Saving for a down payment on a new house, a few years out. Where do we put our money next?
If you're absolutely certain that you won't buy a house within a year or so, I'd still be tempted to put some of the money into short-term CDs (ie, a max of 12 months). I think that at the moment CDs are a bit of a mug's game though because you'd hardly find one that offers better interest rates than some of the few savings accounts that still offer 1%+ interest. A savings account is probably where I'd put the money unless I could find a really good deal on a CD, but I think you might have to check if they've got withdrawal limits. There are a couple of savings accounts out there that pay at least 1% (yes, I know it's pitiful) so I'd seek out one or two of those. From memory, both Sallie Mae and Amex offer those and I'm sure there are a couple more. It's not great that your money is growing at less than inflation but if you're saving for something like a downpayment on a house I would think that (nominal) capital preservation is probably more important than the potential for a higher return with the associated higher risk. In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options.  Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do.  Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant) Rewards cards charge the merchant more to process.  So the card is making money when you use it.  So if your concern is for the cards going away because they are losing money... That is not going to happen because you use it too much.  If their business model has them losing money because they are giving away more rewards than they make then they are going to go away anyway.  TANSTAAFL.   If you are looking for security and the ability to access your funds when you need them then a standard savings account works great.  We have a few Credit Unions that have over 2% return while its not much it is safe and liquid and better than the Stock Market did in the last year.
Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release. "Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the ""what-ifs"". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the ""pay-off-early"" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%." When you buy a property the house or the building goes down in value every year (it gets depreciated) similar to when you drive a new car out of the lot. However, it is the land that increases in value over time. As land becomes scarcer the value of land in that area will increase in value, as does land in sought after areas. If more people want to live in a particular suburb the land value will keep on increasing year after year. Sometimes established areas with houses built in the 1980s or even earlier can be worth much more than newly built areas. It comes down to the supply and demand of land and houses in a particular area. You might even get a situation where a run-down dilapidated house in a very sought after suburb sells for more than a brand new house in a less sought-after suburb nearby. Properties can be a very good investment and they can be a very poor investment. It can largely depend on the decisions you make in buying your investment property. The first thing you need to make a decision on is the location of the property. If you buy a property in a good area that is well sought after you can make good capital and rental returns over the long run. If you buy poorly in an area no one wants to live in then you might have problems renting it out or only be able to rent it out to bad tenants who cause damage, and you may not get any capital gains over many years. The second thing you need to decide on is when in the property cycle you buy the property. If you buy at the right time you can get higher rents and make some quick capital gains over a relatively short time. I can provide a personal example of this situation. I had bought a house (in Australia) in 2007 for $240,000 at a time when interests where at their highest (9%), no one was buying property and rents were on the increase (with low vacancy rates). Today, eight years after, we are getting $410 per week rent and the house next door (in worse condition than ours) has been put on the market asking for between $500,000 to $550,000 (most houses in the area had been selling during this year for over $500,000). So you can say that our house has more than doubled in 8 years. However, up to a few months ago houses were selling within 2 weeks of being listed. The house next door however, has been listed for over a month and has not had very much interest. So from this you can conclude that in 2007 we had bought near the bottom of the market, whilst now we are near the top of the market. What you also need to remember is that different areas of a country can have different cycles, so there is not just one property cycle but many property cycles in the same country. Rule of thumb, the earlier you pay down your balance, the less interest you will accrue and the faster you will pay off the debt as a whole. But lets play with some real numbers here.  You cited $5000 balance and a $750 payment, but with various bills and things adding onto the balance over the course of a month. Now if your purchases and payments add up to the same number, you are in a losing game, so for the sake of argument I am going to say you are putting $500 + interest on the card each month and making a $750 payment.  We also need an interest rate to work with, I am going to use 1%/month and 30 day months to keep the math a bit easier to follow.   You basically have two choices in this scenario, you can pay 750 a month on the card, then use it to make your $500 in purchases/other payments over time as you suggest in your question.  Or you can pay $250, and hold back $500 to make those other payments directly without running them through the card, as has been suggested in some other answers. So let us compare the two... If I start the cycle at $5000, make a $250 payment on the first day of the cycle, then have no other activity, I will have a balance of $4750 for the month and accrue $47.50 in interest at the close of the cycle.  Balance going into the next period is now $4797.50.  Carry this out for a year, and your balance at the close of the 12th cycle is $2431.79, and $431.79 of your payments went to interest. By contrast, if you pay $750 at the start of the month, then add $100 back every 6 days so that you spend $500 over the course of the cycle. You will have an average daily balance of $4466.67, which results in $44.67 in interest charges being accrued at the end of the month.  This gives you a balance of $4794.67 going into the next cycle, putting you about $3 ahead of the previous method.  Push this pattern out for a year and your ending balance is 2395.86, with 395.86 going to interest.  Resulting in a savings of ~$36 over making the smaller payment and paying cash for your other expenses.  If this happens to be a rewards card, you also have gained whatever rewards benefit it gives you. This demonstrates that by the strict numbers game, the scenario you propose should come out a small but measurable distance ahead of making a smaller payment in order to avoid putting things back on the card.  So why do so many people adamantly advise you to not do this?   Most of it has to do with psychology and risk.  The cash method does not leave any room for you to over spend.  You have shredded or locked up the credit card so it can’t be used casually, and when you run out of cash, you can’t spend any more.  Which forces you to pay much closer attention to where your money is going.   When you are running things through the credit card, you generally don’t have that hard stop unless you are up against your credit limit, and even then most issuers are quite happy to let you go over and charge you extra fees for doing so.  So if you have this plan where you are intending to put $500 on the card in a month, then lose track of something you did early in the month, and inadvertently spend $800, you are digging yourself deeper into the hole instead of climbing your way out. There is also a risk in terms of income loss.  In the cash method, you no longer have the money to spend, and you are forced to make the hard decisions about where to allocate what you do have, making you much more likely to cut back on luxury items to preserve the necessities.  In the card method, it is easy to say “eh, the card has room, I can catch up again later” and not realize the mess you are causing yourself until you are in way over your head.  I personally have run all my bills through a credit card in the past so that I could have one single payment to make.  Then I was unemployed for six months, and ended up moving before I found a new job.  Everything in between, including the move, went on the card.  Next thing I know I am carrying a balance of $15k where I used to always have it paid in full.  It took roughly 10 years, including several years of working strictly in cash, to get that back under control. I currently have a card that is carrying a balance, and I am running select expenses (such as fuel and food) through it while I whittle the balance back down.  Most of my main bills are still paid directly from cash, specifically so that I don’t fall back into the same trap I did before.  Even so, there were several months in the past year where the balance was creeping up instead of down, because we were not paying that close of attention to our spending.   Then my wife lost her job, and it forced us to closely evaluate where our money was going.  We still run certain things through said card, but we are much stricter about it being only those select things, and the balance is trending down again.  The main reason we are still channeling those expenses that way is because this is a cash back reward card, and we will be getting roughly $1000 back here in a couple more months. "Forget, for the moment, which will pay off most over the long term. Consider risk exposure. You've said that you (hypothetically) have ""little or no money"": that's the deal-breaker. From a risk-management perspective, your investment portfolio would be better off diversified than with 90% of your assets in a house. Consider also the nature of the risk which owning a house exposes you to: Housing prices are generally tied to the state of the economy. If the local economy crashes, not only could you lose your job, but you could lose a good part of the value of your house... and still owe a lot on your loan. (You also might not be able to move as easily if you found a new job somewhere else.) You should almost certainly rent until you're more financially stable and could afford to pay the new mortgage for a year (or more) if you suddenly lost your job. Then you can worry more about maximizing your investments' rate of return." In addition to the already good answers you also want to consider your time horizon. Unless you are looking out 10+ years, building your down payment in an account that is invested in the market is probably subject to too much market risk. Are you willing to delay purchasing a home by five years if the market turns down at the wrong time? A better option is to just use a savings accounts. To avoid spending the money, you can open a dedicated account. Separate savings account for a special purpose are s common feature at credit unions and probably are available at many regular banks as well. Then for funding the account, many employers allow you to split direct deposits amongst multiple accounts, so you will just need to provide the routing number and fractional amount of your paycheck for that account. Keep in mind, this is a matter of preference, and the answers here are going to give you a look at the choices and the member's view on the positive/negative for each one.  My opinion is to put 20% down (to avoid PMI) if the bank will lend you the full 80%. Then, buy the house, move in, and furnish it. Keep track of your spending for 2 years minimum. It's the anti-budget. Not a list of constraints you have for each category of spending, but a rear-view mirror of what you spend. This will help tell you if, in the new house, you are still saving well beyond that 401(k) and other retirement accounts, or dipping into that large reserve.  At that point, start to think about where kids fit into your plans. People in million dollar homes tend to have child care that's 3-5x the cost the middle class has. (Disclosure - 10 years ago, our's cost $30K/year).  Today, your rate will be about 4%, and federal marginal tax rate of 25%+, meaning a real cost of 3%. Just under the long term inflation rate, 3.2% over the last 100 years. I am 53, and for my childhood right through college, the daily passbook rate was 5%. Long term government debt is also at a record low level. This is the chart for 30 year bonds.  I'd also suggest you get an understanding of the long term stock market return. Long term, 10%, but with periods as long as 10 years where the return can be negative.  Once you are at that point, 2-3 years in the house, you can look at the pile of cash, and have 3 choices.  We are in interesting times right now. For much of my life I'd have said the potential positive return wasn't worth the risk, but then the mortgage rate was well above 6-7%. Very different today. You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house.  Then, things start to get fun.  You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments.  Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.