What do I need to consider when refinancing one home to pay the down-payment of another?
What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation.  While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of.  Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it.  You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings.   From there things get trickier.   While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent.  PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk.  The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it.  That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation.   Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property.  Some are able to make it work.  Some of those go broke or lose their properties.   when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%.  Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment.  It's not worth the fees of a refinance. and I need to upgrade my current home to a larger, longer-term property Would selling your current home give you (at least) a 20% DP on the new home? Take additional cash out of the refinance of the first home to accelerate saving Dittoing D Stanley, that makes no sense. Purchase and move to a second property of greater cost and value to first You'll need to find the new house at the same time you're selling the existing home, and write the new-home purchase contract in such a way that you can back out in case the purchaser of your home backs out.
It is a decent time to purchase real estate despite dsquid's opinion.  I feel dsquid is falling for the old economic psychology of what ever direction its going it will continuing in that direction, which is a bad mentality for any investing (up or down).     This may not be the bottom, and there is some sign that another dip is coming with in a year or two.  But if you purchase now, and focus on a few key factors you may end up on the upside of the swing.  First and foremost location matters more then value of the property.  When the pent up demand is eventually released (after we get employment moving in the right direction) you will see a land grab.  The first and highest valued places are those with nice neighborhoods and good schools as the young families (economically unburdened) start making homes.    Second pay attention to valuation in so much as your burden.  This means consider taxes and mortgage and terms of mortgage (stay away from variable or balloon rates).  When thing go up the interest rates will lead the way.  In this time of uncertainty you should make sure you can cover your mortgage payment with ease.  Put plenty down (20% being the recommended to avoid mortgage insurance and long term costs) and shoot low on  price.  If you're handy you may even consider buying something that needs minor work (outdated kitchen or the like).   If you shoot lower then your limit, then you'll be comfortable even if things turn sour for you.  Ultimately all this hinges on what you want to do with the property.  Its a wise time to buy homes today where you will be able to rent them out tomorrow.  But the important thing is aim in the middle instead of at your limit (450 is definitely your limit).  Remember banks will always tell you that you're able to afford twice as much as you actually should.  And keep in mind, no matter how new or nice the home, it will need work at some point and that costs.  So you should have that in mind when you consider savings.  Based on your information I wouldnt shoot higher then 250-300k.  I have friends who make your salary in dividends plus two incomes and they are comfortable in their home at its 250 price.  They are able to afford repairs and upgrade regularly and arent threatened by potential tax hikes (though they gripe of course).   The one good piece of advice from dsquid IMHO is that you should be ready for the environment to change.  Higher interests rates will weigh on your comfort as much as CPI and increased taxes will so plan for them to be much higher and you'll be ahead of the game. "The general answer to this is ""yes"".  When you're dealing with single-digit millionaires, the answer is that their insurance habits and needs are basically the same as everyone else.  When you get into the double digit and triple digit millionaires, or people worth billions, they have additional options, but those basically boil down to using ""self-insurance"" rather than paying a company for an insurance policy.  The following is based on both what I've read and a fair deal of personal experience working for or with various stripes of millionaire, and even one billionaire. Addressing the types of insurance you mention: This is generally used to provide survivors with a replacement for income you can no longer provide when dead, in addition to paying for costs associated with dying (funeral, hospital/hospice bills, etc).  Even millionaires and billionaires have this, yes, but the higher your net worth, the less value it has.  If you're worth 9 or 10 figures, you probably already have trust funds set up for your family members, so an extra payout from an insurance policy is probably going to represent a small fraction of the wealth you're leaving your survivors, and as has been noted, insurance makes a profit, so the expectation by the insurance company is that they'll make more money on the policy than they'll have to pay out on death.  That being said, the members of the 9+ figure club I've worked for all had multi-million dollar life insurance policies on them, which were paid for or heavily subsidized by the companies they owned or worked for.  I doubt they would have held those policies if they had to pay the full cost, but when it's free or cheap, why not? Absolutely.  As health insurance in America is an untaxed employment benefit, owing to regulations from World War II, all the wealthy folks I've had contact with got outrageously good plans as part of the companies they work for or owned.  Having said that, even their trust fund beneficiaries held health insurance, because this type of insurance (in America, at least) is actually not really insurance, it's more of a pre-payment plan for medical expenses, and as such, it provides broader access to health care than you'd get from simply having enough money to pay for whatever treatments you need.  If you walk into a hospital as a millionaire and state that you'll definitely be able to pay for your open-heart surgery with cash, you'll get a very different response than if you walk in with your insurance card and your ""diamond-level"" coverage.  So, in this case, it's not as much as about the monetary benefits (although this is a type of ""insurance"" that's generally free or heavily discounted to the individual, so that's a factor) as it is about easier access to health care. Although this is required by law, it's one of the common forms of insurance that the very wealthy can, and often do handle differently than the rest of us.  Most (if not all) US states have a provision to allow motorists to self-insure themselves, which amount to putting up a bond to cover claims against them.  Basically, you deposit the minimum amount the state determines is required for auto insurance with the responsible state organization, get a certificate of self-insurance and you're good to go.  All the high wealth individuals I know when this route, for two reasons - first of all, they didn't have to deal with insurance companies (or pay sky-high rates on account of all the speeding tickets they picked up) and secondly, they made their deposit with government bonds they had in their portfolios anyway, and they could still collect the interest on their self-insurance deposits.  Of course, this meant that if they wrecked or dinged up their Maserati or Bentley or whatever, they'd be out of pocket to repair or replace it... but I guess if you can afford one $200,000 car, you can afford to buy a second one if you wreck it, or get by riding one of your other luxury automobiles instead. Since someone else mentioned kidnapping insurance, I'll point out here that what Robert DeNiro did in Casino when he put a couple million dollars into a safety deposit box for his wife to use if he was kidnapped or needed to pay off a government official is essentially the same thing as ""self-insurance"".  Putting money away somewhere for unexpected events in lieu of buying an insurance policy against them. In real life, the very wealthy will often do this with US treasuries, government bonds and other interest-bearing, safe investments. They make a little money, diversify their portfolios and at the same time, self-insure against a potential big loss. This is another insurance area where even the very wealthy are remarkably similar to the rest of us, in that they all generally have it, yes, although the reason is a little different.  For normal folks, the home they own is generally the largest part of their net worth, or at least a very substantial fraction, for those older folks with retirement savings that exceed the value of their homes.  So for us, we have home owners insurance to prevent a catastrophic event from wiping out the lion's share of our net worth. If you're an ultra-wealthy individual who can afford an 8 figure home, that's not really the case (at least with the ones I've dealt with, who made their fortunes in business and are good managing their wealth and diversifying their assets - could be different for sports stars or the entertainment industry), and these people generally own multiple homes anyway, so it's not as big a deal if they lose one. However, no one actually buys a multi-million dollar home by writing a multi-million dollar check.  They get a mortgage, just like the rest of us.  And to get a mortgage, insurance on the property is a requirement.  So yes, even the ultra wealthy generally have insurance on their home(s).  There is an element of not wanting to shell out another 20 million if the place burns down, or someone breaks in and steals your valuables, but the bigger part of the reason is that it's required to get a mortgage in the first place, which is generally done for financial reasons - interest on your mortgage is a tax deduction, and you don't want to sink millions of dollars all at once into buying a property that's not going to appreciate in value, when you can get a mortgage and invest those millions of dollars to make more money instead." This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage.  So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage.   These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan.   Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t.  Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first.  Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker.    This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose.   (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.) "I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment.  I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation.  When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you.  But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank.  The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front.  The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a ""95% Loan-to-Value ratio"" is 2.75%.  Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling.  Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP?  There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy.  I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada.  Read here, here, and here." "I'm going to answer your questions out of order. Emergency fund: Depending on how conservative you are and how much insurance you have, you may want anywhere from 3-12 months of your expenses on hand. I like to keep 6 months worth liquid in a ""high-yield"" savings account. For your current expenses that would be $24k, but when this transaction completes, you will have a mortgage payment (which usually includes home-owners insurance and property taxes in addition to your other expenses) so a conservative guess might be an additional $3k/month, or a total of $42k for six months of expenses. So $40-$100k for an emergency fund depending on how conservative you are personally. Down payment: You should pay no less than 20% down ($150k) on a loan that size, particularly since you can afford it. My own philosophy is to pay as much as I can and pay the loan off as soon as possible, but there are valid reasons not to do that. If you can get a higher rate of return from that money invested elsewhere you may wish to keep a mortgage longer and invest the other money elsewhere. Mortgage term: A 15-year loan will generally get you the best interest rate available. If you paid $400k down, financing $350k at a 3.5% rate, your payment would be about $2500 on a 15-year loan. That doesn't include property taxes and home-owners insurance, but without knowing precisely where you live, I have no idea whether those would keep you inside the $3000 of additional monthly home expenses I mentioned above when discussing the emergency fund. That's how I would divide it up. I'd also pay more than the $2500 toward the mortgage if I could afford to, though I've always made that decision on a monthly basis when drawing up the budget for the next month." When evaluating a refinance, it all comes down to the payback. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. There are different reasons for refinancing, and they all have different methods for calculating payback.  One reason to finance is to get a lower interest rate. When determining the payback time, you calculate how long it would take to recover your closing costs with the amount you save in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. The longer you hold the mortgage after you refinance, the more money you save in interest with the new rate. Generally, it doesn't pay to refinance to a lower rate right before you sell, because you aren't holding the mortgage long enough to see the interest savings. You seem to be 3 years away from selling, so you might be able to see some savings here in the next three years.  A second reason people refinance is to lower their monthly payment if they are having trouble paying it. I see you are considering switching from a 15 year to a 30 year; is one of your goals to reduce your monthly payment? By refinancing to a 30 year, you'll be paying a lot of interest in your first few years of payments, extending the payback time of your lower interest rate.  A third reason people refinance is to pull cash out of their equity. This applies to you as well. Since you are planning on using it to remodel the home you are trying to sell, you have to ask yourself if the renovations you are planning will payoff in the increased sale price of your home. Often, renovations don't increase the value of their home as much as they cost. You do renovations because you will enjoy living in the renovated home, and you get some of your money back when you sell. But sometimes you can increase the value of your home by enough to cover the cost of the renovation. Talk to a real estate agent in your area to get their advice on how much the renovations you are talking about will increase the value of your home. From Getting Rid of PMI: Per the federal Homeowners' Protection Act, you can ask that your PMI be canceled when you've paid down your mortgage to 80% of the loan, if you have a good record of payment and compliance with the terms of your mortgage, you make a written request, and you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down.  What's more, when you've paid down your mortgage to 78% of the original loan, the law says that the lender must automatically cancel your PMI. (So in this case to prove it hasn't gone down, an appraisal is in order) But all of this doesn't answer the question. The PMI is a separate line item, once it's removed, your total monthly payment drops. You are welcome to keep it in, and indicate it should be a prepayment of principal, if that's your wish, but that's up to you, it's not automatic.  In researching this the first time, I ran into an article How to Calculate PMI Costs in which an example is given where a 91% LTV $200K loan has a PMI cost of $1000/yr. So, the impact of not having that extra $20K or so is to pay what amount to an extra 5% on the last $20K of the loan. The PMI doesn't scale over time. When you are $10K away from 80% LTV, you still pay the $1K/yr. For this reason, if you absolutely must go over 80% LTV, I'd suggest shopping for a bank that will permit the excess to be a home equity loan.  At least the payoff of that 2nd loan in totally in your control. The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself.  Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you.  Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings.