How do Islamic Banking give loans for housing purposes?
If the customer pays 20% of the payment in advance, then he is he owns 20% of the house and the bank owns 80%. Now they say he pays the rest of the amount and also the rent of the house until he becomes the sole owner of the house. "As I understand it, if the ""borrower"" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the ""borrower"" own the home jointly as  tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The  ""borrower"" moves into the home and pays the bank 80% of the fair rental  value of the home each month.  {Material added/changed in edit: For the purposes of illustration, suppose that the ""borrower"" and the bank agree that the fair rental per month is 0.5% of the purchase cost. The  ""borrower"" pays 80% of that amount i.e. 0.4% of the purchase cost  to the bank on a monthly basis.  The ""borrower"" is not required to do  so but may choose to pay more money than this 0.4% of the purchase cost each month, or pay some amount in a lump sum. If he does so, he will own a larger percentage of the house, and so future monthly payments will be a smaller fraction of the agreed-upon fair rental per month. So there is an incentive to pay off the bank.} If and when the house is sold, the sale price is divided between ""borrower"" and bank according to the percentage of ownership as of the date of sale. So the bank gets to share in the profits, if any. On the other hand, if the house is sold for less than the original purchase price, then the bank also suffers in the loss. It is not a case of a mortgage being paid off from the proceeds and the home-owner gets whatever is left, or even suffering a loss when the dust has settled; the bank gets only its percentage of the sale price even if this amount is less than what it put up in the first place minus any additional payments made by the ""borrower"". I have no idea how other costs of home ownership (property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance) or improvements, additions, etc are handled. Ditto what happens on Schedule A if  such a ""loan"" is made to a US taxpayer."
"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not ""new debt""; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks.  It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself ""on the hook"" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a ""loan modification"" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a ""streamlining"" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these ""toxic assets"". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date." "I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house.  Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your ""balance"" will go down as ""payments"" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings.  It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy.  Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings." "Short answer: It depends :) It should generally be cheaper to get a loan directly from a bank, but often a mortgage broker can find you deals that you might not be able to get with a local bank.  If you are refinancing, the cheapest option of all is usually to go through the bank that holds your existing mortgage. As for how mortgage brokers make their money, there are two ways.  The first is on the ""front end"" through fees (origination fees especially) that go directly to them.  The second and less obvious is on the ""back end"".  This is where they make money by giving you a loan at a slightly higher rate than the lender was willing to give you.  So, let's say they find a lender that will give you a loan at 5.25%.  They offer that loan to you at 5.5% and pocket the extra .25% when the bank takes it over." Is this a reasonable goal or will it be impossible to get a loan with   my almost non-existent income? I know I can put estimated rental revenue as income, but I'm not sure   if I would qualify. Banks typically only count rental income after you've been collecting it for two years, and at that point the banks will count 75% of it as income for loan qualification purposes.  You'd have to qualify for the mortgage without the potential rental income. Currently that means a 43% debt (including proposed mortgage) to gross income ratio. Even if you qualify, you have to be prepared to handle repairs, HVAC/water-heater could fail on day 1, and tenants have a right to withhold rent if some repairs aren't made. You also have to be able to weather non-payment/eviction of a tenant. You could find a co-signor, maybe go in on a house with a friend, but there are risks and complications that can arise there if a party becomes unable to pay, or deciding how to split equity and expenses.  If you had the income/capital to comfortably pull it off without tenants, then that'd be a great situation, college rentals tend to be lucrative (I'd recommend getting tenants with parental co-signers to reduce risk). If you qualify but would be in trouble quickly if one tenant stopped paying, or a major appliance needed to be replaced, then it's probably not worth the risk. "I'm not sure of the theological basis against usury in sharia law. IIRC, sharia forbids excess compensation, and the modern interpretation of this includes interest.  Rules about banking are common in religious faiths. The Catholic church viewed interest as the ""selling of time"", and since time is a force controlled by god, charging interest was a heretical practice. For private transactions, modern Islamic banking is a relatively new phenomenon that emerged in the postwar period. I don't think this method of banking is a ""house of cards"", it's just different. Some US states, like California, also subject lenders to higher levels of risk. (ie. borrowers can walk)" "The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan.  If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you.  That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home.  They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location.   If you want to buy a $1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment.  That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender.  So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender.   Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment.  You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance.  It's expensive but that works for many home buyers.  A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid. Update:  Er, no.  Keep it simple.  The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments.  If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender.  You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home.  That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business.  That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender.  If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms.  Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone.  Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral.  (in this case if you were to borrow $60,000 for surgery, the bank would require $100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule.  Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race.  A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan...   Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view.    It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words.  I will say quit using the ""40% to 60%"" phrase.  That is just confusing.  The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%)  For every $6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth $10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan. If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement.  If you want to borrow $1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of $1,666,667 as equity. I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow? If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity.  Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low.  That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you.  Have you tried other lenders?  It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders.   Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here.  No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a $1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this.  I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still.  The other thing is: If you are truly buying a $1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you.  They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen.   All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.)  When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly $10,500 a month or more.  Can you really afford that on your monthly income?" What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval. Serious answer: If 7 banks owned the vast majority of houses for sale -- that is, on their balance sheet, at the peak of the housing bubble -- there would be. These 7 LCD companies produced the majority of LCDs globally. Real estate is far more decentralized, and in many times the bank merely provided financing for a third-party sale (from the builder, from any one of a hundred or so real estate companies, etc).  (But I am assuming you probably weren't looking for a factual answer, anyway.)