How to get a down payment for your next home?  Use current home as the down payment on the new one?
This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead. "What you're looking at is something called ""Bridge-Financing"".  Essentially, it allows you to borrow your down-payment from the bank, using your old home as collateral.  The interest rate varies, but if you get the bridge from the same institution as your new mortgage, they will often be a bit flexible.   You take possession of the new home, and begin mortgage payments on it normally.  When the old home is sold, the bridge is paid off.   Note that the deposit on signing for the new house will still have to be cash.  All bets are off if you are talking about a NEW new home, as builders usually require advance payments during the build." "I know you've clarified that you're in the US, but in case anyone else comes across this question: in the UK this is completely normal (including if you still have outstanding mortgage on your current home). We end up with long ""chains"" of buyers and sellers all completing / moving on the same day so that the proceeds from one sale can be used as the downpayment on the next."
I have a colleague who always leases cars first.  He's very well off, has piles of money in savings, owns a home, and the cherry on top, he could just write a check for the car....   He sees the lease as an insurance policy on the first couple of years of the car's life.  If it gets in an accident or he finds something about it he doesn't like, he can give it back to the dealer at the end of the term with no hassle and move on to the next car.  Some people value the fact that a lease is a rental.   If you're leasing a luxury car or something you couldn't otherwise afford, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn this in to a good idea.   Separately, you should never make a down payment on a lease.  If the car is totaled early on, you will not recoupe the money you put down.  The issue here is that while the numbers all work out the same between a lease and a purchase your situation is different.  If the leased car is totaled, the bank gets its money back from an insurer.  If that payment doesn't cover the value of the car, the GAP insurance will cover it.  In either situation, if there's an excess remaining it will be returned to you.  The issue is the excess may not fully replace your down payment.  If you then went to lease another car you would need to come up with that down payment again because you couldn't just simply choose to lease a used car; like you could in the case of a purchase.  Additionally, GAP is generally included in a lease whether you want it or not.  As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make financial sense to mitigate the value of the GAP coverage once you've decided to live in a lease situation. Another thing to consider is how much longer you wish to stay in this home & what you will do with it when you move. I had planned on doing exactly this, but we are more likely to keep our home when we move out and use it as rental property.  If we went down this route, we would have a lot of equity  (perhaps even paid off) in our home, but would have little left to save towards the next home down payment. The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it.  Leave the retirement savings alone.  Start saving for house down payment.  Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment.  Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs.  If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying.  Most likely it will not.  Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate.  Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food.  And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy.  It's a matter of when, not if.  Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm.  1000 for a new fridge.  500 for a new water heater.  1200 for washer and dryer.  ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to. It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home.  It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control.  Good work there.  Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this?  They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains.  You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan.  You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate.  We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me.  Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes.  I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2?  Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2?  I would do anything to avoid PMI.   Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B.  If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-.  With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+. I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer.  Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html).  The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years.  On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period.  At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K.  If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home.  Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away. "We’re buying the home right over $200,000 so that means he will only need to put down (as a ‘gift’) roughly $7000. I'm with the others, don't call this a gift unless it is a gift.   I'd have him check with the bank that previously refused him a mortgage if putting both of you on a mortgage would allay their concerns.  Your cash flow would be paying the mortgage payment and if you failed to do so, then they could fall back on his.  That may make more sense to them, even if they would deny each of you a loan on your own.  This works for them because either of you is responsible for the whole loan.  It works for him because he was already willing to be responsible for the whole loan.  And your alternative plan makes you responsible for the whole loan, so this is just as good for you.   At what percentage would you suggest splitting ownership and future expenses? Typically a cash/financing partnership would be 50/50, but since it’s only a 3.5% down-payment instead of 20% is that still fair? Surprisingly enough, a 3.5% down-payment that accumulates is about half the equity of a 20% down-payment.  So your suggestion of a 25%-75% split makes sense if 20% would give a 50%-50% split.   I expected it to be considerably lower.  The way that I calculated it was to have his share increase by his equity share of the ""rent"" which I set to the principal plus interest payment for a thirty year loan.  With a 20% down-payment, this would give him 84% equity.  With 3.5%, about 40% equity.  I'm not sure why 84% equity should be the equivalent of a 50% share, but it may be a side effect of other expenses.  Perhaps taking property taxes out would reduce the equity share.   Note that if you increase the down-payment to 20%, your mortgage payment will drop substantially.  The difference in interest between 3.5% and 20% equity is a couple hundred dollars.  Also, you'll be able to eliminate any PMI payment at 20%.   It could be argued that if he pays a third of the monthly mortgage payment, that that would give him the same 50% equity stake on a 3.5% down-payment as he would get with a 20% down-payment.  The problem there is that then he is effectively subsidizing your monthly payment.  If he were to stop doing that for some reason, you'd have what is effectively a 50% increase in your rent.  It would be safer for you to handle the monthly payment while he handles the down-payment.   If you couldn't pay the mortgage, it sounds like he is in a position to buy out your equity, rent the property, and take over the mortgage payment.  If he stopped being able to pay his third of the mortgage, it's not evident that you'd be able to pick up the slack from him much less buy him out.  And it's unlikely that you'd find someone else willing to replace him under those terms.  But your brother could construct things such that in the face of tragedy, you'd inherit his equity in the house.  If you're making the entire mortgage payment, that's a stable situation.   He's not at risk because he could take over the mortgage if necessary.  You're not at risk because you inherit his equity share and can afford the monthly payment.  So even in the face of tragedy, things can go on.  And that's important, as otherwise you could lose your equity in the house." "The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return.  When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well.  When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return.  You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be.  If you think you can ""game the system"" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money).  If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power.   Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not ""hedge"" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate.  The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in ""real"" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your ""reinvestment rate"" (the return you can get from investing the ""borrowed"" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk).  When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no ""optimal"" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest)." Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes.