Why does 'further borrowing' always mean permanent extra mortgage accounts?
It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages.
You did borrow money for the downpayment.  When you apply for a mortgage loan on your new home, you will be required to list all your assets and all your liabilities. You must disclose the first mortgage as well as the second mortgage on your current condo as well as the monthly payment on each of these loans.  If you took out the second mortgage five years ago, you can truthfully say that you have not taken out any loans within the past year to get cash for the down payment when you apply for a mortgage for purchasing your new house. But, what the lender will be looking at is: Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the first mortgage on the condo plus $300 for the second   mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the   new house? You might argue that you will be selling that condo soon, or will be renting it out and that the rental income will cover the mortgage payments on the condo, but will the lender give much credence to this? The condo may not sell easily, you might not be able to find a tenant right away, or be able to rent the condo at a high enough rental to cover the costs etc. If you simply save money from your current extra cash flow and use that to make the down payment, the lender will be pondering the question Can  the applicants' current income support monthly payments of   $1000 for the mortgage on the condo plus $1500 for the proposed mortgage on the new house? Which deal will the lender be happier with? If you are uncomfortable saving your extra cash flow in a savings account or CD or investing it in stocks and/or bonds until you need the money for the down-payment on your new house, put that money in a sock under your mattress (and don't smoke in bed!) "In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty.  Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors.  As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you ""can"" pay off the loan in a short time.  If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above." To a mortgage lender, it appears that you have a temporary contract (perhaps extending for nine more months) with a agency that supplies workers to companies that need temporary help. You have been placed currently with a company and are making good money, but that job might disappear soon and then you will have no income while your recruiter tries to find you another assignment. How will you make your mortgage payments then? The recruiter agency's contract with your current company probably has clauses to the effect that the company agrees to not offer you a permanent job unless it pays a head-hunter's fee to the recruiter agency.  Your contract with the recruiter agency also likely has clauses to the effect that if the company where you have been placed offers you a permanent job,  you  must pay the recruiter company a fee (typically one or two months  of salary) to the recruiter agency as compensation for releasing you  from your current contract (unless the company hiring you pays the head-hunter's fee).  This is why the company where you are working right now wants to wait until after your contract with the recruiter company ends before making you an offer of permanent employment. Be aware that sometimes such clauses extend out to three months after the ending date of your contract with the recruiter company. As far as the condo is concerned, unless there is a specific one that you absolutely must have because it has an ocean view or other desirable properties, you may well find that another condo in the same complex is available some months from now.  If you are lucky, it may well have an acceptable ocean view. If you are even luckier, it may be the condo that you absolutely must have which has remained unsold all that time -- as you said, the economy is crappy -- and you will be able to buy it for a lower price from an owner getting desperate to make a sale. To answer your question: is there any way around this? My recommendation is to simply wait out the end of your recruiter agency contract and get a permanent job with the company where you have been placed.  Then there are no issues. If not, get your company to make a written offer of a  permanent job starting nine months from now and hope that this (together with your current employment) impresses your bank into lending you money. This might not work, though.  In the early 1970s, one of my friends was offered a job at a large aerospace company which lost a major contract in the interim period between offer and joining. My friend showed up for work on the day he was supposed to start, and instead of being processed through HR etc, his job was terminated on the spot, he was paid one day's salary, and shown the door.  Times were crappy then too. If this does not work, get your company to offer you a permanent job right away, pay off the recruiter  company yourself, and then go to the bank. Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money. In some cases, especially but not only for subprime loans, they are actually testing whether you will lie to them. (Discovered this when working on a loan origination applicatíon for car dealers -- they explicitly did not want us to autocomplete some values because that might remind applicants that answers would be checked.) Banks can't simply make loans in the void. This is how the cash flow works, generally:  1. Depositers *add* cash into the bank. The Bank now has cash. 10% of that cash is held on *reserve* per law. This cash is held on the balance sheet as an *asset* (cash) *and a liability* (demand deposits).   2. Someone requests a loan. The loan is funded from the non-reserved cash of these deposits. This results in a lessening of an asset (cash), and the creation of a new asset (loan).  3. Traditionally, as the debtor pays back the loan, the interest is distributed in some sort of split between the bank and the depositors. This means cash in from the loan and interest, and a liability (deposits) also go up.  4. Alternatively, while the above still happens, the bank can *securitize* the loan and sell that to investors. Investors then get access to the loan and its income, and the bank collects a fee. However, this means more cash on hand for the bank to originate additional loans without going near the reserve requirement.   If a bank extends too many loans and its reserve is threatened, it must borrow either from the fed or from other banks. These loans must be paid back. Yes, the distinction between how your funds are applied to principal vs interest is very important. The interest amount charged each period (probably monthly) is not just one fixed sum calculated at the origination, but rather is a dynamically calculated amount that changes each period relative to how much principal is remaining (amount you owe).  The picture you posted showing principal and interest assumes the payer always paid their minimum payment and never made any extra payments of principal. Take a look at the following graph and play around with the extra payment fields. You will see some pretty drastic differences in the Total Interest Paid (green lines) when extra payments are made.  http://mortgagevista.com/#m=2&a=240000&b=4.5&c=30y&e=200&f=1/2020&g=10000&h=1/2025&G&H&J&M&N&P&n&o&p&q&x "As RonJohn points out, direct deposit is something very different.  What's going on here is that they are trying to exclude the ""customers"" that open the account simply for the premium and then close it again as soon as the terms of the offer have been met.  Most people have only one regular source of direct deposit money, either their paycheck or a retirement check.  This acts to make it hard for them to simply take the offer and run."