Is it safe to take a new mortgage loan in Greece?
The safest financial decisions that you can make in Greece involve getting your money out of Greece. That said, it depends. If the economy is going to implode and you'll be out of the job with devalued savings -- you'll be bankrupt anyway. You didn't mention enough about your situation for anyone to really answer the question. In a high-inflation environment, *if*you have the assets to weather the storm, holding debt on real property and durable goods is a good thing. The key considerations are:  If you have the means, times of crisis are great opportunities. "While I would be very leery of making any Investments in Greece, and if I lived there might want to strongly consider a larger than average investment in 'international' funds (such as an index fund on the US, UK, or German exchanges) Having debt in Greece might not be such a bad thing... if only it was denominated in local currency. The big issue is that right now, you'd be taking out a loan on property in greece, that would be denominated in Euros.  If worse comes to worse, and Greece is kicked out of the EU and forced to go back to the drachma, then you might be in a situation where the bank says ""this loan is in Euros, we want payment in the same"" and if the drachma is plummeting vs the Euro, you could find your earning power (presuming you were then paid in drachma) greatly diminished.. And since you'd be selling the house for drachma, you might be way under-water in terms of the value of the house (due to currency exchange) vs what you owed. Now, if Greece were currently on the drachma, and you were talking about a mortgage in the same, I'd say go for it.  Since what tends to happen when a government has way overspent is they just print more money rather than default.. that tends to lead to inflation, and a falling currency value vs other countries.  None of which is bad for someone with a debt which would be rapidly shrinking due to the effect of inflation. but right now, safer to rent." "Please clarify your question. What do you mean by ""..loan in Greece""? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time." No it is not safe to take out a new mortgage - loan or anything credit related or any investment - in greece. Growing political risk, bonds have junk credit rating.  You will be underwater on your mortgage the day you apply for it. And you better believe that the buyers will be dry once you realize that it doesn't make sense to keep paying the mortgage. If you want to have some assets, there are more liquid things you can own, in your case: paper gold. Just rent.
I think a simplified version of what you are asking is how much benefit you will receive from lower mortgage payments on your future $400k (roughly) home loan by having a higher credit score than now, and whether taking a car loan now will increase that benefit more than the value of the car loan. Since you already know the cost to you of the car loan, the other two thing you need to know in order to answer that question are: 1- the amount of increase a car loan gives your credit score, and 2- how much lower your mortgage interest rate will be with a higher credit score. Answering #1 seems like fuzzy credit magic to me that someone else may be able to answer, but #2 should be easy to determine by talking to a mortgage broker to see what rate you can get with your current credit score, and finding out how much higher it needs to be in order to get a better rate. Then you can take the difference in mortgage payments between the two rates and compare that to your car loan value. "Your argument is biased vastly in favor of the banks:  Doesn't the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by yourself that Fannie and Freddie were at the root of the problem?  Why does your explanation also leave out predatory lending? Or that during 2006, 22% of homes purchased (1.65 million units) were for investment purposes, with an additional 14% (1.07 million units) purchased as vacation homes. During 2005, these figures were 28% and 12%, respectively. In other words, a record level of nearly 40% of homes purchased were not intended as primary residences.   Or that housing prices nearly doubled between 2000 and 2006, a vastly different trend from the historical appreciation at roughly the rate of inflation.  Or that the proportion of subprime ARM loans made to people with credit scores high enough to qualify for conventional mortgages with better terms increased from 41% in 2000 to 61% by 2006.   From wikipedia: So why did lending standards decline? In a Peabody Award winning program, NPR correspondents argued that a ""Giant Pool of Money"" (represented by $70 trillion in worldwide fixed income investments) sought higher yields than those offered by U.S. Treasury bonds early in the decade. Further, this pool of money had roughly doubled in size from 2000 to 2007, yet the supply of relatively safe, income generating investments had not grown as fast. Investment banks on Wall Street answered this demand with financial innovation such as the mortgage-backed security (MBS) and collateralized debt obligation (CDO), which were assigned safe ratings by the credit rating agencies. In effect, Wall Street connected this pool of money to the mortgage market in the U.S., with enormous fees accruing to those throughout the mortgage supply chain, from the mortgage broker selling the loans, to small banks that funded the brokers, to the giant investment banks behind them. By approximately 2003, the supply of mortgages originated at traditional lending standards had been exhausted. However, continued strong demand for MBS and CDO began to drive down lending standards, as long as mortgages could still be sold along the supply chain. Eventually, this speculative bubble proved unsustainable." "Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get ""cheap money"" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a ""shrinking collateral"" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business." You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer You definitely used to be able to (see this BBC article from 2006), and I would imagine that you still can, although I also imagine that it would be more difficult than it used to be, as with all mortgages. EDIT: And here's an article from last year about Chinese banks targeting the UK mortgage market. "It doesn't matter if the terms are a ""fair deal"" or are ""too good to be true"" — either way, it's definitely a scam. They are ""phishing"" for your personal information, including your banking information, and have no intention of giving you a loan. How can I tell? Simple: all such offers like this everywhere are scams. There is no economic situation other than being a scammer to do this. Why would an individual put out their money to strangers at such a high risk for even a much, much higher purported return? They wouldn't." You would probably be best off checking through your loan documents to see if anything is listed in it in regards to tearing down the existing house. Likely it is not allowed. Thinking about it logically, the house is collateral for the mortgage, and you are wanting to destroy the collateral. I would expect the bank would not be pleased. Semi related question (answers have some good info) -  Construction loan for new house replacing existing mortgaged house? Even post meltdown, there are banks that will lend money based on a low loan to value, so 50% might not be a problem. But such loans come at a price. The current 30 year fixed rated is 4.5% or so, but you might see quite a bit higher than this on the loan.