More money towards down payment versus long-term investments
There are two components to any non-trivial financial decision:  Assuming that all things remain equal, borrowing money at a low rate while investing for a higher return is a no-brainer. The problem is, all things do not remain equal. For example: I think that you need to assess your position and preferences. I'd err on the side of being in less debt. "One thing that's often overlooked is that cash reserves are also a long-term investment.  Anything can be a long-term investment if it's expected to appreciate or pay interest/dividends.  So it's not either/or.  Stocks are but one way to do long-term investments. Having said that, taking on less debt for a consumer good is never a bad idea.  Your primary residence is a consumer good, regardless of those who would say that ""your home is your biggest investment.""  So, there's my vote for a larger down-payment. Beyond that, a couple of outside-the-box comments:" I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference.  If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses. Every payment you make on your house will already be increasing your equity in it.  For that reason alone, I'd recommend moving additional savings into other long-term funds. Another vote for a bigger downpayment, for the reasons Benjamin mentions. Also, from experience, I would save up at least a small pile as a separate house emergency fund because you will find things that are wrong and/or that got bodged by the previous owner and it's probably not going to last past the first few months of home ownership. In my case, the home inspector missed - amongst other things - that the shower on the 2nd floor was leaking both into the adjoining bedroom and the living room below. That added a little unexpected expenditure as you might guess.
Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction.  There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month.  In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan.  Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase. There are also low-risk money markets to invest into.  With that kind of long-term savings plan I'd look into those first for the investment factor. I used one like this so that I had the flexibility to either use it for a down payment on a house or school.  And make sure to name a new  administrator in your will if you want to make sure the intent is upheld. Investment is very uncertain, so I believe that unless you have loads of money, you should not play around with houses for the sole purpose of investing. Here are the questions which I would consider to judge the situation. Note that this is based on the current situation in The Netherlands Income: Your income is 1800 a month nett, which means your gross annual income should be somewhere below 28500. Allowed mortgage amount: Your maximum morgage amount is then roughly 135000 Is it expensive?: Given your maximum morgage, buying a 200k appartment would consume pretty much all your cash. There is some cost of buying the appartment, so basically if you buy it, you will not have much cash to decorate or deal with unforseen maintenance. If you are conservative, I would say that buying a 175k appartment is financially much more relaxing in your situation. What will be the monthly expense?: Monthly mortgage payments will be about 450~500. So your cashflow will suffer a bit.  The amount you actually 'burn' on interest in the early months is about 180 nett (assuming an interest rate just below 2% and tax deductions). There will be additional costs (more heating, long term maintenance etc.) so overall the amount of money you burn will be close to the amount of money you burn on rent. Of course over time there will be less interest, so this should go down. Value change: The value may go up or down, in the very long term I would bet on it going up, but on the short or medium term it is quite uncertain. If you may live there for less than a decade, value change is more of a risk than a benefit. Break even point: As you mention that you will buy a house for 200k, I will assume it is not in the heart of a major city, and that renting it out may not be very attractive. However, I will also assume that it is not the middle of nowhere, and that it will only take a reasonable amount of time to sell the house. So if you want to move out, you will probably sell it at a reasonable price. In this case a rule of thumb is that living in an affordable house is usually a good idea when you live there for more than 5 years. (Is it likely that you will find a partner in this period of time, and will you live at your place then, or somewhere else?) Buying a 200k appartment would leave you completely cashless after you move in, something I would not recommend unless you can depend on your parents for instance to 'bridge the gap' when your cashflow dries up. From a monthly expense point of view you are probably going to be OK, as long as you survive the short run. And financially it only makes sense if you are going to live there for a while, and are fairly confident in your position in the labour market. I would personally recommend you to think hard on your family situation, and only buy a house if it leaves you with some cash in your pocket. "The suggestions towards retirement and emergency savings outlined by the other posters are absolute must-dos.  The donations towards charitable causes are also extremely valuable considerations. If you are concerned about your savings, consider making some goals.  If you plan on staying in an area long term (at least five years), consider beginning to save for a down payment to own a home.  A rent-versus-buy calculator can help you figure out how long you'd need to stay in an area to make owning a home cost effective, but five years is usually a minimum to cover closing costs and such compared to rending. Other goals that might be worthwhile are a fully funded new car fund for when you need new wheels, the ability to take a longer or nicer vacation, a future wedding if you'd like to get married some day, and so on.  Think of your savings not as a slush fund of money sitting around doing nothing, but as the seed of something worthwhile. Yes, you will only be young once.  However being young does not mean you have to be Carrie from Sex in the City buying extremely expensive designer shoes or live like a rapper on Cribs.  Dave Ramsey is attributed as saying something like, ""Live like no one else so that you can live like no one else.""  Many people in their 30s and 40s are struggling under mortgages, perhaps long-left-over student loan debt, credit card debt, auto loans, and not enough retirement savings because they had ""fun"" while they were young.  Do you have any remaining debt?  Pay it off early instead of saving so much. Perhaps you'll find that you prefer to hit that age with a fully paid off home and car, savings for your future goals (kids' college tuitions, early retirement, etc.).  Maybe you want to be able to afford some land or a place in a very high cost of living city. In other words - now is the time to set your dreams and allocate your spare cash towards them.  Life's only going to get more expensive if you choose to have a family, so save what you can as early as possible." Pro:  - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains.  - Works well in emerging markets.  - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons:  - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation.  - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period. I'd imagine that it's a small portion of the population that can have much of both. If one is saving a decent amount for retirement, say 10-15%, they aren't likely to have much else, aside from the house if included. For example, when I look at my 'pie chart' I get Retirement 72%, House 22%, everything else 6%.  Specific to your question, emergency funds should be just that, accessible for urgent matters, other short term needs, such as car fund, big TV fund, vacation, etc, also in non-risky cash (i.e. money funds CDs, etc) and the rest invested long term. The short need money isn't part of the long term asset allocation, to be specific. If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary. "As @AlexKuhl says, ever? yes, but generally? no. If your 401k is invested in stocks and bonds, the long term return is very likely higher than the interest on a mortgage. Long term return on the stock market is around 7%. Mortgage rates these days are around 4%. Add the tax penalty on top of that and you're almost surely better to keep your money in the 401k. There's also the psychological/budgeting factor. People very often say, ""I'll pull money out of my retirement fund for this important purchase and then put it back later."" And then later comes and there are other expenses and things they want to do and they never put the money back."