query: How do i get into investing stocks [duplicate]

positive: 50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...

positive: "Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com  Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks.  My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them.  Another great read is, ""Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?"" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called ""The RRSP Secret"" by Greg Habstritt. ""Unshakeable"" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that."

positive: "Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track ""the market"" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up."

negative: Depends on how you look at it. If it's a flaw in the specific methodology needed to count Twitter users, and if that flaw caused duplicate counts of some segments (or failure to remove duplicate instances if you prefer that), it could cause consistent overstatement.  With that said, I'm sure they did it on purpose

negative: No, there is no downside. I personally don't use duplicate checks.  I simply make a record of the checks I write in the check register.  A copy of the check, whether a duplicate or a photo, isn't really proof of payment for anyone but yourself, as it is very easy to write a check after the fact and put a different date on it.

negative: Public/private keys are a method of having a secret that others can verify without being able to duplicate. They are used all over the internet and work really well.  The biggest algorithm is RSA. Google can explain better than I can.  The big issue with these methods are key management. Who makes the key, who knows the key, how do you recover a lost key etc.

negative: "Probably a bad assumption, but I'm assuming your in the United States. Keep in mind, that the check number is printed in 2 places on the front of each check. First, in the upper right corner, and also along the bottom edge on of the check. Since the check number is scanned by the bank from the bottom edge of the check, covering or otherwise modifying the check number on the upper left corner will have no effect on the check number that is recorded when the check is processed. And, you can't modify or cover the numbers or place any marks in the area of the numbers along the bottom of the check as this will likely interfere with processing of checks. So, modifying the check numbers will not work. Your choices are basically to:   The check numbers are not used in any way in clearing the check, the numbers are only for your convenience, so processing checks with duplicate numbers won't matter.  The check numbers are recorded when processed at your bank so they can be shown on your printed and online statements. The only time the check number might be important is if you had to ""stop payment"" on a particular check, or otherwise inquire about a particular check. But this should not really be an issue because by the time you have used up the first batch of checks, and start using the checks with duplicate numbers, the first use of the early duplicate numbered checks will be sufficiently long ago that there should not be any chance of processing checks with duplicate numbers at the same time. You didn't mention how many checks you have with duplicate numbers, or how frequently you actually write checks so that may play a part in your decision. In my case, 100 checks will last me literally years, so it wouldn't be a problem for me."

negative: No, I was only partially sarcastic. The new stock sale goes to FB, not paid out to stockholders, at this point. Whether the stock is price right depends on how that investment is spent. People forget that stock is sold to generate investment capital, not to get a short-tem bump, and see who is left holding the bag. Was FB overpriced? It depends.

negative: What a mindfuck.  Human consciousness is something I can't quite wrap my head around.  How about an intermediate scenario -- what if whole-head transplants could be performed onto cyborg bodies such that no duplication of the mind was necessary?  Would that somehow be closer to a transfer of *this* you?

negative: Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.

negative: They're still behind on Model 3 numbers. China would be about taking all the money they've hemoraged to get where they are here and duplicate it over there, so while it's possibly a wildly lucrative market, it won't be for quite some time and after a lot more spending. They just trimmed the fat on their workforce, which is probably a good move, but so many at once says that they needed to cut spending.   Once the 3 is cranking out faster and AP2.5 is getting updates, the stock will probably make a good run, but for now it's going to flounder about close to where it is.

negative: After several hours of trying to get various import methods to work (see comment to other answer), I ended up just adding all the splits by just gritting my teeth, against the inefficiency of at all, and entered them manually. The process took a couple hours, but at least now I have clean data. Duplicating an existing transaction with splits and just changing the date is (a lot) more keyboard efficient than editing an existing transaction and adding the splits (Alt+N, L, 1/1/2011) even when accounting for the overhead of deleting the now-duplicate imported transaction (Alt+N, D, Alt+D).

negative: Most answers to this question only address the issue of providing personal information to a scammer. But considering that a lot of questions without the personal information addition get closed as duplicates of this one, I would like to answer the question in the subject: There are several criminal schemes which involve this.

negative: Why do people talk about stock that pay high dividends?  Traditionally people who buy dividend stocks are looking for income from their investments. Most dividend stock companies pay out dividends every quarter ( every 90 days). If set up properly an investor can receive a dividend check every month, every week or as often as they have enough money to stagger the ex-dates. There is a difference in high $$ amount of the dividend and the yield.  A $1/share dividend payout may sound good up front, but... how much is that stock costing you? If the stock cost you $100/share, then you are getting 1% yield. If the stock cost you $10/share, you are getting 10% yield.  There are a lot of factors that come into play when investing in dividend stocks for cash flow. Keep in mind why are you investing in the first place. Growth or cash flow. Arrange your investing around your major investment goals. Don't chase big dollar dividend checks, do your research and follow a proven investment plan to reach your goals safely.

negative: "For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could ""repay"" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you."

negative: "The ""$1000 is no money at all"" people are amusing me. Way back in the mists of time, a very young me invested on the order of ~$500 in a struggling electronics manufacturer I had a fondness for. An emotional investment, not much money, but enough that I could get a feel for what it was like owning stock in something. That stock's symbol was AAPL. This is admittedly a rare outcome, but $1000 invested over the long term isn't not worth doing. If for no other reason then when the OP has ""real"" money, he'll have X+$1000 invested rather than X, assuming 0% return, which I doubt. It's a small enough amount that there are special considerations, but it's a solid opportunity for learning how the market works, and making a little money. Anyway, my advice to the OP is as follows:"

negative: I tried to like /r/Anarchism, but the mentality portrayed there is that of a statist who is pissed that *they* aren't the dictator, and are willing to use violence and theft to achieve their goals.   Please shove /r/Anarchism up your ass, and visit /r/Anarcho_Capitalism to understand what the Non Aggression Principle is, and how to engage in voluntary transactions without duplicity or threats.

negative: The only problem with a mind upload is that it's not really _this_ you that gets moved, it's an exact duplicate of you that will think the transfer was successful. You'll still be trapped in your meat bag scheduled for dissolution.

negative: "First, I applaud you for caring.  Most people don't!  In fact, I was in that category.   You bring up several issues and I'll try to address them separately. (1) Getting a financial planner to talk with you.  I had the same experience!  My belief is that they don't want to admit that they don't know how things work. I even asked if I could pay them an hourly fee to ask questions and review stocks with them.  Most declined.  You'll find that very few people actually take the time to get trained to evaluate stocks and the stock market as a whole.  (See later Investools.com). After looking, however, I did find people who would spend an hour or two with me when we met once a quarter to review my ""portfolio""/investments.  I later found training that companies offered.  I would attend any free training I could get because they actually wanted to spend time and talk and teach investors. Bottom line is: Talking to their clients is the job of a financial planner.  If he (or she) is not willing to take this time, it is in your best interest to find someone who will spend that time. (2) Learning about investing! I'm not affiliated with anyone.  I'm a software developer and I do my own trading/investments.  The opinions I share are my own. When I was 20 years away from retirement, I started learning about the stock market so that I would know how it worked before I retired so that (a) I could influence a change if one was needed, and (b) so I wouldn't have to blindly accept the advice of the ""experts"" even when the stock market is crashing. I have used Investools.com, and TDAmeritrade's Think-or-Swim platform.  I've learned a tremendous amount from the Investools training.  I recommend them.  But don't expect to learn how to get rich from them or any training you take. The TDA Think-or-swim platform I highly recommend BECAUSE it has a feature called ""Paper Money"".  It lets you trade using the real market but with play money.  I highly recommend ANY platform that you can use to trade IN PAPER money! The think-or-swim platform would allow you to invest $30,000 in paper money (you can have as much as you want) into any stock.  This would let you see if you can make more money than your current investment advisor.  You could invest $10K in one SPY, $10K in DIA and $10K in IWM (these are symbols for the S&P 500, Dow 30, and Small Cap stocks).  This is just an example, I'm not suggesting any investment advise! It's important that you actually do this not just write down on a piece of paper or Excel spreadsheet what you were going to do because it's common to ""cheat"" and change the dates to meet your needs.  I have found it incredibly helpful to understand how the market works by trying to do my own paper and now real money investing. I was and you will be surprised to find that many trades lose money during the initial start part of the trade because it's very difficult to buy at the exact right time. An important part of managing your own investments is learning to trade with rules and not get ""emotionally involved"" in your trades. (3) Return on investment. You were not happy with $12 return.  Low returns are a byproduct of the way most investment firms (financial planners) take (diversification).  They diversify to take a ""hands off"" approach toward investment because that approach has been the only approach that they have found that works relatively well in all market conditions.  It's not (necessarily) a bad approach.  It avoids large losses in down markets (most riskier approaches lose more than the market).  The downside is it also avoids the high returns.  If the market goes up 15% the investment might only go up 5%. 30K is enough to give to multiple investment firms a try.  I gave two different firms $25K each to see how they would invest.  The direction was to accept LOTS of risk (with the potential for large losses or large gains). In a year that the market did very well, one lost money, and one made a small gain.  It was a learning experience.  I, now, have taken the money back and invest it myself. NOTE: I would be happy with a guy who made me 10-15% year over year (in good times and bad) and didn't talk with me, but I haven't found someone who can do that. :-) NOTE 2: Don't believe what you hear from the news about the stock market being up 5% year to date.  Do your own analysis. NOTE 3: Investing in ""the market"" (S&P 500 for example) is a great way to go if you're just starting.  Few investment firms can beat ""the market"" although many try to do so.  I too have found it's easier to do that than other approaches I've learned.  So, it might be a good long term approach as well. Best wishes to you in your learning about the market and desires to make money with your money.  That is what is all about."

negative: I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads.  Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.

negative: Aside from the fact that probably nobody is ever going to come and ask for that proof unless your amounts get five digits (or you're unlucky), if you never before reimbursed yourself, your old tax declarations would clearly show that. You can't prove a negative, so the only potential is that you had reimbursements before, and an audit might ask you to prove that the new ones are not duplicates of those. In this case, if you have other receipts / proof for all those other reimbursements, they are obviously not duplicates.

negative: Etags Reviews So how does one go about replacing a vehicle registration? eTags customers enjoy the opportunity to replace their registration certificate for free for every year that they are eTags customers. This eliminates the trip to the DMV, waiting in line, and paying any fees for duplicate registration.

negative: You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways  This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc.  AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited  TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock.

negative: I am confused as to what the author was talking about when speaking about the lack of features and research tools for stocks and how that is such a huge negative of Robinhood.  If anything, I want a cheap, simple platform to efficiently trade. I might as well save a few bucks on commission, right? I can do my research online and through SEC filings, I don't need e-trade to tell me what stocks to buy, I decide.   Whether I buy Cisco stock through TD Ameritrade's phone system for $45 per transaction or for free through Robinhood I'm still owning the same stock, the same company, at the same price probably within fractions of a penny per share.   I get what the author is saying though about the general aurora of the app that is encouraging for people to invest who should not be investing.   Maybe I don't see the problem with it because I like to think that I know what I am doing and don't just treat it like gambling.

negative: I never intended to get into a big debate on taxation. My point was that a buyback is the sane as a divided.  Would you agree to that? Here's an interesting test. Does he have the same problem with dividend producing stocks? If he does then how else are firms supposed to give s return to investors?  (Don't even think about saying through price appreciation because I'm sure you also have a rant for the drive for stock price.)  This isn't a do we tax or not.  That's overly broad for this piece.  Also he isn't talking about taxing away profits but using taxes to cause businesses to make investments.  Wouldn't you agree that if that extra factory was unproductive if it wouldnt have had an economical case to be invested in otherwise? Issuing taxes as a blunt tool to cause businesses to throw money at random projects is about the definition of misallocation.  Can we agree to this, absent a taxation debate i generally avoid like the plague?  You really are in a corner on how a company effectively passes a return to those who invested in them without subverting the whole pricing mechanism. Unless that is your point to do. Government control for all investments yeah!

negative: Value investing is just an investment strategy, it's an alternative to technical investing. Buffet made money picking stocks.  It's not obvious how that adds value, but it does. Everything about the stock market is ultimately about IPOs. Without active trading, of stocks after issue, no one would buy at the IPO.  The purpose of an IPO is to finance the long-term growth of a business, which is the point in the process where the value to the people gets created.  There is a group of elites that needs to be dealt with, you're correct, but I worry that your definition of this group is overly broad.

negative: > I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets  A large part of the discount an employer gets, is due to the number of policy holders they enroll.  Most methods of duplicating that have other problems.  So forcing everyone into an individual market will end up raising rates on everyone, by removing group discounts.  Eventually to the point where no one gets any discount from insurance.

negative: If I had to start with one thing about Dave's Philosophy it would be: Zero Debt.   Dave Ramsey doesn't believe in going into debt for anything, except a house for residence (and he's conservative about how much debt there as well).  This is his biggest differentiating feature from Clark Howard or some of the others.   His main points are (Some duplication of Yishai) His radio show is available on many US radio stations with internet streams.  I use WSJS, where he is available from Noon to 3PM Eastern.

negative: I had exactly the same need and I ended up using BillGuard and I like it.  At the end of the day, it sends an alert where I need to review all the transactions - takes hardly 5seconds and I am on top of all transactions.  From the last 1yr I have found 1 fraudulent and 2 duplicate charge using billguard. Didn't really save a ton of money but its useful to understand how you use your credit card. Don't work for or promoting the app, its just useful.

negative: How do you manage things like right of way? Duplication of services etc?  Are we to assume that all actors will build in good faith and allow all to access these pieces of infrastructure. What happens if we clog up all the first few meters of underground with network cable and the one water company needs to upgrade piping to meet population needs?  Who co-ordinates all these kinds of things to ensure it works well? How are these people paid? Where do their interests lie? In the event of a big highway project tearing through a neighborhood who represents the people of the neighborhood and ensures their interests are heard as well?  What about public services that are in no way profitable for a company to run or manage?  I would love to just let the perfect free market reign however it completely ignores all kinds of physical and logistic realities.

negative: Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.

negative: What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index   investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy.  If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money.  If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money.  If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money.  It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel:  $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks.  This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source):  Asset prices decrease in value frequently.  Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich).  I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid   them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk.  You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high.  From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk).  Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source):  Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors.  For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended.  Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.

negative: Yep, I thought this was how it was done in almost engineering disciplines. Extremely detailed spec sheets, but not blueprints. It's obvious why... making blueprints for a manufacturing facility you don't know anything about is difficult, and I'm sure it results in a nightmare of trading plans and revisions back and forth between the engineers at home and at the contractor, as well as duplication of engineering talent (and cost-saving was the reason Boeing was subcontracting in the first place).  NASA didn't provide blueprints when doing the original Apollo mission (arguably the best example of gigantic subcontractor jobs), they provided extremely detailed specs and watched progress like a hawk.  The main problem sounds like the subcontractors were subpar and not properly managed.

negative: long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity.  You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go.  Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong.  Leverage means increasing your risk.  long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much.  but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way.  you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option.  If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock.  If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside.  If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless.  So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do.  and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.

negative: The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk.  The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!


query: Should I make extra payments to my under water mortgage or increase my savings?

positive: I'd pile up as much cash as you can in a savings account - you will need money for the move (even if it's just gas money) and it's going to be hard to predict where house prices are going so you might or might not be underwater when it comes time to sell the house. Or you might be so deep underwater by then that the extra money doesn't make much of a difference anymore anyway. Once you're actually in the process of selling the house, you can figure out if you can (or need to) use the savings to cover the shortfall, closing costs or if you just built up a little wealth during the time you put the money aside.

positive: You say you are underwater by $10k-15k.  Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you?  If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money?  A loss will be taken on the sale.  Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself.  Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful.  If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'.  Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments.  It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank.  I would not feel this way.  The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors.  They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners.  It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs.  The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk.  If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur.  This is the most basic rule of finance.

negative: By rounding my house payments up to the nearest $50.00, my 30 year mortgage was paid off in 7 years.  Initially, my mortgage payment was roughly $600, $50 going to principal and $550 going to interest (banker's profits). By paying $650, I was actually doubling the amount I was paying on principal.  Since interest is computed as a function (percentage) of the outstanding principal balance, the amount of my fixed payment that went to interest decreased each month, and the amount that went to principal increased. In 7 years I owned my home free and clear, and started putting the money I had been putting into the mortgage payments into investments. A rule of thumb I have discovered is that it takes half the time to save money to meet a goal that it takes to pay off the same debt.

negative: "I doubt you will get an answer equal to ""You can't save when you have debt"". Because most mortgages are for decades, very few people would be able to save for retirement if they had to wait to be mortgage free. The difficulty in saving occurs when the interest rate is very high (18% or more) and the interest is not deductible. Such as with credit cards. The minimum payment for your mortgage is 30% of your income. If that doesn't include taxes and homeowners insurance in the 30%, then for the United States that would be considered too large. While the general plan to pay down the mortgage is a good idea, make sure that you are able to handle the minimum payments before starting to increase the payments. Try the minimum for a year or two before getting aggressive The calculation is based on the interest rate of the mortgage, the interest rate of the savings account, and the potential tax deduction of the mortgage and the tax rate on the earned interest. Putting extra money into a mortgage, but missing out on matching retirement money would also have to be figured into the calculation. Make sure you do save for retirement , kids education, and emergencies. Unless your country has a complex system where the money can flow in and out of the mortgage, then once you put extra money into the mortgage you can't get it back when the car dies.  The nice thing about putting extra money into a mortgage is that you can do it either in an organized way, or only when you feel comfortable. So it is not urgent for you to commit to a plan immediately. One thing to avoid is a plan that charges you a fee to add extra money, or charges a fee to switch to a bi-weekly mortgage. While your ideas is good, these plans should never cost any money to start, and may be a scam if a 3rd party gets between you and the lender."

negative: There could be a number of reasons for a rent increase. The only information I can offer is how I calculate what rent I will charge. The minimum I would ever charge per unit (Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units This number is the minimum because it's what I need to keep afloat.  Keep in mind these are ballpark numbers The target rent ((Mortgage payment + Water) / Number of units)*1.60 I mark up the price 60% for a few reasons. First, the building needs a repair budget. That money has to come from somewhere. Second, I want to put away for my next acquisition and third I want to make a profit. These get me close to my rental price but ultimately it depends on your location and the comparables in the area. If my target rent is 600 a month but the neighbors are getting 700-800 for the same exact unit I might ask more. It also depends on the types of units. Some of my buildings, all of the units are identical. Other buildings half of the units are bigger than the other half so clearly I wouldn't charge a equal amount for them. Ultimately you have to remember we're not in the game to lose money. I know what my renters are going to pay before I even put an offer in on a building because that's how I stay in business. It might go up over the years but it will always outpace my expenses for that property.

negative: I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.

negative: Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will  stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest  new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest  new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money.

negative: You should plan on your monthly payment (Principal + Interest + Escrow) being a conservative percentage of your take home pay.   No matter your cash savings, if your housing is 60% of your take home pay you are going to have trouble keeping up on the house. My target for housing is that a 15 year, fixed rate mortgage should be under 25% of my take home pay.   For some people, they find that too conservative.  I think the exact percent is a risk/reward preference.  Some people like the 25% number but look at a 30 year mortgage. Whatever you do, don't buy a house at the limit of what the bank thinks you can afford :)  Historically, they have been more willing for me to spend my money than I have been.

negative: "littleadv's first comment - check the note - is really the answer. But your issue is twofold -  Every mortgage I've had (over 10 in my lifetime) allows early principal payments. The extra principal can only be applied at the same time as the regular payment. Think of it this way - only at that moment is there no interest owed. If a week later you try to pay toward only principal, the system will not handle it. Pretty simple - extra principal with the payment due. In fact, any mortgage I've had that offered a monthly bill or coupon book will have that very line ""extra principal."" By coincidence, I just did this for a mortgage on my rental. I make these payments through my bank's billpay service. I noted the extra principal in the 'notes' section of the virtual check. But again, the note will explicitly state if there's an issue with prepayments of principal. The larger issue is that your friend wishes to treat the mortgage like a bi-weekly. The bank expects the full amount as a payment and likely, has no obligation to accept anything less than the full amount. Given my first comment above here is the plan for your friend to do 99% of what she wishes: Tell her, there's nothing magic about bi-weekly, it's a budget-clever way to send the money, but over a year, it's simply paying 108% of the normal payment. If she wants to burn the mortgage faster, tell her to add what she wishes every month, even $10, it all adds up.  Final note - There are two schools of thought to either extreme, (a) pay the mortgage off as fast as you can, no debt is the goal and (b) the mortgage is the lowest rate you'll ever have on borrowed money, pay it as slow as you can, and invest any extra money. I accept and respect both views. For your friend, and first group, I'm compelled to add - Be sure to deposit to your retirement account's matched funds to gain the entire match. $1 can pay toward your 6% mortgage or be doubled on deposit to $2 in your 401(k), if available. And pay off all high interest debt first. This should stand to reason, but I've seen people keep their 18% card debt while prepaying their mortgage."

negative: The principal and interest are fixed, no matter how much money you throw at them. This is not correct. If I pay an extra $1000 in principal this month, then my mortgage balance is decreased. So slightly less interest accrues before my next payment. That means my next payment will be slightly more toward principal and slightly less toward interest than it would have been if I hadn't made an extra principal payment. This means that my principal will eventually drop to zero earlier than it would have if I had not made the extra payment, and I will end up making fewer total payments than I would have without the extra principal payments. Of course, the effect is even stronger if I make regular extra payments rather than a single one. Like paying off any debt, you can consider this payment essentially a risk free investment paying whatever is the interest rate on that debt. You know that by making this payment, you reduce your interest payments over the coming years by the interest rate on that amount.  Edit: In comments you said, you will pay your mortgage off earlier but you won't drop the amount required to pay each month. Look at a mortgage amortization table to see this. This isn't because of the amortization table, it's because of the contract terms between you and the lender. After you make an extra principal payment, a new amortization schedule has to be calculated one way or another. It would be possible to re-calculate a new reduced monthly payment keeping the number of payments remaining fixed. Or you can calculate a new repayment schedule keeping the total monthly payment fixed and reducing the number of payments.  It happens the banks prefer to do the 2nd of these rather than the first, so that's the terms they offer when lending. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can comment on why they prefer that.  In any case, by reducing your principal you improve your personal balance sheet and build equity in the mortgaged property so that, for example, if you sell you'll keep more of the proceeds and use less to pay off your loan.

negative: Yes, a mortgage is debt.  It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage.  The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have.  Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt.

negative: It's worthwhile to try and find a better minimum down-payment.  When I bought my home, I got an FHA loan, which drastically reduced the minimum down-payment required (I think the minimum is 3% under FHA).  Be aware that any down-payment percentage under 20% means that you'll have to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI) as part of your monthly mortgage.  Here's a good definition of it. Part of the challenge you're experiencing may be that banks are only now exercising the due diligence with borrowers for mortgages that they should have been all along.  I hope you're successful in finding the right payment.  Getting a mortgage to reduce your spending on housing relative to rent is a wise move.  In addition to fixing your monthly costs at a consistent level (unlike rent, which can rise for reasons you don't control), the mortgage interest deduction makes for a rather helpful tax benefit.

negative: Your mortgage represents a negative cash flow of $X for N months. The typical mortgage prepayment doesn't reduce your next payment, but does reduce the length of the mortgage. If you look at the amortization table of a 30 year loan, you might see a payment of $1000 but only $50 going to principal. So if on day one you send an extra $51 or so to the bank, you find that in 30 years you just saved that $1000 payment. In effect, it was a long term bond or CD, yielding the post tax rate of the mortgage. Say your loan were 7%. At 7%, money doubles every 10 years or so. 30 years is 3 doubles or 8X. If I were to offer you $1000 and ask for $7500 in 30 years, you might accept it, with an agreement to buy me out if you refinanced. For me, that would be an investment. Just like buying a bond. In fact, there is a real return, as you see the cash flow at the end. The payments 'not made' are your payback.  Those who insist it's not an investment are correct in the strict sense of the word's definition, but pedantic for the fact in practice, the prepayment is a choice to be considered alongside other investment choices. When I have a mortgage, I am the mortgagor, the bank, the mortgagee. Same as a company issuing a bond, the Bank holds my bond and I'm making payments to them. They hold my bond as an investment. There is no question of that. In fact, they package these and sell them as CMOs, groups of mortgages. A pre-payment is me buying back the last coupon on my mortgage. I fail to see the distinction between me 'buying back' $10K in future coupons on my own loan or me investing $10K in someone else's loans.  The real question for me is whether this makes sense when rates are so low. At 4%, I'd say it's a matter of prioritizing any high rate debt and any other investments that might yield more. But even so, it's an investment yielding 4%.  Over the years, I've developed the priorities of where to put new money - The priorities are debatable. I have my opinion, and my reasons to back them up. In general, it's a balance between risk and return. In my opinion, there's something wrong with ignoring a dollar for dollar match on the 401(k) in most circumstances. Others seem to prefer being 100% debt free before saving at all. There's a balance that might be different for each individual. As I started, the mortgage is a fixed return, with no chance to just get it back if needed. If your cash savings is pretty high, and the choice is a .001% CD or prepay a 4% mortgage, I'd use some funds to pay it down. But not to the point you have no liquid reserves.

negative: "Jack ""The Mortgage Professor"" Guttentag provides a thorough analysis of a similar-sounding system: In addition, I had the feeling that customers of Mortgage Relief should have gotten a spreadsheet for their $45, and wondered why they hadn’t? So I set out to develop a spreadsheet of my own that could quantify the benefits – if there were any. The major question I wanted the spreadsheet to answer was, how large is the benefit of using the Mortgage Relief scheme if you don’t have any surplus income but only just enough to make the scheduled payment? This is the critical question because we know that if you use surplus income to make extra payments to principal, you pay down the mortgage more quickly. This is so whether you apply the income directly to the mortgage, as most borrowers do, or whether you follow the Mortgage Relief procedure where you use a credit line to pay down the mortgage and current income to pay down the credit line. I spent much of my air time between Philadelphia and San Francisco on this project, and finally gave it up. Once I removed surplus income from the equation, I could not find a way to make the Mortgage Relief scheme work. You may also want to read related articles by Guttentag:"

negative: Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction.  There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month.  In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan.  Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase.

negative: One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school.  Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.

negative: In the US you can get a home warranty when you buy a house that will cover major repairs for the first few years of owning a home.  The costs vary based on age and the results of the home inspection.  Ours cost ~$250 a year.  This was put into our closing costs.  Unfortunately this market does have some disreputable companies that come im with prices that seem too good to be true.  As is usually the case they are.  Do research on the company you are getting the home warrenty from to make sure you are dealing with a reputable company that will honor its commitments. By having 20% down you will avoid needing Mortgage insurance which will save you a considerable amout.  My PMI cost me about $70 a month. However once you get to 20% equity in your home the pmi drops off.  So if you can put down 15% you should be able to get out from under your pmi in a few years if you want to keep that 5% cushion while making extra payments. The question is how much do you feel you need.  So far owning a 70 year old home my extra maintence costs have been around 2500 a year.  But they seem to be in 1k chunks every 4 or 5 months.

negative: Depending on your bank you may receive an ACH discount for doing automatic withdrawals from a deposit account at that bank. Now, this depends on your bank and you need to do independent research on that topic. As far as dictating what your extra money goes towards each month (early payments, principal payments, interest payments) you need to discuss that with your bank. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find. In my experience most banks, so long as you didn't sign a contract on your mortgage where you're penalized for sending additional money, will apply extra money toward early payments, and not principal. I would suggest calling them. I know for my student loans I have to send a detailed list of my loans and in what order I want my extra payments toward each, otherwise it will be considered an early payment, or it will be spread evenly among them all.

negative: "The can and the should have been discussed in other answers and comments,  and so I will discuss the how.  As others have noted, it is important to make sure that the additional money goes to reducing principal and not towards  prepayment of interest.  Unfortunately, very few bank tellers understand how mortgages work and very few bank officers - even loan officers - understand how mortgages work too. Thus a statement that you want the extra money to go towards principal will likely be met with a blank look. Furthermore, what they do with the money and how it is entered on the bank books that afternoon when the transactions are recorded may have no resemblance to what was discussed and agreed to earlier in the day.  Based on my personal experiences and  many arguments with banks about how they handled my prepayments and how interest was computed, I would  recommend the following (which is easier now that automated payments are possible for the standard monthly payment and additional payments are possible via electronic funds transfer). Make sure that automated payments are made on the day that the payment is due, not at the end of the ten-day grace period that banks love to grant you for making the monthly payment. Yes, there is no penalty for late payment as long as you pay before the end of the grace period, but interest continues to be charged and so more of each graciously delayed payment goes to interest  and less towards principal. Make the additional payment on the same day as the standard monthly mortgage payment is made. This ensures that at worst just one day's interest is owing when the additional payment is made. Also, payment in the middle of the monthly cycle is an almost sure way of getting ripped off on the interest because the bank's computers will post the payment in the manner most favorable to them, and usually contrary to the terms of your mortgage.  I have  complained to banks about mishandled mid-month payments and won every time, and on many occasions the bank officer would grudgingly say ""We have always done it this way and nobody  ever complained till you did today."" I doubt very much if the bank's programs got changed as a result of my complaints. If you are not sure how mortgages work and how interest  is calculated or don't have the time or inclination to go hassle with the bank each time but do prefer not to get ripped off, make the payment as described: on the dot and at the same time as the regularly scheduled monthly payment. The amortization schedule that the bank should have given you shows how much the principal amount is after the monthly  payment is made on each due date.  Assuming that you have  not been taking advantage of the grace periods and so the schedule is correct, make an additional payment not of a round sum but an exact amount (down to the last penny) that will jump you from principal owing after today's regular payment to principal owing after the regular payment N months from today. Here of course you choose N based on how much extra money you were planning on paying towards your mortgage.  By making the extra payment, you will effectively have cut the length of  the mortgage by n months and the same amortization schedule will apply over the shorter period.  Since very little of the principal is repaid in the early life of the mortgage, an additional principal-only payment can reduce the length of the mortgage by years. Paying a specific amount that matches the amortization schedule also helps if you ever need to hassle with the bank. It is their print-out you are arguing from, and not trying to explain to a clueless bank officer how the bank did not compute interest  correctly after you paid $1500.00 extra at beginning of last month."

negative: I think  the cleanest way to do this is to rent the house from your father for 2 years, possibly adding an option to buy at a set price to the lease agreement.  That takes care of any gift issues, and avoids complications like you living in a house that you couldn't afford to own otherwise.  If/when you are able to afford a mortgage, get a mortgage on the house and buy it from your father.   Will a bank be willing to take out a mortgage on a house that I technically own for the full amount? I would not take out a mortgage for anything more than 80% of the house's market value.  Anything more than that, and you need to pay mortgage insurance, which will increase your monthly payment for no benefit to you.   My biggest concern is that you won't be able to afford an 80% mortgage after 2 years.  If your father really wants to keep the house in the family then he should either keep the house and rent it to you, or give you the down payment as a gift (keeping under the maximum gift to avoid taxes). If neither you or your father cannot afford the house you may have no choice but to sell it.  I would not advise you make a bad financial decision purely for sentimental reasons.

negative: "In the Netherlands specifically, there are several reasons to pay extra off on your mortgage. First, house prices have dropped significantly in the last several years.  They are rising slowly now, but it's region specific and you can still borrow more than 100% of the price of the house.  Under these conditions, if you choose to sell your house and the outstanding mortgage amount is greater than the value of your house, you are left with a gap (restschuld) to finance.  I think the rules have changed recently around this, allowing you to finance this gap with a new mortgage, but this is not a good idea.  The tax implications of this are likely to be complicated in the long run and your new house may not cover this gap for some time. Second, the less you owe on your house, the lower mortgage rates you can get.  Mortgages in the Netherlands usually fall into categories based on percentage of the auction price at a foreclosure sale (executiewaarde).  If you pay more of your mortgage off, you may qualify for a lower interest rate, possibly making refinancing interesting.  This is especially important if interest rates continue to drop but the value of your house does not increase or even decreases. Third, if you choose to keep your house and rent it out, the banks in the Netherlands have very strict rules on this if you want to do it above board.  I've read that some banks require the mortgage amount (NB not the value you may have built up in a linked savings or insurance account) to be less than 50% of the foreclosure auction price (executiewaarde).  Also, related to point 2, if you have something other than a linear or annuity mortgage, you will need to refinance to do this as the tax advantages around savings mortgages ([bank]spaarhypotheken) do not apply if it is not used as your own residence. Finally, if you choose to sell and you are in the happy position of having the value of your house be greater than the value of your mortgage (you have an overwaarde), there may still be some obstacles.  Any value you have accumulated in a linked savings or life insurance account is not available until after you sell your house.  Extra value derived purely from the difference between mortgage value and sale price may be easier to deal with. EDIT: As a final note, I've made extra payments on both a ""Spaarhypotheek"" (linked life insurance) and a ""Bankspaarhypotheek"" (linked savings account).  In one, the principal paid each month reduced and the mortgage lifetime stayed the same.  In the other, the principal paid each month stayed the same and the lifetime reduced.  In both cases, interest payments were less each month.  I would contact your mortgage provider to understand what the expected impact of extra payments will be."

negative: My car loan, much to my disappointment, was through Wells Fargo. I went to my credit union and refinanced (with a .1% increase of interest) and I feel a lot better about my payments.  In reality, it pays for itself because my credit union is customer-owned, and my dividends offset the extra cost. :)

negative: "I've had a mortgage changing hands with mid size companies for many years with no problems.  I've handled many complex financial and technical transactions with multiple parties with no problems over the course decades. Then, after my last refinance, my mortgage fell into the hands of JP Morgan Chase. The bank sent one letter to let me know of the transfer, and in the next week they sent my loan to collections for what I later found to be Chase's process error in the transfer.   For the next three months, I ended up in customer service hell as one Chase group threatened to foreclose on my house while another group told me to ignore the imminent foreclosure notices. One started to ""investigate"" the transfer while the collections group tried to make me pay my mortgage payment twice.  The mess only ended up being taken care of after I tracked down the old owner of my loan and had them refund the ""lost"" payment directly to me - normally they would have sent it to the company buying the loan, but could not get Chase to accept the payment. Then I paid Chase that exact same mortgage payment.    All the time the Chase internal investigations and collections department were completely incapable of a simple call to previous holder of the loan. A company handling millions of mortgage transactions is somehow incapable of handling a minor glitch in a mortgage transfer? It's either utter incompetence or total malice in picking up extra penalty fees or maybe an occasional forclosure if homeowners didn't say on top of the details. This is what we used our collective tax dollars to bail out."

negative: Simply put, for a mortgage, interest is charged only on the balance as well. Think of it this way - on a $100K 6% loan, on day one, 1/2% is $500, and the payment is just under $600, so barely $100 goes to principal. But the last payment of $600 is nearly all principal.  By the way, you are welcome to make extra principal payments along with the payment due each month. An extra $244 in this example, paid each and every month, will drop the term to just 15 years. Think about that, 40% higher payment, all attacking the principal, and you cut the term by 1/2 the time.

negative: "Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the ""what-ifs"". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the ""pay-off-early"" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%."

negative: So the principle is true.  Assuming that you get paid bi-weekly, you end up getting three paychecks two months during the year.  Typically that is in January and July/August.  So if things were different, and your mortgage was setup so you paid half a monthly payment each paycheck, then you would wind up making one full extra payment per year.  Making that extra payment, most often, reduces the mortgage by 7 years on a 30 year note.   While true, many of these companies charge exorbitant fees for the right for you to do so, so the principal reduction is not commensurate with what you are paying.   You can simply do this yourself without paying fees.  On those extra pay days, pay half a payment to principal only, and no fee, no fuss.  This is pretty easy to do with most mortgage companies as they have online payments and it is just a matter of filling out a web form.  For me this does not even cost a stamp as they pull from my checking account at another bank.

negative: "As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates ""unwise"" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms.  But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do.  You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets.   To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one.  When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to.  Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash.  DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on.  I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable.  And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime."

negative: Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee...

negative: Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.

negative: "Math says invest in the Market (But paying off your mortgage early is a valid option if you are very risk averse.) You are going to get a better return by investing in the stock market.  In the US in 2015/2016, mortgages are 3%-4%, and give you a tax break.  The rate of return on the stock market is ~10%, (closer to 6% after you subtract out inflation, taxes, fees, etc.) Since 10 > 3, (or 6% > 4%, to use the pessimistic numbers)  investing in the market is the better deal. But... The market has risk, and your mortgage does not.  If you are very risk averse paying off the mortgage may make sense. As an example:  Family A has a single ""breadwinner"", who works a low skilled job. Family B has 2 working spouses, both in high skill white collar positions.   These two families are going to have wildly different risk tolerances.  It may make sense for family A to ""invest"" its extra money in paying off the mortgage, after they have tackled high interest debt, built an emergency fund, maxed the 401k, etc. Personally I would not: in the US you cannot recoup pre-payments if you lose your job.  If I was very risk averse, I would keep my extra money as cash, so I could pay my mortgage after I lost my job.  It is never going to make sense for family B to pay the mortgage early.  At that point, any decision to pre-pay is going to be based on emotion and not logic."

negative: It's sad.  My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce.  BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage.  She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times.  Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well.   This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house.  I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away.  6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment.  Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.

negative: I think we would be good with paying around $1200 monthly mortgage fees (with all other property fees included like tax etc.) You probably can't get a $250k house for $1,200 a month including taxes and insurance.  Even at a 4% rate and 20% down, your mortgage payment alone will be $954, and with taxes and insurance on top of that you're going to be over $1,200.  You might get a lower rate but even a drop to 3% only lowers the payment $90/month. Getting a cheaper house (which also reduces taxes and insurance) is the best option financially. What to do with the $15k that I have? If you didn't have a mortgage I'd say to keep 3-6 months of living expenses in an emergency fund, so I wouldn't deplete that just to get a mortgage. You're either going to be  Since 1) the mortgage payment would be tight and 2) you aren't able to save for a down payment, my recommendation is for you to rent until you can make a 20% down payment and have monthly payment that is 25% of your take-home pay or less.  Which means either your income goes up (which you indicate is a possibility) or you look for less house.  Ideally that would be on a 15-year note, since you build equity (and reduce interest) much more quickly than a 3-year note, but you can get the same effect by making extra principal payments. Also, very few people stay in their house for 30 years - 5 years is generally considered the cutoff point between renting and buying.  Since you're looking at a 10-year horizon it makes sense to buy a house once you can afford it.

negative: In the US, our standard fixed rate mortgages would show no difference. My payment is calculated to be due on the 1st of each month.  When I first got a mortgage, I was intrigued by this question, and experimented. I paid early, on the 15th, 2 weeks early, and looked at my next statement. It matched the amortization, exactly. Mortgages at the time were over 12%, so I'd imagine having seen the benefit of that 1/2% for the early payment.  Next I paid on the last day before penalty, in effect, 2 weeks late. I expected to see extra interest accrue, again, just a bit, but enough to see when compared to the amortization table. Again, no difference, the next statement showed the same value to the penny.

negative: Considering that it's common for the monthly mortgage payment to be 25% of one's income, it's an obvious advantage for that monthly burden to be eliminated.  The issue, as I see it, is that this is the last thing one should do in the list of priorities: The idea of 'no mortgage' is great. But. You might pay early and have just a few years of payments left on the mortgage and if you are unemployed, those payments are still due. It's why I'd suggest loading up retirement accounts and other savings before paying the mortgage sooner. Your point, that rates are low, and your expected return is higher, is well presented. I feel no compulsion to prepay my 3.5% mortgage.  As the OP is in Canada, land of no mortgage interest deduction, I ignore that, till now. The deduction simply reduces the effective rate, based on the country tax code permitting it. It's not the 'reason' to have a loan. But it's ignorant to ignore the math.