Is my financial plan for buying a house logically sound
"As a rental, this is not an ideal set of numbers. You manage to show a $255 'gain' but $275 is from payment to principal. So, from the start, you're out $20/wk.  This ignores the $170K down payment, which has an opportunity cost, however you calculate it. You can assign the same rate as the mortgage, and it's nearly $10K/yr. Or the rate you feel your choice of stock market or alternate investment would rise. Either way, you can't ignore this money.  Your mortgage rate isn't fixed. A 1% rise and it would jump to $1663 ($842/week) Ideally, a rental property is cash positive without counting principal paydown or even the tax refund. It's a risky proposition to buy and count on everything going right. I didn't mean to scare you off with ""1%"" but you should research the costs of repair and maintenance. Last year my Heat/AC system needed replacement. US$10K. This year, it's time to paint, and replace rotting trim, $7000.  In the US we have property tax that can range from 1-2% of the house value. If you don't have this tax, that's great, just please confirm this."
I think the OP is getting lost in designations.  Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'.  Does he even have investments?  Does he want to be told which securities to buy?   Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc.  Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set.  They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing.  They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself.  Accreditation mean nothing.  Eg.  the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances. Your house and 25 acres was $50K? How is that even possible? Growing up in the 90's the average house in my town was around $600k. Now median home prices in that area are around $1 million. This is a suburb of Boston, so it's not like I'm talking about a place in an actual city.  Prices fluctuate in real estate so much depending on location. Growing up in Massachusetts and then doing my undergrad near NYC, my experience with average or entry-level home prices told me they were always over half a million. It didn't really hit me that prices varied significantly until I went to get my Masters from Syracuse, my friend's father decided to just buy a 5 bedroom house on the edge of campus rather than pay her rent. It was so cheap it made sense (a little under $100K, so he bought it with straight cash).   But still, 25 acres and $50k sounds unreal today. Like the cost of building materials alone would be more than that, forgetting about the cost of land. I would advise against this. My main reason for saying so is that you are in a time of major transition, and transition equals uncertainty. What if the new job turns out to be a bad one, and at the same time the house is more difficult to rent out than you expect? That seems like a situation that would be worse than the sum of its parts. Some other things to consider: first, if you want to buy a house where your new job is located, you will not be able to borrow as much for that house.  This is especially important if you are moving to a city with a very high Cost of Living. Second, your margin on the rental doesn't sound like it would leave much room for profit. A $100 difference between your mortgage and your rent amount will be eaten up very quickly through property management fees and maintenance.  If the value of the house does not rise like you expect, that could mean you put in a lot of effort for very little or no gain. Finally, this will require a good deal of time management. Between relocating, closing on this house, and beginning a new job, it sounds like you'll have a lot going on. This may not concern you much, but it's still worth considering. "Your lack of numbers makes the question a difficult read.  What I'm hearing is ""I want a house requiring a mortgage 8X my income.""  This alone is enough to suggest it's a bad deal. On a personal note, when my wife and I bought our house, it was 2.5X our income. 20% down, so the mortgage was exactly 2X income. And my wife was convinced we were in over our heads.  The use of a partner who will take a portion of the profit is interesting, but doesn't change the fact that you are proposing to live in a house that costs far too much for you. If you are determined to buy such a house, I'd suggest you do it with the plan to rent out a room or two to roommates. If you are living in an area where the cost of buying is so high, the demand for rentals is likely high as well.  Absent a plan to bring ion more income, I see no good coming from this. Heed the warnings posted in the other two answers as well." "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." "Sorry in advance, but this will be long.  Also, it sounds like your friend is a tool. I hope this ""friend"" is not also your financial advisor... they would be encouraging you to make a very poor investment decision. They also don't know how to do financial math.  For what it's worth, I am not wrong. I have correctly answered a set of changing questions as you have asked them... Your friend is answering based on a third, completely different investment model, which you proposed in the edit to your last post. If that's what you meant all along, then you should have been more clear in the questions you were asking.  Please let me layout the following: How the previous questions//investment proposals were built How to analyze this current proposal What your other option is Why the other option is best in a 'real world' market The First Question My understanding of the initial proposal was to take out a $10,000 loan, invest the proceeds, and expect to not have any money of your own tied up in this. Because that OP did not specify that this is an interest-only loan (you still haven't in any of your questions), the bank will require you to make payments back to them each month that include principal and interest.  Your ""friend"" is talking about the total interest paid being the only cost of a loan. While that is (almost) true, regardless of what your friend says, significantly more cash is involved in making sure that all the payments are made on time---unless you set up an interest-only loan. But with the set up laid out in this post, and with the assumptions I specified there, the principal payments must be included because the borrower has to pay back the bank and isn't not tying up any of their own money.  In that case, my initial analysis is correct--your breakeven is in the low teens for an annual required return.  The Second Proposal Your second proposal... before any edits... refined things a little bit, to try to capture the any possible returns by not selling something. As I indicated there, (with what was an exaggerating assumption), the lack of clarity makes for an outlandish required return.  The Second Proposal...with edits, or the one proposed above I will get to the one proposed above in a second, but first let me highlight a few problems with your friend's analysis.  Simple interest: the only place (in the US at least) that will lend with simple interest is student loans. Any loan that you actually take out will be compound interest.  Not an interest only loan: your ""friend"" is not calculating interest correctly. Since this isn't an interest-only loan, the principal balance will reduce every time you make a payment, by ~$320-$340 each month. This substantially reduces the total interest paid, to $272.79 over the total 24 months.  ""Returns"": I don't know what country, or what business your friend works in, but ""returns"" are a very ambiguous concept. Investopedia defines returns as gains or losses. (I wish I could inhabit the lala land that your friend lives in when returns are always positive). TheFreeDictionary.com defines a return for finance as ""The change in the value of a portfolio over an evaluation period, including any distributions made from the portfolio during that period.""  When you have not made it clear that any other money is being used in this investment plan (as was the case in scheme #1 and scheme #2a,) the loan still has to be paid. So, clearly the principal must be included in the return calculations.  How to evaluate this proposed investment scheme Key dimensions: Loan ($8,000 ... 24 months ... 0.27% monthly rate... monthly compounding... no loan origination fees) Monthly payment (PMT in Excel yields $344.70). Investment capital (starting = $8,000) Monthly Return (Investment yields... we hope it's positive!)  Your monthly contribution from your salary Taxes = 10%. Transaction Fees = $20  Go and lookup how to build an amortization table for a loan in Excel. Your life will be infinitely better for it.  Now, you get this loan set up and invested into something... (it costs $20 to buy the assets).  So you've got $7980 chugging away earning interest. I calculate that your break even, with you paying in $344.70 of your own money each month is 1.81% annually, or 3.42% over the 24 month life of this scheme. That is using monthly compound interest for the payments, because that's what the real world would use, and using monthly compounding of the investments' returns.  Your total interest expense would be $272.79.  This seems feasible. But let's talk about what your other option is, given that you're ready to spend $344.70 each month on an investment.  Your other option  I understand the appeal of getting $8,000... right away... to invest in something. But the risk behind this is that if the market goes down (and markets do) you're stuck paying a fixed amount for your loan that is now worth less money.  Your other option is to take your $344.70, and invest it step-by-step. (You would want to skip a month or two buying assets in the market, so that you can lessen transaction costs). This has two advantages: (1) you save yourself $272 in interest. (2) When the market goes down, you still win.  With this strategy, you still win when the market goes down because of what is commonly called ""dollar cost averaging"". When the market is up, your investments are also up. When the market goes down, your previous investments decrease in value but you can invest new money at the lower rates.  Why the step-by-step, invest your own money strategy is better At low rates (when you're looking for your break-even), the step-by-step model outperforms the loan. At higher rates of return (~4% + per year), you get the benefit of having the borrowed money earning more gains.  In fact, for every continuous (meaning set... not changing month-to-month) interest rate that you can dream up that is greater than about 4% per year, the borrowed money earns more.  At 10% per year, the borrowed money will earn about $500 more over the 2 years than your step by step investment would.  BUT I recognize that you might feel like the market will always go up. That's what everyone thinks. And that's alright.  But have one really bad month, or a couple of just-not-great-months, and your fixed 'loan' portfolio will underperform. Have a few really bad months, and your portfolio could be substantially reduced in value... but you would still be paying the same amount for it each month.  And if that happened (say your assets declined -3% in 3 of the 24 months...) You'd be losing money relative to the step-by-step portfolio." I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership.  I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment.  One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat.  I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory.  Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee.  at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight.  If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age. "Congratulations, you are in great shape financially at a very young age.  Great income, nice equity in a home, and mostly debt free.   It seems like you are looking at taking out a loan of 400K, and to do so you will have to put your own home at risk as you do not have the 80K cash for a down payment.  Correct?  It also looks like after 2.1K per year without regard to taxes, maintenance, bad tenants, or vacancies.  As such this will likely be a negative cash flow situation.  I would say you should plan on a 912/month cost.  Are you okay with that?  While your income can probably cover this, no problem, is that your objective to have this property have a negative return for the next 10-15 years or so? For me, this is a no.  Way too much risk for a negative cash flow. It is hard to talk to the upside as you did not give any profit predictions and I am unsure of the market.   Why would you risk jeopardizing your great financial situation with a ""hail mary"" attempt to make money?  Slow down, you will get there.  Save for a few years so there is no need to tap your home's equity to make a down payment.  It would really bother me to owe 600K on a 121K salary (75K+20K+26K)."