<prompt> Human: Posted this in rRealEstate but maybe this is a better forum. Lets assume that the property growth rate 5.5 exceeds the mortgage interest rate 4.3.Which of these options yields a higher overall long term Return on Investment 10 years:Option 1: Buy a 400k property and pay it off faster than Option 2.Option 2: Buy a property at the upper end of what you can pay off 600k. After 10 years, you will have paid more interest, and have paid less of the principal off. However, the portion of the property that you do own would experience higher compound growth than Option 1 due to the higher purchase price, and the property growth rate exceeding the mortgage interest rate.Is Option 2 utilising the concept of leverage, and would that yield a higher ROI?I am well aware of the risks of the property growth rate stagnating and even regressing in this model.I would be an owneroccupier, but its nice to think about these things.Any reading material is appreciated.  <response>: There is no guarantee of property growth rate, and 5.5 isnt a realistic assumption IMO, especially over a 10 year period, especially with all the ancillary costs associated with home ownership you need to take into account.Closing costs will be higher, taxes will be higher, interest will be higher, chances are youll also be paying PMI on a 600k vs a 400k home.if it is going to be owner occupied, you buy the house you need to satisfy your living requirements, you dont buy a house based solely on cost, value, or expectednon-guaranteed ROI. Thats a recipe for bankruptcy from my point of view. 