Use of free and clear houses as Collateral
"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the ""down payment"" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some ""walk away"" options that aren't possible otherwise.  I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go."
"By their agreements with the central counterparty - in the US, the exchange or the Options Clearing Corporation, which interposes itself between the counterparties of each trade and guarantees that they settle. From the CCP article: A clearing house stands between two clearing firms (also known as member firms or participants). Its purpose is to reduce the risk a member firm failing to honor its trade settlement obligations. A CCP reduces the settlement risks by netting offsetting transactions between multiple counterparties, by requiring collateral deposits (also called ""margin deposits""), by providing independent valuation of trades and collateral, by monitoring the credit worthiness of the member firms, and in many cases, by providing a guarantee fund that can be used to cover losses that exceed a defaulting member's collateral on deposit. Exercisers on most contracts are matched against random writers during the assignment process, and if the writer doesn't deliver/buy the stock, the OCC does so using its funds and goes after the defaulting party." Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance. First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.) "A mortgage is simply a loan backed by a property (and, because it's both very large and very common, covered by some specific laws).  As such, the bank isn't an ""investor"" in your house; it simply is lending you money with the property as collateral.  So, it doesn't get any share of the profit. As long as you sell the house on your own, for more than you owe, most of the time in the US you will get about 92-94% of the sale price back, minus whatever you owe on the house.  The 6-8% you don't get will go to the realtors as commission (unless you sell by owner and don't sell to someone with a buyer's agent), and to pay some of the costs of the sale (how much of those you pay depends on the deal you make with the buyer, but it's common to pay some of them in some areas).  You also will owe taxes (potentially).  You then pay the bank back from that amount. As such, in your example, let's say Bob owes $50k on his house, and sells it with a realtor for $150k.  He gets $150k-0.06*150k = 141k after commission. He then hands the bank a check for the current payoff of the loan: that amount is usually slightly higher than the remaining principal, because you owe the interest that's accrued between [last payment you made] and [day of sale].  Let's say this is a 6% loan, which works out to around 0.5% per month, and it's been half a month since his last payment, so he owes another 0.25%, or another $125.  Some mortgages also may have prepayment penalties (check your note).  In this case there isn't a penalty, so the bank gets $50,125 from the sale.  Usually, the bank would get that immediately at closing - ie, he doesn't get the full $141k or $150k and then write a check, instead the title/closing company gets that amount, and gives the $9k to the realtors, the $50,125 to the bank, and the remaining $90,875 to him.   Don't forget he may also owe income taxes, and sometimes other local taxes, on the profit on the sale. In this case the IRS wouldn't get anything (as it's under $250k), assuming it's a primary residence, but keep that in mind. Also - in the case of a foreclosure, the bank will get some extra money to pay for the costs it incurred in foreclosing on and selling the house." "Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't ""revenue"" until the interest is calculated for each month and ""accrues"" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured ""signature loan"" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider ""stores of value"" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the ""broken window"" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely ""distressed"" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called ""toxic assets""; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a ""strategic default""; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales." Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that. That is not an effective strategy for hiding assets. If you own any stake in those corporations, the attorney can target that ownership interest. If you don't have any ownership interest in those companies, then you're just like any other American dealing with other companies - no one expects to get a judgment against their adversary's apartment complex. "Clearing means processing unsettled transactions. Specifically - all the money transfers between the banks, in this case. Clearing Bank for RMB business means that all RMB transactions will be cleared through that specific bank. If bank A in Hong Kong gets a check drawn on Bank B in Hong Kong, and the check is in RMB - A will go to the BoC with the check and will get the money, and BoC will take the money from B. That obviously requires both A and B have accounts with BoC. ""Sole"" clearing house means there's only one. I.e.: in our example, A and B cannot settle the check through C where they both happen to have accounts, or directly with each other. They MUST utilize the services of BoC."