For a mortgage down-payment, what percentage is sensible?
"The typical down-payment was expected to be 20%.  The idea being that if one could not save 1/5 of the cost of a house, they were not responsible enough to ensure repayment of the loan. It is hard to say whether this is truly a relevant measure.  However, in the absence of other data points, it is pretty decent.  It typically requires a fair amount of time to amass that much money and it does demonstrate some restraint.  (e.g. it is easily the cost of a decent new car or some other shiny ""toy."") Income is not necessarily a good measure, on its own.  I am certainly more responsible with my spending when I have less money to spend.  (Lately, I have been feeling like my father, scrutinizing every single purchase down to the penny.)" In Australia, you will typically be required to pay for mortgage insurance if you borrow more than 80% of the value of the property.  Basically this means another ~1% on top of the regular interest rate.  So it's in your interests to save until you can at least reach that point. If you can't rent and save at the same time, it suggests your finances may be too stretched for buying now to be a good idea. A bigger down payment is good, because it insulates you from the swings in the real estate market.  If you get FHA loan with 3% down and end up being forced to move during a down market, you'll be in a real bind, as you'll need to scrape up some cash or borrow funds to get out of your mortgage. "Well hindsight tells us now that by and large, doing 100% borrowing was not the best policy we could have taken.  It gets nitpicky, but in the US the traditional 20% is the answer I presently feel comfortable with. It could be a reactionary judgement I am making to the current mess (in which I have formed the opinion that all parties are responsible) and arm-chair quarterbacking ""if we had only stuck with the 20% rule, we wouldn't be here right now. The truth is probably much more gray than that, but like all things personal finance it is really up to you.  If the law allows 100% financing ask yourself if it really makes sense that a bank would just loan you hundreds of thousands of dollars to live somewhere." I think anything from 10% on demonstrates a reasonable ability to save.  I would consider ongoing debt level a better indicator than the size of the down payment. It's been my experience that, without exception, there is a direct correlation between a persons use of revolving credit and their ability to manage their money & control their spending. Living in Seattle, I only put 10% down on my first house, but not only have we never missed a payment we have always paid extra and now have about 50% equity after 10 years with a family. Yet it would have taken me another year to save the other 10% during which time I would have burned that amount and 1/2 again in useless rent. I am currently in the process of purchasing a house. I am only putting 5% down. I see that some are saying that the traditional 20% down is the way to go. I am a first time homebuyer, and unfortunately we no longer live in the world where 20% down is mandatory, which is part of the reason why housing prices are so high. I feel it is more important that you are comfortable with what your monthly payments are as well as being informed on how interest rates can change how much you owe each month. Right now interest rates are pretty low, and it would almost be silly to put 20% down on your home. It might make more sense to put money in different vehicle right now, if you have extra, as the global economy will likely pick up and until it does, interest rates will likely stay low. Just my 2 cents worth.  EDIT: I thought it would not be responsible of me not to mention that you should always have extra's saved for closing costs. They can be pricey, and if you are not informed of what they are, they can creep up on you.
"I put about that down on my place.  I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making ""leverage"" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money." I'd put the 20% down, close on the house, live in it for a year, and save the difference.  If you find your cash flow is fine, run a calculation and start on a program of prepaying a bit of principal each month as an extra payment. If you study how amortization works, you'll understand that an extra payment of about 1/6 the amount due will knock off a full payment at the end. This is how a 30 year mortgage starts out. Meanwhile, you should keep in mind, it's easy to prepay the mortgage, but there's really no getting it back. So, before letting go of your money, I'd do a few things; I may be stating the obvious, but consider - No matter how low the payment on your mortgage, a payment is due each and every month until it's paid off. You put 80% down, take a 10 year mortgage, you still have payments for 10 years. You want to insure yourself against needing to sell in a hurry if you both lose your jobs, so whatever you put down, I'd recommend a healthy emergency account, 9-12 months worth of expenses. "9% would be an absurdly high rate in the US by today's standards, so you should at the very least consider refinancing to fix that. Paying off completely is of course another way to fix that.  Which approach makes more sense depends on what you plan to do with the money instead if you do refinance -- if you can put it in an investment which yieds a higher percentage than the loan costs you, than refinancing the mortgage could actually be a profitable decision. You also need to consider what the bank will want to see in order to give you a mortgage on the new property. I have no idea whether they'd be happier that you had no prior mortgage, that you had the mortgage but also had the cash to pay it off, or if they wouldn't care. Remember that you want to be able to make at least a 20% down payment on the new property to avoid the insurance fees. That requires that you have a reasonable amount of cash-equivalent on hand. And generally, ""house rich but cash poor"" is an awkward state to be in." "Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free.  This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work." "I've heard that the bank may agree to a ""one time adjustment"" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation.  If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing.  If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster.  Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance).   If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early.  But you know your circumstances better than we do.   If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up.  Fully fund your 401k and IRA.  Fill out your emergency fund.  Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon.  If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so.  That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan).   There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds).  If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage.  And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes.  If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment.  Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now.   The problem is that this might not be the best time for that.  The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash.  That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now.   I'd pay down the mortgage.  You know the return on that.  No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest.  I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly.  Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years." First of all, you should absolutely put money into savings until you have at least a 6 month cushion, and preferably longer.  It doesn't matter if you get 0% interest in your savings and have a high interest rate mortgage, the cushion is still more important. Once you have a nice emergency fund, you can then consider the question of whether to pay more towards the mortgage if the numbers make sense.  However, in my opinion, it's not just a straight comparison of interest rates.  In other words, if your savings account gives you 1% and your mortgage is 5%, that's still not an automatic win for the mortgage. The reason is that by putting the money into your mortgage, you're locking it up and can't access it.  To me, money in the hand is worth a lot more than money that's yours on paper but not easily accessible. I don't know the math well enough, but you don't really need the math.  Just keep in mind that you have to weight the present value of putting that money into savings vs the future value of putting it into your mortgage and paying less interest at some point in the future.  Do the math and see how much you will save by paying the mortgage down faster, but also keep in mind that future money is worth less than present money.  A LOT less if you suddenly have an emergency or decide on a major purchase and need the money, but then have to jump through hoops to get to it.   To me, you need to save a considerable amount by paying down the mortgage, and also understand that your money is getting locked away, for it to make sense. "I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment.  I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation.  When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you.  But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank.  The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front.  The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a ""95% Loan-to-Value ratio"" is 2.75%.  Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling.  Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP?  There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy.  I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada.  Read here, here, and here." "I think your very long list of possible assumptions makes a tacit point of your own:  to state ""15%"" as a general value is bogus.  I think, in most cases, the ""15%"" is merely a popular meme.   To give any fixed number or percentage of income saved is insufficient without expanding things in the way you show.  Therefore, a formula, in which at least a handful of variables can be plugged into it, seems like the right approach.  (And this is what is being discussed here with the Monte Carlo method)."