leverage allows you to increase your returns and make more money off appreciation and higher rents. I use ARMs to finance my rental properties that are amortized over 30 years. I have to put 20 percent down, but my portfolio lender lets me get as many loans as I want. Because I put 20 percent down on my rental properties and they still have great cash flow I can buy three times as many properties as I could with cash purchases.  Buying more rental properties amplifies the other advantages like cash flow, equity pay down and the tax advantages. "Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your ""amount available to withdraw"" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario.  Scenario 2 -  If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly." What about the debt attached to more recently purchased properties, purchased at the price before the market gets flooded with baby-boomer homes? I'm not an expert in real estate finance, but it sounds like if that downward pressure on prices isn't slight, financial institutions will be taking that risk for anyone who defaults on a mortgage after their property loses a substantial amount of its value.  It seems like immigration could play an important role in offsetting this and keeping the prices stable, but that's a politically unpredictable issue to say the least.