Is it possible to borrow money to accrue interest, and then use that interest to pay back the borrower + fees?
No.  The WSJ prime rate is 4.25%, even the Fed prime rate is 1.75%, way above the 1.20% you'll be making from your savings account. If you are high worth individual with great credit history, the bank might give you a personal loan at 4.25%. They won't care what you do with it as long as they get their payments. If you are not that creditworthy, they'll ask for a collateral, you can mortgage your house for example. It ends up being the sames thing, you get your money and do what you want with it. If you can make more than the interest rate the bank gave you, great, you made profit. The bank however won't agree to lend you money at 0.6% (1/2 of the 1.2% APY your savings account will bring). Why would they when they can loan that at prime rate of 4.25%?? The closest you can get to something like this is if you are a hot-shot wall street money manager with track record of making big profits. In that case the bank might put some money in your fund for you to manage, but that's not something a regular person can do. "Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways:  (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called ""Leveraging""; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place)." "There are many flaws with your idea. Say I want to borrow $225,000.00 to accrue interest on a 1.20% APY   account. I promise ... that I cannot withdraw nor touch the   account by legal contract. If you break the contract and lose the money, the lender is out the money. They can take you to court and will win, but if you don't have the money, then they don't get paid. (You can't squeeze water out of a rock even if a judge orders you to.) By sharing the interest with me on a loan, they keep a percentage that they'd normally get... If you're ""investing"" the money at 1.2%, and the lender gets some amount less than that, then they are getting much less than they ""normally"" get. Lenders typically get somewhere from 5-15% on loans. The money can also be used to fund a stock/trading account. Regardless of whether I profit, I pay interest on the loan and split the profit shares 24/7. How can the lender lose with legal enforcing? Again, if you lose the money, no amount of legal enforcing can force you to pay money that you don't have. Even if you go to jail for fraud the lender still doesn't get paid. Simply, no bank would ever agree to this." "With (1), it's rather confusing as to where ""interest"" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan."
"This answer is better served as a comment but I don't have enough rep.  It is not guaranteed that they 'do not accrue interest while you are a full time student'. Some student loans can capitalize the interest - before pursuing leveraged investing, be sure that your student loan is not capitalizing. https://www.salliemae.com/student-loans/manage-your-private-student-loan/understand-student-loan-payments/learn-about-interest-and-capitalization/ Capitalized interest Capitalized interest is a second reason your loan may end up costing   more than the amount you originally borrowed. Interest starts to accrue (grow) from the day your loan is disbursed   (sent to you or your school). At certain points in time—when your   separation or grace period ends, or at the end of forbearance or   deferment—your Unpaid Interest may capitalize. That means it is added   to your loan’s Current Principal. From that point, your interest will   now be calculated on this new amount. That’s capitalized interest."" https://www.navient.com/loan-customers/interest-and-taxes/how-student-loan-interest-works/ Capitalized Interest If you accrue interest while you are in school – as with Direct   Unsubsidized, FFELP Unsubsidized, Direct and FFELP PLUS Loans, and   Private Loans – you will have capitalized interest if it is unpaid.   Unpaid accrued interest is added to the principal amount of your loan   after you leave school and finish any applicable grace period. Simply put, there will be interest to be paid on both the principal of   the loan and on the interest that has already accumulated. To minimize the effects of the capitalized interest on the amount you   will pay overall, you can pay the interest during college instead of   waiting until after graduation. That way, you start with the original   principal balance (minus any fees) when you begin repayment." "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." You could conceivably open a few accounts.  For example, a bank account and a credit card account.  Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return.  This would look better than opening fresh accounts later.  But don't expect a big difference in score.  And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit.  I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now.  You can wait until you come back.  Occasional purchases may be helpful.   What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending.  But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that.  Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it.  Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them.   If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities.  You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts.   If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included.  That would build up a payment history.  But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score.  It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events.   You might think about why you want a good credit score.  Is it to borrow a lot of money?  You might be able to spend money to achieve that.  Is it to save money on future borrowing?  If it costs money now, how much will you save total?   Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money.  Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day.  Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit.  So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything. "And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position.  When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here.  In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them.  If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from.  Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest).  Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy.  Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800.   In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question).  It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement.  Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money.  If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a ""margin call"" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses.  And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin).  When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go.  There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position.  You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs." "It'll be just like any other loan you make, on your end, and receive, on your LLC's end. You pay taxes on the interest received, and your LLC can deduct the interest paid.    Do make sure you set it up properly, however:  If you want to loan money to your business, you should have your   attorney draw up paperwork to define the terms of the loan, including   repayment and consequences for non-repayment of the loan. It should be   clear that the loan is a binding obligation on the part of the   company. As a recent Tax Court case notes, the absence of such   paperwork negates the loan. For tax purposes, the loan is an ""arms   length"" transaction, being treated like any other debt.   From: http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/financingyourstartup/f/investinbusiness.htm" My opinion is that in general, it is probably not a good idea to borrow at a cost in order to make your RRSP contribution.  Banks, of course, have an interest in loaning you money.  Don't expect their literature to be objective on the matter!  They are selling you a product and the advice is biased.  What better way to double-dip than to get guaranteed interest payments from you, as well as ongoing fees for (probably also) getting your loan money invested in their high-fee mutual funds? A year's RRSP contribution room allowance isn't use it or lose it — unlike 401k contribution allowances in the U.S.. That is, unused RRSP contribution room accumulates and you can take advantage of it in later years. If we couldn't carry our RRSP contribution room over, I might feel different about the general case for RRSP loans. Yet there are two specific cases I can think of where it may make sense to borrow and pay back: (a possible case) ... if your tax rate is currently in a high bracket (e.g. 46%), and you anticipate being in a lower income and bracket next year (e.g. 35%), then it would make sense to take advantage of the higher tax savings in the current tax year.  If you waited until the following year to take the deduction, you'd lose out on 11% of the deducted amount.   For a typical person whose income is level or increasing from year to year, this isn't likely to be applicable, but it could help somebody who is going on leave or otherwise has irregular income. (a foolish case) ... if you knew, somehow, that you could realize a return on your invested RRSP money exceeding the pre-tax earnings required to pay the interest on the RRSP loan.  However, I would suggest this is foolish bet to make.  The interest you pay is guaranteed, but the return you are expected to get is probably not (or if it is, it is probably a return lower than what your bank wants to charge on the loan.) If for some reason it does make sense for you, take the money and invest it somewhere better than the high-fee mutual funds the bank is also pushing. "As an investment opportunity: NO. As a friendly assist with money you don't mind ever getting back, legal depending on amount. A few years back I was in the housing market myself and researching interest rates and mortgages.  For one property I was very interested in, I would need about $4K extra in liquid cash to complete the down-payment.  A pair of options I saw were a ""combo loan"" 15yr 4% interest for the house, 1yr 8% interest for the $4K.  Alternately, the ""bank of mom and dad"" could offer the 4K loan for a much lower rate. The giftable limit where reporting is not required was $12,000 at the time I did the review.  IRS requires personal loans to be counted as having interest at the commercial rate.  Thus an interest free loan of $10K with commercial interest rate of 1% (for easy math) would be counted as a gift of $10,100 for that calendar year. Disclaimer: Ultimately, I did not use this approach and did not have it subjected to a legal review." "It would have to be made as a ""gift"", and then the return would be a ""gift"" back to you, because you're not allowed to use a loan for a down payment. This is not to evade taxes.  This is to evade a credit check.  The problem is that banks don't like people to have too much debt.  The bank could void the loan and go after your friends for damages under certain circumstances, as this is a fraud on the bank.  Perhaps you might be guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud or similar.   I'm willing to assume for the sake of argument that there is zero chance of your friend not paying you back intentionally.  But even so, there are still potential problems.  What if your friends end up without the money to pay?  Worse, what if something happens to them?  This is an off-books transaction.  You couldn't make a claim against the estate, as there can't be a paper trail.  You'd be left out the money in those circumstances.   You'd both be safer if your friends saved up for the next opportunity rather than trying to grab this one.   An alternative would be to buy a share of their current rental house.  That would give them the necessary money and would give you paper showing your money.  It's not a gift, it's a purchase.  You'd have to pay capital gains tax on the 15% profit that they're promising you.  But you'd both be above board and honest."