Should I put more money down on one property and pay it off sooner or hold on to the cash?
"I'm a little confused on the use of the property today.  Is this place going to be a personal residence for you for now and become a rental later (after the mortgage is paid off)?  It does make a difference. If you can buy the house and a 100% LTV loan would cost less than 125% of comparable rent ... then buy the house, put as little of your own cash into it as possible and stretch the terms as long as possible.  Scott W is correct on a number of counts.  The ""cost"" of the mortgage is the after tax cost of the payments and when that money is put to work in a well-managed portfolio, it should do better over the long haul.  Don't try for big gains because doing so adds to the risk that you'll end up worse off. If you borrow money at an after-tax cost of 4% and make 6% after taxes ... you end up ahead and build wealth. A vast majority of the wealthiest people use this arbitrage to continue to build wealth.  They have plenty of money to pay off mortgages, but choose not to.  $200,000 at 2% is an extra $4000 per year.  Compounded at a 7% rate ... it adds up to $180k after 20 years ... not exactly chump change. Money in an investment account is accessible when you need it.  Money in home equity is not, has a zero rate of return (before inflation) and is not accessible except through another loan at the bank's whim.  If you lose your job and your home is close to paid off but isn't yet, you could have a serious liquidity issue. NOW ... if a 100% mortgage would cost MORE than 125% of comparable rent, then there should be no deal.  You are looking at a crappy investment.  It is cheaper and better just to rent.  I don't care if prices are going up right now.  Prices move around.  Just because Canada hasn't seen the value drops like in the US so far doesn't mean it can't happen in the future.  If comparable rents don't validate the price with a good margin for profit for an investor, then prices are frothy and cannot be trusted and you should lower your monthly costs by renting rather than buying.  That $350 per month you could save in ""rent"" adds up just as much as the $4000 per year in arbitrage. For rentals, you should only pull the trigger when you can do the purchase without leverage and STILL get a 10% CAP rate or higher (rate of return after taxes, insurance and other fixed costs).  That way if the rental rates drop (and again that is quite possible), you would lose some of your profit but not all of it.  If you leverage the property, there is a high probability that you could wind up losing money as rents fall and you have to cover the mortgage out of nonexistent cash flow. I know somebody is going to say, ""But John, 10% CAP on rental real estate?  That's just not possible around here.""  That may be the case.  It IS possible somewhere.  I have clients buying property in Arizona, New Mexico, Alberta, Michigan and even California who are finding 10% CAP rate properties.  They do exist.  They just aren't everywhere. If you want to add leverage to the rental picture to improve the return, then do so understanding the risks.  He who lives by the leverage sword, dies by the leverage sword.  Down here in the US, the real estate market is littered with corpses of people who thought they could handle that leverage sword.  It is a gory, ugly mess." I'd suggest taking all the money you have saved up and putting in a mutual fund and hold off on buying a rental property until you can buy it outright.  I know it seems like this will take forever, but it has a HUGE advantage: I know it seems like it will take forever to save up the money to buy a property for cash, but in the long run, its the best option by far. I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest.  In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances.  You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property.  Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced.  The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2.  I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future.  I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification.  Don't put all of your money into one basket.  This includes real estate.  Like any other investment, real estate goes down too.  In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year.  While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio. My figuring (and I'm not an expert here, but I think this is basic math) is: Let's say you had a windfall of $1000 extra dollars today that you could either: a. Use to pay down your mortgage b. Put into some kind of equity mutual fund Maybe you have 20 years left on your mortgage.  So your return on investment with choice A is whatever your mortgage interest rate is, compounded monthly or daily.  Interest rates are low now, but who knows what they'll be in the future.  On the other hand, you should get more return out of an equity mutual fund investment, so I'd say B is your better choice, except: But that's also the other reason why I favour B over A.  Let's say you lose your job a year from now.  Your bank won't be too lenient with you paying your mortgage, even if you paid it off quicker than originally agreed.  But if that money is in mutual funds, you have access to it, and it buys you time when you really need it.  People might say that you can always get a second mortgage to get the equity out of it, but try getting a second mortgage when you've just lost your job. I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.
"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't ""revenue"" until the interest is calculated for each month and ""accrues"" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured ""signature loan"" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider ""stores of value"" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the ""broken window"" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely ""distressed"" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called ""toxic assets""; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a ""strategic default""; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales." "The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in ""other debt"" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter." This depends on what the alternative is. Your loan of .99% is very favorable rate. If you have the 15,000 right now but only hold it in your checking account or cash then you might as well just pay it all off(assuming you have an adequate emergency fund). Paying the debt off sooner will save you on interest. Currently if you pay the minimum you will pay a total of $15,230 by the end of the loan, a $230 premium to $15,000. - Math credit goes to  Joe If you have an investment vehicle you feel can successfully yield more then .99%, you might want to consider investing that money instead, while paying the minimum on your car loan. Also be sure to check the .99% is not an introductory rate which increases later on. It comes down to whether you can get a better return then .99% investing that money or whether you rather just pay off the debt and not worry about it. If you don't want to bother investing the money, than just pay it off... I also assumed you have no other revolving debt with a higher APR. If you do, first pay off the higher APR debt. "Let's assess the situation first, then look at an option: This leaves you with about $1,017/mo in cash flow, provided you spend money on nothing else (entertainment, oil changes, general merchandise, gifts, etc.) So I'd say take $200/mo off that as ""backup"" money. Now we're at $817/mo.  Question: What have you been doing with this extra $800/mo? If you put $600/mo of that extra towards the 10% loan, it would be paid off in 12 months and you would only pay $508 in interest. If you have been saving it (like all the wisest people say you should), then you should have plenty enough to either pay for a new transmission or buy a ""good enough"" car outright.  10% interest rate on a vehicle purchase is not very good. Not sure why you have a personal loan to handle this rather than an auto loan, but I'll guess you have a low credit score or not much credit history.  Cost of a new transmission is usually $1,700 - $3,500. Not sure what vehicle we're talking about, so let's make it $3,000 to be conservative.  At your current interest rate, you'll have paid another $1,450 in interest over the next 33 months just trying to pay off your underwater car.  If you take your old car to a dealership and trade it in towards a ""new to you"" car, you might be able to roll your existing loan into a new loan. Now, I'm not sure when you say personal loan if you mean an official loan from a bank or a personal loan from a friend/family-member, so that could make a difference. I'm also not sure if a dealership will be willing to recognize a personal loan in the transaction as I'd wager there's no lien against the vehicle for them to worry about. But, if you can manage it, you may be able to get a lower overall interest rate. If you can't roll it into a new financing plan, then you need to assess if you can afford a new loan (provided you even get approved) on top of your existing finances. One big issue that will affect interest rates and approvals will be your down payment amount. The higher it is, the better interest rate you'll receive. Ultimately, you're in a not-so-great position, but if your monthly budget is as you describe, then you'll be fine after a few more years. The perils of buying a used car is that you never know what might happen. What if you don't repair your existing car, buy another car, and it breaks down in a year? It's all a bit of a gamble. Don't let your emotions get in the way of making a decision. You might be frustrated with your current vehicle, but if $3,000 of repairs makes it last 3 more years, (by which time your current loan should be paid off), then you'll be in a much better spot to finance a newer vehicle. Of course it would be much better to save up cash over that time and buy something outright, but that's not always feasible.  Would you rather fix up your current car and keep working to pay down the debt, or, would you rather be rid of the car and put $3,000 down on a ""new to you"" car and take on an additional monthly debt? There's no single right answer for you. First and foremost you need to assess your monthly cash flow and properly allocate the extra funds. Get out of debt as soon as reasonably possible." I have this exact same issue.  Event the dollar amounts are close.  Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1:  Walk away.  Goodbye credit for 7+ years.  Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL.  With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it.  What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose?  What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2:  Short sale.  Good if I can let it happen.  I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state.  If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live.  If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure.  It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank.   Option 3:  Keep paying.  I am going for this.  At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live.  (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer).  I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years.  Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have.  I can't re-fi; too upside down.  I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance).  I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house.  I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not.  I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan.  They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place.  The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence.  I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can.  The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better.  I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years. The financially best choice depends on which has a lower interest rate and what your other debts are. If you have significant other debts with a higher interest rate, it may make good sense to sign up for the longer-term loan and use your extra money to pay those down first.  Then pay down your mortgage with large payments. If you don't have significant other debts, then it is likely a good idea to take a shorter term loan because those tend to have lower interest rates. In either case, remember that the required loan payments are the minimum payments.  You can always pay more, and in many cases you should.  The objective here is to pay as little interest over the course of your life as is feasible. I don't think it makes too much sense to gamble on whether or not interest rates will rise in the future.  They may or may not over the life of your loan and you are not in a position to know which.  They are low now, so they can be compared to your existing loans usefully.  That is enough information to make rational decisions today. The second choice is a normal payment, just made early. This guards you against forgetting to make the payment later and incurring late payment fees -- which in this kind of loan are added to the balance and themselves accrue compounded interest. The first option is an extra payment, applied entirely to the principal. That lets you avoid years of accrued interest on that portion of the loan, and reduces the loan's actual cost. I think the extra payment is a better investment. If you decide you need the extra money, you can always go refinance and get more cash out.  At the end of the day, though, if you pay off your house sooner you can invest more of your income sooner; that's just a matter of discipline.