Buying a house, Bank or rent to own?
"It depends on the deal: and you didn't give any details. That said, there are some things that stand out regardless, and some more specific answers to your questions. First, Mortgage rates (at the bank) are absurdly low right now. Like 4%-5%; less than 4% for excellent credit. You say your credit is ok, so unless your landlord is willing to do a deal where they get no benefit (beyond the price of the house), the bank is the way to go. If you don't have much for a down payment, go with an FHA loan, where you need only 3.5% down.  Second, there is another option in between bank mortgage and rent-to-own. And that is that where your landlord ""carries the note"". Basically, there is a mortgage, and it works like a bank mortgage, but instead of the bank owning the mortgage, your landlord does. Now, in terms of them carrying all of it, this isn't really helpful. Who wants to make 3-4% interest?  But, there is an interesting opportunity here. With your ok credit, you can probably get pretty close to 4% interest at the bank IF the loan is for 80% LTV (loan to value; that is, 20% equity). At 80% LTV you also won't have PMI, so between the two that loan will be very cheap. Then, your accommodating landlord can ""carry"" the rest at, say, 6-7% interest, junior to the bank mortgage (meaning if you default, the bank gets first dibs on the value of the house). Under that scenario, your over all interest payment is very reasonable, and you wouldn't have to put any money down.  Now for your other questions:   If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay   anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: ""Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!"" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side.  How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)" 'Rent to own' is not a precise, single agreement. It can be whatever the seller and you agree to. It's a unique seller that would agree to this. Keep in mind, most sellers are needing to get their money in full to buy their next house. You might find an investor willing to work with you, but only for an inflated price, interest rate, or both.  The ideal seller would be underwater (owing more than the value of the home) but needing to move. In which case, they are hoping to find someone to buy them some time to get situated in their new house before moving forward with you and the bank to arrange a sale.  At its simplest, you might pay a premium on your rent to fix the price, giving you the option to buy during a particular period at that price.  It can be a much higher premium where you are renting and paying extra until you hit 20%, at which point you agree to finance the balance either with a bank loan or through the seller.  Buying a home you will live in is a personal decision. With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise purchase. "With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise   purchase. -- JoeTaxpayer We can, however, talk about the qualitative tradeoffs of renting vs owning. The major drawback which you won't hear enough about is risk. You will be putting a very large portion of your net worth in what is effectively a single asset. This is somewhat risky. What happens if the regional economy takes a hit, and you get laid off? Chances are you won't be the only one, and the value of your house will take a hit at the same time, a double-whammy. If you need to sell and move away for a job in another town, you will be taking a financial hit - that is, if you can sell and still cover your mortgage. You will definitely not be able to walk away and find a new cheap apartment to scrimp on expenses for a little while. Buying a house is putting down roots. On the other hand, you will be free from the opposite risk: rising rents. Once you've purchased the house, and as long as you're living in it, you don't ever need to worry about a local economic boom and a bunch of people moving into town and making more money than you, pushing up rents. (The San Francisco Bay Area is an example of where that has happened. Gentrification has its malcontents.) Most of the rest is a numbers game. Don't get fooled into thinking that you're ""throwing away"" money on renting - if you really want to, you can save money yourself, and invest a sum approximately equal to your down payment in the stock market, in some diversified mutual funds, and you will earn returns on that at a rate similar to what you would get by building equity in your home. (You won't earn outsized housing-bubble-of-2007 returns, but you shouldn't expect those in the housing market of today anyway.) Also, if you own, you have broad discretion over what you can do with the property. But you have to take care of the maintenance and stuff too." We have realized from our experience that rent to own is a scam. They want your money either way.   We are at the buying part, and finding it difficult to find a lender to give us full money the seller is asking us for the the house.  The house we have isn't valued at the same it was two years ago and now we are going to lose the house because we don't have the other $40 thousand they lied about at purchase price.  We will not do this again but coming from bankruptcies in the past is hard as well.
Another factor not mentioned are the rent prices in the area you are looking to live. I'd recommend buying a house of which the total monthly costs (mortgage, insurance, repairs, etc) are equal to or less than renting a house in the same area. If you can't find a property for sale that meets this requirement, you might actually be better off keep on renting, at least for a while, because you risk paying too much for your living expenses. A second point is, if possible, to buy when the mortgage interest rates are low, and then go for a mortgage with fixed interest and fixed repayments. While such a mortgage will be more more expensive than one with variable interest, and house prices are higher when mortgage rates are lower, future inflation is almost a certainty. And if your interest rate was fixed, and you are confident that you'll be able to negotiate salary raises in pace with the inflation, then inflation will gradually whittle down the rate between the mortgage payment and your income. Conversely, if interest rates are historically high, with no lowering in sight, then a variable loan might be more interesting.  And do shop around for mortgages, there are many banks out there, the competition between them is heavy, and many banks, especially the smaller banks, will often be willing to give you a mortgage at better conditions than their competitors. What are those maximums, and do all countries have them? Usury, lending money for any interest at all, used to be anti-biblical: it wasn't a Christian thing to do, and so in Christian countries it was Jews who did it (Jews who were money-lenders). Asking for interest on loans is still anti-Koranic: so Islamic banks don't lend money for interest. Instead of your getting a mortgage from the bank to buy a house, the bank will buy the house, which you then buy from bank on a rent-to-own basis. Further details: "I don't look to Super or Pension, I am working on self funding. My method is work in Sydney and buy a house in Sydney (I bought 6 years ago). Let my property rise on this stupidly insane Sydney growth (my place has risen by 76% in the last 6 years and thats in a ""bad"" economic climate). Each time the equity hits a certain point get an investment property on an interest only home loan and rent it out. Build this portfolio up as much and as quickly as you can. Repeat over and over until I decide to retire. Sell up investment properties and buy NOT IN SYDNEY where it is much cheaper and move there, keep the main house I always lived in as by this time I will own it outright, rent it out for an income that will more than sustain me in my retirement. Although there is also merit in the idea of sell the one you lived in and use the money to pay of one of the investments, this way you avoid capital gains tax. This idea came to me last night :)" This is of course a perfectly normal thing to happen. People trade up to a bigger house every day. When you've found a bigger house you want to move to and a buyer for your existing one, you arrange 'closing dates' for both i.e. the date on which the sale actually happens. Usually you make them very close, either on the same day or with an overlap of a few weeks. You use the equity (i.e. the difference between the house value and the mortgage) in the old house as the down payment on the new house. You can't of course use the part of the old house that is mortgaged. If the day you buy the new and sell the old is the same, your banks and lawyers do everything for you on that day. If there is an overlap then you need something called 'bridge financing' to cover the period when you own two houses. Banks are used to doing this, and it's not really that expensive when you take into account all the other costs of moving house. Talk to them for details. As a side note, it is generally reckoned not to be worth buying a house if you only intended to live there one or two years. The costs involved in the process of buying, selling and moving usually outweigh any gains in house value. You may find yourself with a higher down payment if you rent for a year or two and save up a down payment for your 'bigger' house instead. As Andy T says, it is very common for landlords to have a residential mortgage (typically capital + interest) on their own home, and a buy-to-let mortgage (typically interest-only) on each rental property that they own. However, before going down this route, you will need to do some homework. Buying and letting a property is covered by a fair amount of legislation and tax rules; and in the last couple of years, the amount of regulation has increased, as has the amount of tax you're likely to pay. Letting a property can be profitable, but you need to do the maths first, and make sure you do everything by the book. Using a reputable letting agent, at least for your first tenant, should help avoid common pitfalls. There are a number of good websites on this subject. Note that the rules in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all different, so make sure that you get the right information! As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan.  If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties.  For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties).  If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh. I am in Australia, but I think the banks in the UK would use similar wrkings. Your options 1 and 2 are basically no. Why would the bank consider your wife to be paying you rent when you live together. These are the type of practices that led to the GFC, and since then practices have been tightened. Regarding option 3, yes banks do take into consideration rent in their analysis of your loan. However, they would not include the full rent in their calculations, but about 70% to 75% of the full rent. This allows for loss of rent during vacant periods and adds a safety factor in their caluclations. But they will not include the rent itself, you would have to have other income as well to support your loan. Saying that, we do have Low Doc Loans in Australia (loans with little documentation required to get a loan). With these loans you basically have to make a declaration that you are telling the truth regarding your income sources and you can only usually borrow a lower LVR as these loans are seen as a bigger risk. These type of loans have also been tightened up since the GFC. Altough this may vary a lot depending on where you live and your actual finance, here what convinced me buying a home instead of renting : Other benefits :