What are the differences between an investment mortgage and a personal mortgage?
Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon). According to my wife who used to work in the industry, since an investment mortgage is more likely to fail (they are just riskier) there are higher loan to value requirements and higher interest rates. They are just different products for different situations. I used to own a few investment properties, so I'm pretty familiar with this.  As MrChrister mentions, lenders see investment mortgages as higher risk. People who fall into financial trouble are much more likely to let their investment properties go than their personal residence.  Consequently, the interest rates and downpayment requirements are generally higher. Typically a mortgage for an investment property will require 20% down, vs. as low as 3-5% down for a personal residence.  With excellent credit and some shopping around, you could probably do 10% down.  Interest rates are typically about a half-percent higher as well. You'll also find that the more investment properties you have, the harder it becomes to finance new ones.  Banks look at debt-to-income ratios to determine if you are over extended.  Typically banks like to see that your housing payments are less than 20% or so of your income.  However, with rental properties, housing payments generally account for far more than 20% of your rental income.  Other income you have can offset that, but after buying 2-3 houses or so, your DTI generally creeps into the range where lenders are uncomfortable lending to you anymore.  This is why you'll find that many rental properties are bought on land contracts with owner financing rather than with mortgages. "It's just a guess, as I'm from the UK and am unfamiliar with the term ""investment"" mortgage but is it one where you are buying the property in order to rent it out, and make money from it, rather than to live in? In the UK we call those ""buy to let"" mortgages and one of the main differences is that you have to have a higher deposit to get that type." If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs.  Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.
"with 150K € to invest to ""become a landlord"" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost." Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings.  For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security.  And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner. "Why would anyone ever get a 15 year instead of just paying off a 30 year in 15 years? Because the rate is not the same. Never that I've seen in my 30 years of following rates. I've seen the rate difference range from .25% to .75%. (In March '15, the average rate in my area is 30yr 3.75% / 15yr 3.00%) For a $150K loan, this puts the 15yr payment at $1036, with the 30 (at higher rate) paid in 15 years at $1091. This $55 difference can be considered a flexibility premium,"" as it offers the option to pay the actual $695 in any period the money is needed elsewhere.  If the rate were the same, I'd grab the 30, and since I can't say ""invest the difference,"" I'd say to pay at a pace to go 15, unless you had a cash flow situation. A spouse out of work. An emergency that you funded with a high interest rate loan, etc. The advice to have an emergency fund is great until for whatever reason, there's just not enough.  On a personal note, I did go with the 15 year mortgage for our last refinance. I was nearing 50 at the time, and it seemed prudent to aim for a mortgage free retirement." I can answer Scenario #3. If you are purchasing a property with buy-to-let intentions […] can you use the   rental income exclusively to fund the mortgage repayments? Yes – this is exactly how buy-to-let mortgage applications are evaluated. Lenders generally expect you to fund the mortgage payments with rent. They look for the anticipated monthly rent income to cover a minimum of 125% of the monthly mortgage payment. This is to make sure you can allow for vacant periods, maintenance, compliance with rules and regulations, and still be in profit (i.e. generate a positive yield on your investment). However, buy-to-let (BTL) mortgage lenders also generally expect you to own your own home to begin with. It's up to them, but rare is the lender who will provide a buy-to-let mortgage to a non-owner-occupier. This is because of point 2 above. The lender doesn't want you to end up living in the property because then you'll need to repay the loan capital, since you'll always need somewhere to live. This makes the economics of BTL unfavourable. They look at your application as a business proposal: quite different to a residential mortgage application, which is what your question seems to be addressing. Bottom line: You're right about scenario #3 but it sounds like you're trying to afford a home first, whereas BTL is best viewed as an investment for someone who already has their main residence under ownership (mortgaged or otherwise). As for Scenarios #1 and #2 I can't offer first hand answers but I think Aakash M. and Steve Melnikoff have covered it. "You should really be talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about taxes and to a lawyer about the liability protection. You won't find answers from neither of theses here. Besides the liability protection, how do these 2 options affect taxes? There's no liability protection difference between the two (talk to a lawyer to verify) since you'll be cosigning them personally either way. In the first case (loan to the LLC) - everything goes on the 1065 and you get the bottom line on K-1 which transfers to you own tax return. In the second case the loan interest is your personal investment expense (Schedule A deduction) while the loan proceeds you moved to the LLC add to your basis. I'd suggest getting the loan directly in the LLC name, if you can. However, the Lawyers seem to agree that this would void the mortgage   because of the ""Due on Sale"" clause in mortgage loans. ""Due on sale"" may or may not be invoked, but that's a risk you'd be taking, yes. LLC is a separate legal entity (as opposed to a living trust, to which your second quote seems to be referring), so it is definitely a possibility for a lender to call on the loan if you re-title it." A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market.  A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k.  The loan has two components. a.  The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b.  The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top).  The originating bank lends $180k of their own money.  Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it.  The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less.  The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient.  Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around.  One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1.  One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for. When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones.  If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider.  That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones.  They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to.  But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested.  The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds. Insurance isn't an investment.  It's a hedge against your untimely death, and is meant to replace the potential income that will be lost by not having you there to provide for your family. Buy term, and invest the difference.  Traditional investments will outperform the insurance fund, as well as offering more flexibility.