Optimal down payment amount
"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return.  When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well.  When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return.  You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be.  If you think you can ""game the system"" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money).  If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power.   Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not ""hedge"" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate.  The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in ""real"" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your ""reinvestment rate"" (the return you can get from investing the ""borrowed"" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk).  When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no ""optimal"" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest)." The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)
The more you put down now, the less money you are borrowing.  30yrs of interest adds up. Even paying a small amount at the beginning of the mortgage can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan. That's why you'll find advice to make extra mortgage payments in the beginning.  The question is: Do you have a better use for that money?   In particular, do you have any higher-interest debt (higher APR than your mortgage) that needs to be paid off?  You generally want to take care of those first.   Beyond that can you invest the extra down payment money elsewhere (eg stock market) and get a better return than your mortgage rate?  (don't forget about taxes on investment profits). If so, that money will do more good there. If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease.  In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate. You need to look at the numbers when you're ready to transact.  What your crossover is worth now, what the truck will lease for then, what financing deals may or may not be available will all change. I'm not sure why you've already decided you will lease the truck, perhaps you're planning to take advantage of some kind of business write off.  I would personally never put anything down on a lease, though I have argued with people on here about that particular decision.  The reality is you need to look at the numbers.  Some banks will adjust the interest you pay on your lease to account for your down payment, some don't.   Consider a $9,000 lease, $250 per month for 36 months.  Consider you pay $1,000 up front as a down payment.   Example 1: $1,000 lowers the amount due on the lease to $8,000 lowering your monthly payment to $222.22 from $250, the downpayment has accomplished nothing.  Over the 36 months you will have still paid the same $9,000.   Example 2: $1,000 up front changes the amount owed and other fees generally applicable to a lease (gap insurance etc) and your payment drops to $215, your total over the lease is now $8,740 ($1,000 down and $7,740 in payments).   You need to look at the numbers.  In general if you know you will be purchasing the truck at the end of the lease it's more financially advantageous to just purchase it from the start. As you own a company, you need to know what your role is. You can never just move money into or out of the company, you have to identify the role in which you are doing it, and do it properly.  There is Company, and there is You, in three different roles. You are the sole shareholder and director of Company. You are the sole employee of Company. You are also just a private person. You need to keep these three roles separate. As the sole shareholder, you own the company. However, you don't own any assets of the company. The company is yours, but the money in its bank account isn't.  As a private person, you give a loan to your company. You write on a sheet of paper that You personally, give a loan to the company, how much a loan is, what interest is paid, and when the loan will be paid back (that could be 'whenever You demands the money paid back'). Then you move the money from your private bank account to the company bank account, and the company has the money it needs to fund its operation. Assume it wasn't you who loaned the money, but I gave the loan to the company. You can imagine that I would have this loan written down and signed before I hand over the cash. And you must have exactly the same papers that I would have.  How do you get money from the company? The company can pay back your loan. That should be written down again, in the same way as the loan itself was written down. Other than that, there are three ways how you can get money out of the company: The company can pay You, in your role as its employee, a salary, which it can deduct from its profits. The company can pay money into a pension of the company director (that's You in your role as company director) up to £40,000 or so a year; that money is deducted from its profits again. The company pays 20% tax on its remaining profits. Then the company can pay You, in your role as company director, a dividend, usually twice a year. Each of these payments has to be written down and given to HMRC properly.  Best by far to use an accountant to do all the paper work for you and advice you what to do. You can lose a lot of money by just not getting the paperwork right, by filing late etc., which the accountant will get right. The accountant will also tell you what are the optimal amounts for salary and dividend (best is a small salary, about £10,000 a year, dividend of about £30,000 a year, pension as much as the company can afford, which is then all tax free to you). You can't pay more dividend then the company can afford (paying a dividend and then not being able to pay your suppliers is criminal), and if you want higher dividends, then you will have to pay taxes on them. "The only way to ""roll"" debt into a home purchase is to have sufficient down payment.  Under the ""new"" lending rules that took effect in Canada earlier this year, you must have at least 5% of the purchase price as a down payment.  If you have $60,000 in additional debt, the total amount of mortgage still cannot be greater than 95% of the purchase price.  Below is an example. Purchase price of home $200,000. Maximum mortgage $190,000 (95% of purchase price) Total outside debt $60,000 That means the mortgage (other than the current debt of $60k) can only be $130,000 This means you would need a down payment of $70,000. Also keep in mind that I have not included any other legal fees, real estate commissions, etc in this example. Since it is safe to assume that you do not have $70k available for a down payment, renting and paying down the debt is likely the better route.  Pay off the credit card(s) first as they have the higher interest amount. Best of luck!" "There are actually a few questions you are asking here. I will try and address each individually. Down Payment What you put down can't really be quantified in a dollar amount here. $5k-$10k means nothing. If the house costs $20k then you're putting 50% down. What is relevant is the percent of the purchase price you're putting down.  That being said, if you go to purchase a property as an investment property (something you wont be moving into) then you are much more likely to be putting a down payment much closer to 20-25% of the purchase price. However, if you are capable of living in the property for a year (usually the limitation on federal loans) then you can pay much less. Around 3.5% has been my experience. The Process Your plan is sound but I would HIGHLY suggest looking into what it means to be a landlord. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. You need to know the tenant landlord laws in your city AND state. You need to call a tax consultant and speak to them about what you will be charging for rent, and how much you should withhold for taxes. You also should talk to them about what write offs are available for rental properties. ""Breaking Even"" with rent and a mortgage can also mean loss when tax time comes if you don't account for repairs made. Financing  Your first rental property is the hardest to get going (if you don't have experience as a landlord). Most lenders will allow you to use the potential income of a property to qualify for a loan once you have established yourself as a landlord. Prior to that though you need to have enough income to afford the mortgage on your own.  So, what that means is that qualifying for a loan is highly related to your debt to income ratio. If your properties are self sustaining and you still work 40 hours a week then your ability to qualify in the future shouldn't be all that impacted. If anything it shows that you are a responsible credit manager.  Conclusion I can't stress enough to do YOUR OWN research. Don't go off of what your friends are telling you. People exaggerate to make them seem like they are higher on the socioeconomic ladder then they really are. They also might have chicken little syndrome and try to discourage you from making a really great choice. I run into this all the time. People feel like they can't do something or they're to afraid so you shouldn't be able to either. If you need advice go to a professional or read a book. Good luck!" "How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. ""There's no free lunch"" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk.  Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium.   With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help." "The question that I walk away with is ""What is the cost of the downside protection?"" Disclaimer - I don't sell anything. I am not a fan of insurance as an investment, with rare exceptions. (I'll stop there, all else is a tangent) There's an appeal to looking at the distribution of stock returns. It looks a bit like a bell curve, with a median at 10% or so, and a standard deviation of 15 or so. This implies that there are some number of years on average that the market will be down, and others, about 2/3, up. Now, you wish to purchase a way of avoiding that negative return, and need to ask yourself what it's worth to do so.  The insurance company tells you (a) 2% off the top, i.e. no dividends and (b) we will clip the high end, over 9.5%.  I then am compelled to look at the numbers. Knowing that your product can't be bought and sold every year, it's appropriate to look at 10-yr rolling returns. The annual returns I see, and the return you'd have in any period. I start with 1900-2012. I see an average 9.8% with STD of 5.3%. Remember, the 10 year rolling will do a good job pushing the STD down. The return the Insurance would give you is an average 5.4%, with STD of .01. You've bought your way out of all risk, but at what cost?  From 1900-2012, my dollar grows to $30080, yours, to $406. For much of the time, treasuries were higher than your return. Much higher.  It's interesting to see how often the market is over 10% for the year, clip too many of those and you really lose out.  From 1900-2012, I count 31 negative years (ouch) but 64 years over 9.5%. The 31 averaged -13.5%, the 64, 25.3%.  The illusion of ""market gains"" is how this product is sold. Long term, they lag safe treasuries."