Invest in (say, index funds) vs spending all money on home?
Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI.  The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income.  These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back.  In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet. The short answer is that it depends on the taxation laws in your country. The long answer is that there are usually tax avoidance mechanisms that you can use which may make it more economically feasible for you to go one way or the other. Consider the following: The long term average growth rate of the stock market in Australia is around 7%.  The average interest on a mortgage is 4.75%.  Assuming you have money left over from a 20% deposit, you have a few options.  You could: 1) Put that money into an index fund for the long term, understanding that the market may not move for a decade, or even move downwards; 2) Dump that money straight into the mortgage; 3) Put that money in an offset account Option 1 will get you (over the course of 30-40 years) around 7% return.  If and when that profit is realised it will be taxed at a minimum of half your marginal tax rate (probably around 20%, netting you around 5.25%) Option 2 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free Option 3 will effectively earn you 4.75% pa tax free with the added bonus that the money is ready for you to draw upon on short notice. Of the three options, until you have a good 3+ months of living expenses covered, I'd go with the offset account every single time. Once you have a few months worth of living expenses covered, I would the adopt a policy of spreading your risk.  In Australia, that would mean extra contributions to my Super (401k in the US) and possibly purchasing an investment property as well (once I had the capital to positively gear it). Of course, you should find out more about the tax laws in your country and do your own maths. "Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)"
"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience.  All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint.  This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly.  White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades.  The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy.  Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long!  The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer.  So if I understand it, your question is now ""At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments"".  This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle.  With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell.  You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell.  There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision.  Not saying ""Don't do it"", but don't rationalize it to yourself as ""we're saving money by doing this now.""  Maybe use the rationalization ""We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out."" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply.  Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help." You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is  any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included. "The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an ""emergency fund"" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it ""hurts"" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) ""broke the buck"" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the ""upper half"" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment." Some index funds offer lower expense ratios to those who invest large amounts of money. For example, Vanguard offers Admiral Shares of many of its mutual funds (including several index funds) to individuals who invest more than $50K or $100K, and these Shares have lower expense ratios than the Investor shares in the fund. There are Institutional Shares designed for investments by pension plans, 401k plans of large companies etc which have even lower expenses than Admiral Shares. Individuals working for large companies sometimes get access to Institutional Shares through their 401k plans.  Thus, there is something to gained by investing in just one index fund (for a particular index) that offers lower expense ratios for large investments instead of diversifying into several index funds all tracking the same index. Of course, this advantage might be offset by failure to track the index closely, but this tracking should be monitored not on a daily basis but over much longer periods of time to test whether your favorite fund is perennially trailing the index by far more than its competitors with larger expense ratios. Remember that the Net Asset Value (NAV) published by each mutual fund after the markets close already take into account the expense ratio. "When I was 23, the Toronto housing market was approaching a record high, and I thought, ""I must buy a place or I'll be locked out."" And I did. Bad decision. I should have waited and saved my money. For the record, I thought I would never recover, but I did. Patience grasshopper. In actual fact the U.K. housing market is probably approaching a low, and you have a job that is paying you well enough.  BUT the lesson I learned wasn't about buying at a high or a low, it was about the need never to let external factors rush your decision making. Your decisions have to make sense for your own unique situation. If you're living at home and you have domestic bliss, mum and dad aren't crimping your style (if you know what I mean), then, enjoy it.  Your credit balance sounds understandable. It's not fatal. But it's a budget killer.  Make adjustments (somehow/anyhow) so that you are paying it down month by month. Take it down to £0. You will feel amazing once you do it. After that, use the money that you were paying onto your credit card and start saving it. Whether you ultimately use the money for a house down-payment or your retirement, doesn't matter. Just get into the situation where you're saving." The core idea behind this statement is that there is always money for what you prioritize. If you try to use whatever is left over after your bills for savings, you probably won't save very much if anything. In practice, you decide on a fixed amount of money you will save out of each paycheck and put that aside in an investment or savings account, then pay your bills out of what is left.  Essentially it is a way to counteract the tendency of your lifestyle rising to exactly meet your income and leaving nothing for savings. The mathematically correct answer is to invest, because you'll get a higher rate of return. I think that answer is bunk -- owning your home free and clear is a huge burden lifted off of your shoulders. You're at an age where you may find a new job, business, personal or other opportunities will be easier to take advantage of without that burden. "If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses   value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing   the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis.  It all depends on the numbers you plug in.  Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k.  Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k.  You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc.  Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k.  It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo.  In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it.  It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years.  That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger   property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is:  if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value.   However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would   gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have   increased in price. But it may not scale.  When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses.  That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low.   Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either   market? I don't think so.  I think, in general, buying ""more house"" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable.  Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles.   The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes.  You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was.   In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point:  let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!"