Primary Residence to Investment Property - Changing PMI Terms
You could be in a bit of a bind.  I wouldn't push it any more until you read your loan papers very carefully. Going back to the lender for a refinance after you converted it to a rental (presumably without their knowledge) is risky.  I doubt they'd let you refinance anyway, as the house is underwater. If the loan is performing then I wouldn't think they'd look too hard for reasons to upset the flow of checks by calling the loan due, but if you brazenly advertise the change of property use to them they may reconsider. Read your loan papers carefully to see what they can do before you lean on them too much. As for managing the finances on that property, I'd build up a cushion to deal with the fact that your payment is going to shoot up considerably in year 8.  Also consider building up a side business to get another income stream going to compensate as well.  You have a little time before it shoots up. "Do you now own your new home, or are you renting?  This is a classic case of a mortgage ready to blow up. These 7/1 interest only would have a low rate, say 3%. So on $200K, the payment is $500/mo, but no principal paydown. Even if the rate were still 3% (it won't be) the 23 yr amortization means a payment of $1004 after the 7 years end. At 4%, it's $1109. 5%, $1221. I would take this all into account as you decide what to do. If you now own a new house, you should consider the morally questionable walk-away. I believe you were sold an unethical product. mb wrote ""shoot up considerably."" This is still an understatement. A product whose payment is certain to double in a fixed time is 'bad.' 'Bad' in the biblical sense. You have no obligation to keep any deal with the devil, which is exactly what you have.  There are some banks offering FHA products that might help you. I just received an offer from the bank holding a mortgage on my rental property. It's 4.5% for a refinance up to 125% of current value. There's a cost of $1800, but I owe so little, and am paying it off faster than the time left, I'm not bothering. You may benefit from such a program, but I'd still question if you can make a go of a house that even 2% underwater. Do some math, and see if you started now with a 30 year loan how the numbers work out.  (Forgive my soapbox stance on this. There are those who criticize the strategic defaulters. I think you fall into a group of innocent victims who were sold a product that was nothing less than a financial time bomb. I am very curious to know the original ""interest only"" rate, and the index/margin for the rate upon adjustment. If you include the original balance, I can tell you the exact payments based on the new rates pretty easily.)"
When purchasing a condo in a university town, it is almost guaranteed that the prices will be inflated as a result.  This is because you are competing not only with single-home, primary residence homeowners, but also with a multitude of investment buyers and landlords who want to purchase a rental property.  Universities are popular rental markets due to their stability (there will always be students looking for a place to live), and as a result the areas attract investors more than other markets. This can work in your favor, however.  If you don't mind sharing your residence with other students, and you don't mind the part time work that being a landlord requires, you can live much cheaper and even make money over the next few years as your roommates pay your bills.  Owning a primary residence rental property also brings a lot of tax benefits because you can claim expenses and depreciation against your income.  This could benefit your father who could be a co-owner and would certainly benefit from the write-offs against his higher tax bracket. The real trick that makes or breaks the experience is finding mature, responsible roommates who will cause the minimum amount of headache.  If this part of the equation is missing, it can lead to distractions from school and even legal worries when you have to think about things like unpaid rent and/or evictions. "The rent vs. buy ""debate"" or strategy has been a really interesting (and surprising) one to me. I can see both sides.  For instance, where I live one of the points on the local politician's platform is that he keeps property taxes low.    There are also significant tax deductions in the current tax code that favor the ""early stages"" of a primary residence home loan amortization, where the payments are mostly interest.    So such a place might be a more ""effective"" place to live, to retain the most income for some period of time early in the loan term.     Often places with cheap rent aren't places someone would want to live...you make important points about problems related to that. Places that someone (with enough income to make this strategy significant) *needs* to live aren't always going to be cheap to rent or cheap to own.   For some people in their ""prime earning (&amp; investing)"" years, this is a significant calculation to consider." Given that utilizing all the funds available to you drains your retirement and leaves you with very little cushion for unforeseen events (as already noted), it may be best to use a smaller amount for closing and just deal with the PMI for a couple years. PMI is likely less than the taxes/penalties incurred from withdrawing a full 20% + closing costs. Let alone the lost earning on the accounts (above your mortgage interest rate); but personally I think the stability of significant home equity is worth more than anticipated stock gains. I would recommend pulling enough to buy the house comfortably without dipping too deeply in any one area, while still paying down your balance to where you can eliminate PMI quickly (say 2-3 years). Your limits for each account are approximately: Roth IRAs:  Traditional IRAs: Brokerage (non-retirement): Checking: Things to consider:   If you are current on your payments, you can request PMI removal once your loan-to-value drops below 80% - it also terminates automatically when it is scheduled to drop below 78% (not if it actually has). Many loans have a 2 year minimum PMI period though, regardless of your Loan To Value (LTV) changes. LTV changes could be from: You can make a start to learn how to make better investing decisions by learning and understanding what your current super funds are invested in. Does the super fund give you choices of where you can invest your funds, and how often does it allow you to change your investment choices each year? If you are interested in one area of investing over others, eg property or shares, then you should learn more on this subject, as you can also start investing outside of superannuation. Your funds in superannuation are taxed less but you are unable to touch them for another 30 to 35 years. You also need to consider investing outside super to help meet your more medium term goals and grow your wealth outside of super as well. If you are interested in shares then I believe you should learn about both fundamental and technical analysis, they can help you to make wiser decisions about what to invest in and when to invest.  Above is a chart of the ASX200 over the last 20 years until January 2015. It shows the Rate Of Change (ROC) indicator below the chart. This can be used to make medium to long term decisions in the stock market by investing when the ROC is above zero and getting out of the market when the ROC is below zero. Regarding your aggressiveness in your investments, most would say that yes because you are still young you should be aggressive because you have time on your side, so if there is a downturn in your investments then you still have plenty of time for them to recover. I have a different view, and I will use the stock market as an example. Refer back to the chart above, I would be more aggressive when the ROC is above zero and less aggressive when the ROC is below zero. How can you relate this to your super fund? If it does provide you to change your investment choices, then I would be invested in more aggressive investments like shares when the ROC crosses above zero, and then when the ROC moves below zero take a less aggressive approach by moving your investments in the super fund to a more balanced or capital guaranteed strategy where less of your funds are invested in shares and more are invested in bonds and cash. You can also have a similar approach with property. Learn about the property cycles (remember super funds usually invest in commercial and industrial property rather than houses, so you would need to learn about the commercial and industrial property cycles which would be different to the residential property cycle). Regarding your question about SMSFs, if you can increase your knowledge and skills in investing, then yes switching to a SMSF will give you more control and possibly better returns. However, I would avoid switching your funds to a SMSF right now. Two reasons, firstly you would want to increase your knowledge as mentioned above, and secondly you would want to have at least $300,000 in funds before switching to a SMSF or else the setup and compliance costs would be too high as a percentage of your funds at the moment ($70,000). You do have time on your side, so whilst you are increasing your funds you can use that time to educate yourself in your areas of interest. And remember a SMSF is not only an investment vehicle whilst you are building your funds during your working life, but it is also an investment vehicle when you are retired and it becomes totally tax free during this phase, where any investment returns are tax free and any income you take out is also tax free. The PMI rate is calculated at the time your mortgage is underwritten to be terminated at the point where you have 20% equity in your home.  It is calculated based off of default risks based on your current equity value at the time of the loan.  So if you got your mortgage before the banking crisis those risk charts have changed dramatically and not in your favor. So lets say you have a 100k home which you put 10k down so you have a mortgage of 90k.  Since you have accumulated an additional 5k equity so payoff value is now 85k.  If you refinance your mortgage and the home values in your area have dropped 15% you now are borrowing 100% of the value of your home.  So you have higher risk from being at 100% as opposed to 90%.  And the PMI is for the 20% of equity you do not have that the bank can not expect to recover.  So when you originally bought the house your PMI pay out was 10k.  At 85K value and 100% borrowed the PMI payout will be closer to 18k.  While you may still be able to sell your home for the original value when they do the refinance calculations they use what your area has trended.  If that is the case you maybe be able get an actual appraisal to use but that will come out of your pocket. *Disclaimer: These are simplifications of how the whole complex process works if you call the banker they can explain exactly why, show you the numbers, and help you understand your specific circumstances.  * When you adjust your investments the following will happen: Initial condition: Modified condition: This means that after this change you will note that the amount of federal tax you pay each month via withholding will go up. You are now contributing less pre-tax, so your taxable income has increased. If you make no other changes, then in April you will either have increased your refund by 6 months x the additional $25 a month, or decreased the amount you owe by the same amount. There is no change in the total 401K balance at the end of the year, other than accounting for how much is held pre-tax vs. Roth post-tax. Keep in mind that employer contributions must be pre-tax. The company could never guess what your tax situation is. They withhold money for taxes based on the form you fill out, but they have no idea of your family's tax situation. If you fail to have enough withheld, you pay the penalty — not the company. *The tax savings are complex because it depends on marital status, your other pre-tax amounts for medical, and how much income your spouse makes, plus your other income and deductions. "Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these ""investments"" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that ""puts money into your pocket""." If it is a separate unit from the rest of the property,  you can use that portion as an investment property.  the part, or unit, you are living in is your primary residence. The remainder is your investment. You are eligible to not pay capital gains on the portion you live in After two years. As always consult a tax accountant For advice...  Also, if this is less then 4 unit, you may he able to finance the sale of the home with an FHA loan.