Difference between a mortgage and buy-to-let in UK
"Residential mortgages normally explicitly state that the property cannot be let without explicit permission, whereas BTL mortgages typically require that the property be let. There are other differences. Residential mortgages are regulated, which means that consumers have a degree of protection from mis-selling; most BTLs are not, as landlords are expected to know what they're doing. Affordability of residential mortgages are based on your income, since that is how you are going to pay for them. BTLs are (mostly) assessed based on the property's rental income, since it's that that will fund the mortgage. Finally, residential mortgages are typically done on a repayment basis, so that at the end of the term, you've paid off the entire loan, whereas BTLs are typically interest-only, on the assumption that you'll either sell the property, or remortgage, at the end of the term. (I've used words like ""typically"" a lot to give an overall picture of the differences. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that, and there are exceptions to a lot of the above descriptions.)" In my experience buy-to-let mortgages charge a higher rate of interest than an personal residential mortgage.  They are regarded as a business enterprise and presumably the banks calculate that they carry a higher risk.  A bank would probably take action if the property on an ordinary mortgage was rented out, as you would be breaking their terms.  Policies could be rendered void.  The terms on an ordinary mortgage disallow renting out the property. Another factor that makes Buy to let more expensive is the risk involved. With a buy to let you are dependent on finding a tenant that will keep regular payments. if the property is left empty you need to finance the mortgage yourself putting you under financial strain and raising risk. Also as Chis mentioned they are regarded as a business enterprise, If the mortgage was to be taken by a business that would be very high risk for a bank as the business could dissolve leaving the bank out of pocket. Because of this it can be very difficult to get a buy to let through a business unless you are moving from a personal portfolio. For a regular mortgage these risks don't exist so this is reflected in lower interest repayments. It's because of these differences in risk that banks created buy to let so they can better manage those risks.
"I just wanted to give you a different perspective, as I own a house (purchased with a mortgage), with my girlfriend. I think it can be done safely and fairly, but you do need to involve legal help to do it right. There really is nothing to be terrified about, the extra cost to set this up was almost irrelevant in the bigger picture of legal costs around purchasing and the documents describing the ownership scheme are quite straightforward. Maybe it's a UK thing, but it seems rather commonplace here.  We've chosen to hold this as ""tenants in common"" and use a trust deed for this when we purchased. We had a solicitor write the trust deed and it clearly states what percentage of the house is owned by either party and exactly what the steps would be taken, should we decide to end the trust (e.g. in case of a split-up). This includes things like the right to buy out the other person before selling on the market etc.  We also had to make wills separately to indicate what should happen with our percentage of the property in case one of us died as with this type of ownership it doesn't automatically go to the other person.  Finally we're both on the mortgage, which I guess is the main difference versus your situation. But again, you could get legal advice as to how this should best be handled." In the UK there is a significant difference between taking money out of a bank account and out of a credit card account. Banks typically require explicit authorisation before they will transfer money out of a bank account - for example a direct debit agreement. (North American banks are much less strict, and will transfer your money to any reasonably reputable financial organization who asks for it - don't get me started!). However credit cards run very differently. Essentially the onus is on the vendor to get the authorization, which is why you can sign a credit card slip at the corner store, or give your credit card details over the phone, or fill in an online form, and have your credit card account charged. When you signed the credit card agreement you agreed to let people do this. It's also why the credit card company will reverse a transaction if you claim it was unauthorized. So essentially PayPal is like the specialty store you phone up to order something and give your credit card details to - they have just as much authorization to charge your account. Your only protection is that the credit card company will investigate any transactions you claim are fraudulent, and will reimburse you if it is- even if they can't recover the money themselves. "Being ""long"" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process:  1) buy 2) sell Being ""short"" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process:  1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)" I think it really depends on how much you take out of your Nationwide account each month. At a certain point, it will become cheaper just to transfer your monthly rent + living allowance via an international bank transfer or using one of the currency transfer services like xe.com or Hifx. You will have to pay fees either way and/or you'll end up with a forex spread. If you have got enough money in your UK account to cover several months' worth of expenses in Germany, I would be tempted to make one big transfer every few months instead of a a monthly one; anything more than once a month is probably going to be too costly either way. It might also be worth comparing the transfer fees charged by the various banks, when I lived in the UK and had to regularly send money to Germany I found there was a massive difference between different banks for essentially the same service. Personal loans are typically more expensive (have higher interest) than mortgages, because they are not backed by an immovable asset. So you should reconsider the decision to not want a mortgage; it would be cheaper. Aside from that, once you get a personal loan, you are free to do with it whatever you want; this includes sending it to your parents, buying something, gambling it away in Vegas, or take out cash and burn it. So, yes, you can. Sending money from the UK to other EU countries should be easy and simple, once it is in your account, your bank can help you to make the transfer. I assume you understand that if your parents walk away with the money, you are left holding the bag. You are taking the full risk, and you will have to pay it back. When looking at buying and selling, you really need to look at the overall picture for the short term. What would the closing cost be? Would you pay a buyers agent, or use the sellers? Loan generation fees? All of these would add up, and would affect you timeline adversely. You are currently comparing you rent, versus your plain mortgage and taxes. You're missing the losses you could possibly incur, if you do not stay int he home for the long term. You also have to rememberer the possibility of the property not renting long term, can you swing two mortgages? Or a mortgage and a rent check? "that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage.  So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home.  From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for ""retirement income"".  Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone.  Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage).  You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments." The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.