What are the advantages and disadvantages of leasing out a property or part of a property (such as a basement apartment)?
"The obvious advantage is turning your biggest liability into an income-generating asset. The downside are: (1), you have to find tenants (postings, time to show the place, credit/background check, and etc) (2), you have to deal with tenants (collection of rent, repairs of things that broke by itself, complaints from neighbors, termination, and etc) (3), you have to deal with the repairs In many ways, it's no different from running another (small) business, so it all boils down to how much time you are willing to invest and how handy you are in doing reno's and/or small repairs around the house. For profitability/ROI analysis, you want to assume collection of 11 months of rent per year (i.e. assume tenant doesn't renew after year, so you have the worst case scenario) and factor in all the associated expense (be honest).  Renting out a second property is a bit tricky as you often have to deal with a large operating expense (i.e. mortgage), and renting a basement apartment is not bad financially and you will have to get used to have ""strangers"" downstairs." "It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a house/condo and rent it out now. On the other hand, I think finishing your basement and then renting it out is an excellent idea.  The ROR is excellent as long as you can deal with the ""strangers"" in the basement, have the extra driveway space and negative association with renting out your basement. HTH" Complexity has mentioned some good points. I'd also like to add on the downsides:  It's not that easy to get rid of a tenant!  Imagine if your tenant passed your background check with flying colors but then turned out to be the tenant from hell...  How would you resolve the situation?  If the thought of that kind of situation stresses you (it would stress me!), I would consider carefully whether you really want to be a landlord.
There are two Questions: Financial institutions do not care about your nationality, only your ability to pay over time. For long term debt the lender will want assurances that the borrower has the ability and means to pay the debt over time. A legal resident in the US should have no more difficulty obtaining financing than a citizen under similar life circumstances. The Lender is also under legal obligation to confirm that the borrower is who they say they are, will have the ability to pay over time AND have no malicious intent in the purchase. Persons who do not have legal status in the US, AND who do not have the means to pay for property outright will have difficulty obtaining financing as they will have trouble establishing the requirements of the Lender. This is simple math, a lender will be reluctant to lend to any person who is more likely to have difficulty paying the obligation than another. In your case Your father would be an unlikely candidate for a mortgage because he cannot establish his legal status nor can he guarantee that he will have the legal right to earn a means to pay the loan back. This puts the lender at risk both of losing the money lent AND losing the right to repossess the property if the borrower doesn't pay.  Despite all of the obstacles I have indicated above, it is still possible for your father to purchase property legally, but the risk and the cost go way up for him as a borrower. There may be sellers willing to finance property over time, but your father's status puts him at a disadvantage if the seller is not honest.  There may be community coalitions which can help you work through the challenges of property ownership. Please see these related articles "Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (""Grunderwerbssteuer"") and land registration fees (""Grundbucheintrag""). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (""Hausverwalter""). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security.  However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google ""Mietrecht Eigenbedarf"" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree." No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions.   However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair   market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain   if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally,   this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or   other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year   in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has   not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form   8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no   exempt use , later. See more here. I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment. Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general. "Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to ""restock"" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on.  I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely." "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." "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."